The problem with progressives

[Argus]

I think the problem with the Left is the same as it's always been. They have a monumental lack of understanding of human motivation and how it frustrates their theories. It started with Marx, who had this wonderful idea on how to order society. As long as it was only on paper. Once it crept into the real world all it spawned was disaster everywhere.

Progressives have this zeal to re-order the universe to make it kinder, gentler and more just. But they can't see the forest for the trees. Even when they mean while, it usually ends in disaster.

Let's examine the way we treat unwed mothers. It used to be quite cold and cruel, judging them on their lack of morality and decision making skills. Progressives in those days saw this and were appalled. They felt sympathy and wanted to help such girls. It was not for us to judge, they cried, from every media organ, not for us to impugn the intelligence or morality of such women! And they largely had their way, reforming society.

Now I can sympathize with their purpose. I can sympathize with individual unwed mothers and want to see them helped. I can disapprove of those who treat them badly, and do. But the end result of this change to society was, of course many, many, many, many, MANY more unwed mothers, which of course, gave rise to additional poverty and crime.

That is the story of the progressive. In their zeal to help people, they narrow focus and never consider the impact of their policies. You can look to immigration, to law, to societal attitudes towards drugs and sex and welfare and see how negatively progressive policies have impacted Canada everywhere. The more you reinforce poor behavior, the more of it you get. The less 'judgemental' you are towards poor behavior, the more of it you get. Pay people more money to not work and more of them will not work. Tell people it's okay to use heroin and you'll get more heroin users. A continuing theme among progressives that individual responsibility does not exist, and that the state has a responsibility to look after everyone gives rise to a mentality of lazy entitlement. Among welfare users, among natives, among maritimers and others who do seasonal work deliberately so as to ride out the rest of the year on pogey.

The Left, today, still, in their heart of hearts, believes in Marx, and thinks that if only they can nudge the system a little more, they'll get it right this time, and do away with those damn capitalists and their 'unfair' private ownership nonsense.

[The_Squid]

While single mothers have increased, the poverty rate for them hasn't. And crime has steadily decreased.

As you often do, you just make up your own facts. So once again we get an uninformed Argus post complaining about "lefties" without the actual facts to back up your opinion.

From 1996 to 2007, the low income cut-off poverty rate - Statistics Canada's standard poverty threshold - among the two million Canadians living in lone-parent families fell by more than half, from nearly 50 per cent to just over 20 per cent. Much of this success is due to social policy. So what did Ottawa and the provinces do right?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/lone-parent-poverty-canadian-social-policy-can-still-do-better/article1212162/ Edited April 16, 2016 by The_Squid

[waldo]

Now I can sympathize with their purpose. I can sympathize with individual unwed mothers and want to see them helped. I can disapprove of those who treat them badly, and do. But the end result of this change to society was, of course many, many, many, many, MANY more unwed mothers, which of course, gave rise to additional poverty and crime.

no worries - chill!

Single Motherhood, in Decline Over All, Rises for Women 35 and Older

.

[The_Squid]

no worries - chill!

Single Motherhood, in Decline Over All, Rises for Women 35 and Older

.

You mean to tell me that a all of Argus' main points are completely false? There actually aren't many, many, many, MANY more unwed mothers?!

LOL

[Moonlight Graham]

Argus most of your examples are pretty rubbish. "Tell people it's okay to use heroin and you'll get more heroin users." Huh? And I think the rise in unwed mothers from mid-century was more to do with the sexual revolution and increases in divorce (staying in unhealthy relationships isn't a good thing) than us saying it's "ok", I mean I don't think most unwed mothers want to be so.

But I'll agree somewhat on some welfare and EI/seasonal EI users who clearly abuse the system. There are other examples where we should stop supporting poor behaviour. And yes your example of communism is a good one, although most of Marx' writing was on his dialectic analysis of history and the nature of worker vs owner exploitation, and his actual plans for "re-ordering society" and setting up communist political/economic order were very brief and vague in comparison. Others like Lenin did more in that regard.

[Scott Mayers]

Argus,

The problems exists within any political spectrum. That's why I think it is Nationalisms of any group that create the problems. For 'progressives' it is the 'conservatives' that would prefer BEING THE Conservative power among those supporters of left-wing parties who represent the types of problems you think is intrinsic to progressives. It attracts those SET of Nationalisms that are too weak to stand alone who collectively align themselves and target, in opposition, the main 'conservative' Nationality who is generally the contemporary traditionalists in power.

Your example of unwed mothers being supported by 'progressives' is more about progressing beyond the prior discrimination being targeted against them. Those most passionate to their concern may possibly represent a feminist group who may be acting in more strength for their cause and may tend to thus reactively pass on an inverse extreme against any criticism of unwed mothers to the point that if such laws get put in place they may disallow criticism even where valid. It is like how one from a strict corporal punishing family might go to the extreme by NEVER remotely punishing their children creating spoiled brats who end up becoming the next generation of terrorists (like when they realize they can 't get what they want outside of their privileged homes). But notice that these problems only occur anywhere and are caused by those most extreme.

