Thursday, April 13, 2006

What Does It Mean to Be "Progressive"?

Interesting article on Frontpagemag today originating in the college newspaper The Daily Princetonian. The piece describes, in a fairly unbiased fashion, the efforts of Princeton Republican students pushing the student government to support a slightly watered-down version of David Horowitz' Student Bill of Rights, which, among other things, seeks to open up increasingly repressive college classrooms to real freedom of speech. Or, as a Princeton student who supports the measure states:
"We hope to instill in the undergraduates a sense of obligation to uphold the right to free and open debate as well as freedom from instructional bias," College Republicans president Alexander Maugeri '07 said.
It's long been known that the best way for a student, whatever his or her political beliefs, to graduate on time and with a decent grade point average, is to parrot back the sometimes outrageous opinions of professors, particularly the leftist ideologues who propagandize in humanities and social sciences departments, frequently on the direct or indirect dime of unwitting American taxpayers. Predictably, Horowitz' document, which actually echoes in many respects the American Association of University Professors' own teaching guidelines, has not gained much traction on American campuses, however. This is due to the swift, repressive measures that magically arise on each campus where the Bill is brought up. So, too, at Princeton, where the Republicans' proposal attracts fire from the usual suspects in the usual ways:
Progressive students immediately lashed out against the proposed initiative, arguing that it would restrict campus speech and put pressure on faculty to conform.
A little fisking, please. First of all, a word Wonker has grown to hate because of its sheer hypocrisy: "Progressive." "Progressive" is a nice word that's been in use for a long time but in a devious way. The word in and of itself connotes flavors of progress, prosperity, and positivism. Too bad. Because it's really been the long-favored synonym for "Marxist." Thus, the sentence above would have been more accurte if it had begun "Marxist students immediately lashed out..." But, by using the term "progressive," which has, unfortunately become common usage due to its endless promotion for this purpose, this writer, or any writer, becomes a useful idiot who helps distance an organization, individual, or action, from its true roots in fundamental Marxist thought. So, with this in mind, let's learn a little more about the kinds of ideas that one might classify as, er, "progressive":
Asheesh Siddique '07, the former coeditor of the Princeton Progressive Nation, sent out a press release against the SBOR, writing that the "College Republicans' proposed bill would politicize Princeton's classrooms, denying academic freedom and free speech rights to Princeton's students and faculty."
Hmm. Pretty good for openers. Makes you want to go out and trash this proposed bill sooner rather than later. After all, Wonker himself would never support anything that would politicize Princeton's classrooms or deny anyone his or her academic freedom and free speech rights. But wait a minute. Aren't Princeton's and pretty much every American university's campuses ALREADY POLITICIZED? And isn't anyone even slightly right of center politically, student or faculty (if indeed any of the latter can be found), ALREADY DENIED ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND FREE SPEECH RIGHTS? Sheesh, Asheesh, so what are you complaining about? A little fairness?
"Should such a referendum come to fruition," Siddique added, "we urge Princeton students to vote against approval; and should such a referendum pass, we urge Princeton faculty to disregard and ignore it in its entirety."
Again, another standard Marxist pitch, decidedly un-progressive as far as we're concerned. Not only are students supposed to vote against academic freedom. If they actually excersize some academic freedom and vote FOR the proposal's approval, then everyone is supposed to disregard it. This, of course, for a Marxist, is the very definition of democracy. If they win, we have to do what they say. But if we win, we still have to do what they say. (Witness the California school systems where the teachers unions refuse to follow guidelines limiting certain state educational standards.)