They are then 'progressing' only to a NEW type of tradition that becomes the next 'conservative' extreme (and vice versa). So I think it is not the 'progressives' as intended by its liberal social philosophy that is the problem, only those among them who might try to reinstate a renewed form of conservatism that is in strong fear of the old ways of returning again. It is 'conservatism' through preservation of some Nationalistic ideal that is the problem of which political conservatives most embrace by default that is the problem.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is unclear to me how single mother census statistics from another nation (United States) applies to the OP / progressive policies in Canada. USA slashed support for so called single mother "welfare queens" back in the 1990's.

Is this just another example of the U.S. being "definitional" ?

Edited April 17, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

It is unclear to me how single mother census statistics from another nation (United States) applies to the OP / progressive policies in Canada. USA slashed support for so called single mother "welfare queens" back in the 1990's.

Is this just another example of the U.S. being "definitional" ?

within the political philosophy sub-forum, it's you making the leap to isolate the OP to Canada only. Now why would you do that? Notwithstanding that U.S. originated pejorative "welfare queens" had nothing whatsoever to do with single mothers. Geezaz, you went a long way for yet another big-time fail!

in your obsession with Canada... you continue to flog the "definitional thing" across many, many threads now... that "definitional" reference PM Trudeau recently made at the 'Canada 2020' conference! As stated in describing the Canada-U.S. relationship:

"For our American cousins, the relationship is consequential. For us, it has often been definitional."

in immediate follow-up Trudeau offered past and example aspects of that... definitional... relationship... "fishing rights, Auto-Pact negotiation, free trade, abstention from the Iraq War. Wow! That's what you're so intent in continuing to beat on? Why is Canada just so important to you?

.

[Argus]

While single mothers have increased, the poverty rate for them hasn't. And crime has steadily decreased.

There is no question that a child raised in a single parent family is more likely to be raised in poverty. As for crime decreasing, well, 'police reported crime' has decreased. But according to Stats Canada's repeated large-scale studies, people are increasingly less likely to report crime to police.

[Argus]

no worries - chill!

Single Motherhood, in Decline Over All, Rises for Women 35 and Older

.

I generally don't worry about the US. I worry about Canada.

[waldo]

There is no question that a child raised in a single parent family is more likely to be raised in poverty. As for crime decreasing, well, 'police reported crime' has decreased. But according to Stats Canada's repeated large-scale studies, people are increasingly less likely to report crime to police.

danger! Watch it... Stockwell Day/Harper Conservatives didn't fare so well with that "unreported crime" thingee - did he/they?

.

[waldo]

I generally don't worry about the US. I worry about Canada.

then you should have put forward related stats to go with your unsubstantiated opinion - yes?

.

[Argus]

Argus most of your examples are pretty rubbish. "Tell people it's okay to use heroin and you'll get more heroin users." Huh? And I think the rise in unwed mothers from mid-century was more to do with the sexual revolution and increases in divorce (staying in unhealthy relationships isn't a good thing) than us saying it's "ok", I mean I don't think most unwed mothers want to be so.

Most divorces are not because of unhealthy relationships but because of entitled people thinking they deserve a perfect life and a perfect partner with no irritating habits who melds perfectly with them in every way. That's why couples divorce after one or two years of marriage. And while most unwed mothers don't 'want' to be so, mos would have once given up the baby for adoption or aborted it. There really wasn't a lot of option. Today, too many decide to raise it themselves, though they are incapable of doing so, and rely on welfare.

But I'll agree somewhat on some welfare and EI/seasonal EI users who clearly abuse the system.

There is a theme running through the political discourse of the Left that the state must ameliorate the results of people's poor decision making. If people don't have enough money, then the state must take it from someone who does and give it to those with left, regardless of justification. Rather than encouraging people, and even subsidizing them getting more education, more job skills, or even moving to where there are jobs, we pay people to continue doing what they've been doing so as to allow them to do it and still not be in poverty.

We should oppose poverty, but not by subsidizing laziness or stupidity. We should instead promote self reliance and responsibility. Your life sucks? Then DO something about it. Here are the tools for you to do so.

There are other examples where we should stop supporting poor behaviour. And yes your example of communism is a good one, although most of Marx' writing was on his dialectic analysis of history and the nature of worker vs owner exploitation, and his actual plans for "re-ordering society" and setting up communist political/economic order were very brief and vague in comparison. Others like Lenin did more in that regard.

No one on the right has any interest in the writings or philosophy of Hitler. Why are so many on the Left still fascinated with Communism?

[Argus]

Argus,

The problems exists within any political spectrum. That's why I think it is Nationalisms of any group that create the problems.

I think your definition of nationalism is rather broad in this case. Certainly the more extremes of any political ideology are going to have more extreme beliefs, but they're also the ones who are going to become most politically active and will thus wield disproportionate power. We see this in the NDP and the documented conflict between the 'hardhat labourites' and the 'latte swilling Toronto and Vancouver socialists'. It is the latter who are more zealous and fanatical and demand their preferences be adopted by the whole.

[Argus]

then you should have put forward related stats to go with your unsubstantiated opinion - yes?

.

Why? The point, documented often in the past, is that single motherhood is damaging to society. The extreme of that is the Black community, here, in the US, in Jamaica, single teen mothers raising children in welfare and having little control over them.

No more trade! That's another silly screed from the left today in Canada, ignoring the complexities of how trade enriches us. Embracing immigration is another. No thought as to the overall picture, focusing instead on their own personal satisfaction in bringing in masses of newcomers who are not white (and that is the ONLY reason the left supports wholesale immigration).

Most important, of course, is the determination that the state take care of every problem, and the absence of any sense of personal responsibility for ones life. If someone is poor, suddenly it's the state's fault, not theirs, and the state's responsibility to do something about it.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

danger! Watch it... Stockwell Day/Harper Conservatives didn't fare so well with that "unreported crime" thingee - did he/they?

.

It's well-documented by Statistics Canada and has been for many years. Aren't you people the party of 'facts and evidence'?

[waldo]

We should oppose poverty, but not by subsidizing laziness or stupidity. We should instead promote self reliance and responsibility. Your life sucks? Then DO something about it. Here are the tools for you to do so.

do you have examples of where your nemesis, "the left", subsidized laziness or stupidity? And examples of where your godsend, "the right", alternatively promoted self-reliance and responsibility?

.

[waldo]

Why? The point, documented often in the past, is that single motherhood is damaging to society.

but that's not the point you presumed to make with your statement presuming on, "many, many, many, many, MANY more unwed mothers, which of course, gave rise to additional poverty and crime." You didn't... haven't... supplied any data/stats to align with your statement, as made.

.

[waldo]

It's well-documented by Statistics Canada and has been for many years. Aren't you people the party of 'facts and evidence'?

why it's... Vic Toews, Stockwell Day... and the Harper Conservative 'tough on crime agenda' all over again!

Although the official crime rate is going down, a senior Harper government minister says there is reason to disbelieve the statistics and spend billions of dollars on new prisons: an "alarming" increase in unreported crime.

Stockwell Day's argument is based on a Statistics Canada survey, conducted like a large poll, which showed a slight rise in unreported crimes - though the increase was in property crimes and petty theft, not violent crimes. And the survey was conducted in 2004 - an ironic twist given that Mr. Day made his case only minutes after he maintained that the long-form census is not very reliable because it can be as much as five years out of date.

[Argus]

do you have examples of where your nemesis, "the left", subsidized laziness or stupidity? And examples of where your godsend, "the right", alternatively promoted self-reliance and responsibility?

.

As has already been mentioned, welfare and pogey both subsidize laziness and stupidity. So does supporting natives staying on isolated reserves rather than moving to cities.

[Argus]

why it's... Vic Toews, Stockwell Day... and the Harper Conservative 'tough on crime agenda' all over again!

So you're NOT the party of evidence and facts unless they agree with your agenda. Gotcha. Not much of a surprise.

[eyeball]

There is no question that a child raised in a single parent family is more likely to be raised in poverty. As for crime decreasing, well, 'police reported crime' has decreased. But according to Stats Canada's repeated large-scale studies, people are increasingly less likely to report crime to police.

Only because most people realize that police = state...not much point reporting crime to criminals is there? Besides which its white collar crime that's rampant these days.

[cybercoma]

There is no question that a child raised in a single parent family is more likely to be raised in poverty. As for crime decreasing, well, 'police reported crime' has decreased. But according to Stats Canada's repeated large-scale studies, people are increasingly less likely to report crime to police.

Imagine that. A single income is usually less than a double income.

[cybercoma]

Why? The point, documented often in the past, is that single motherhood is damaging to society.

This point is incorrect and doesn't speak to the complexity of family relationships. Without getting into a detailed and lengthy discussion with references, suffice it to say that family instability is far worse than single parenthood. That could be anything from serial dating, on again off again marriages, or just couples constantly fighting. A stable single-parent household can be a much better environment than some two-parent households. Edited April 17, 2016 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

As has already been mentioned, welfare and pogey both subsidize laziness and stupidity. So does supporting natives staying on isolated reserves rather than moving to cities.

Have you ever known anyone on welfare? There's people who don't want to work, sure. But they are absolutely in the minority.