Now the windup and the pitch:
"[T]he College Republicans' proposal is nothing short of a full-frontal attack on academic freedom at Princeton," Siddique said in an email. "It's a right-wing ideological agenda-item that's been tried in other parts of the country with disastrous effects for students, professors, and education itself. Rather than protect student interests, it would restrict everyone's ability to learn."
It's clear in this passage this young Marxist who already has his Marxist chops well honed. He's memorized the agenda as well as its Stalinist rules for combat. Mischaracterize your opponent and lie through your teeth by trumpeting unsubstantiated charges. Tell people to ignore your opponent even if he or she wins. And now, having accomplished this, finish things off by smearing your opponent with Big Lies. The lie in this case is that the Student Bill of Rights to the best of our knowledge has not been adopted by a single major college campus in the U.S. For this reason, there have been no "disastrous effects" at all. Of course, the student journalist never challenges this, as would be the case in the MSM as well. Journalists, who tend to be left anyway, generally accept such statements as truth (since the other side has already been characterized as "right-wing" which means their simian thought-patterns can be ignored without consequence). Or, worse, they simply accept the authority of someone's thundering pronouncements because they are delivered with such vehemence. Siddique has already learned at an early age that you can lie, smear, and deceive when characterizing Republicans and easily get away with it since no one will ever examine your assertions.

So it goes with "progressive" thought.

But we're not done with the negative commentary yet. The college Democrats now weigh in and their statements are quite instructive, describing today's political climate in a surprisingly telling microcosm:
Julia Brower '08, president of the College Democrats, said that though her organization does not "believe that [the SBOR] was motivated by anti-liberal sentiments," it decided not to support the initiative.
Okay, let's parse this. The College Republicans aren't "motivated by anti-liberal sentiments," but we won't support 'em anyway. Wonder why? Here's the answer:
"We support the core principles of tolerance, diversity of opinion, and equality embodied in the Bill, but frankly the approach they have chosen is unnecessarily antagonistic," Brower said in an email. "Although we believe the College Republicans have no such intentions, the bill as it stands has the potential to cause professors to unnecessarily censor themselves and to lead to an atmosphere of hypersensitivity to bias."
So, by trying to carve out a little space for academic freedom at Princeton is "unnecessarily antagonistic." This is nice. We suppose if the College Democrats were supporting this referendum, it would, therefore, NOT be "unnecessarily antagonistic." The reason is that anything Republicans do on a college campus is either "unnecessarily antagonistic," or, even worse, "needlessly provocative." Fact is, professors and students already unnecessarily censor themselves and college campuses, with their asinine speech codes, have already created an atmosphere of "hypersensitivity to bias." Once again, the College Repubs are being accused of causing something that has long been established fact and was caused, in actuality, by "Democrats" and "Progressives."

Brower again is precocious. Democrats, no matter what their instincts, cannot in the end, allow their own innate decency to prevail against the leftist agitators that have hijacked their party. Brower says all the right words, but then caves in anyway rather than commit political suicide by showing any solidarity with a perfectly reasonable idea advanced by the opposition. This cave to the far left is couched, of course, in language of extreme reasonableness. But this response is, in fact, the standard capitulation to Marxist provocateurs that has been the stock in trade of the Democratic Party since circa 1968. They couch their effectively unreasonable position in terms of comity and reasonableness. The same tactic is being used elsewhere on this blog by a priest of the "global warming" movement to make pure partisanship look like actual science without giving the other side of the story.

You have to hand it to the left for their skill in manipulating the language. But this is precisely one of the reasons why HazZzMat exists. Since the academic community has been effectively purged of any moderating voices that might counter the Marxism that dominates these taxpayer-funded propaganda mills, it's folks like us who have to do battle to restore the balance. In this case, we support the Princeton College Republicans, although we also assure them that a way will be found by the College Democrats and "Progressives" to scuttle the Bill.

And we advise our readers to carefully parse journalistic reports and features that describe "progressives," "environmentalists," "activists," and "non-partisan studies." Except occasionally for the latter term, the remaining terms are clever disguises for "Marxist" or "socialist." Americans tend to react rather viscerally and negatively to the terms "Marxist" and "socialist," so the Marxist propaganda-meisters substitute synonyms and pound them into the national consciousness to more or less continuously conceal their seditious thoughts and actions. They just don't get away with it here.

If you remain constantly on the lookout for these magic words, and others we'll cite in the future (if we haven't already done so), it won't be long before the articles you read in the Washington Post and the New York Times start taking on the more sinister characteristics and positions these articles are in fact trying to conceal.

BTW, for more of Siddique's agitprop ranting, link here.

No comments: