Progressives Betrayed?
In the New York Times this morning, Paul Krugman writes that "progressives are now in revolt," and that Obama has lost their trust.
[T]here's a growing sense among progressives that they have, as my colleague Frank Rich suggests, been punked. And that's why the mixed signals on the public option created such an uproar.
Now, politics is the art of the possible. Mr. Obama was never going to get everything his supporters wanted.
But there's a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line. It seems as if there is nothing Republicans can do that will draw an administration rebuke.
Where to start? First of all, it looks to me like Obama has started to call out Republicans for playing politics with health-care reform. I completely agree with the charge: Republicans are most certainly attempting to play this debate for maximum political gain. But so is Obama. That's the name of the game in Washington, and no president, no matter how popular or capable or influential, is going to change that.
And pinning health-care reform's troubles entirely on Republicans seems like a stretch, at best. Sure, GOP obstructionism is whipping up fervor amongst the base,and that's helped spark the media frenzy. But moderate Democrats have been a big obstacle too. Conservative Republicans were never going to go along with Obama's plan; the more telling problem, I think, is that the administration has failed to court some members of its own party.
Meanwhile, I wonder: What did progressives expect?
That Obama could simply roll into Washington and ignore the myriad forces arrayed against a liberal agenda? That conservatives, Republicans, moderate Democrats, and interested industry groups would simply go away or shut up? That Obama, through force of will and liberal coolness, could use his awesome rhetorical ju-jujitsu skills to flip the opposition and defeat nutty right-wingers and conservative politicians forever?
Unless you're a character in an Aaron Sorkin show, that's just not how national politics work. And it's particularly unrealistic given that Obama didn't run as a progressive cage-fighter, but as a calm, pragmatic leader—with progressive sympathies, yes, but nothing like the ferocity of the netroots.
Like Kevin Drum said: "Washington is a tough place to get anything done" no matter what side you're on. And if you go in expecting the world—or even incremental but sure-to-be-difficult change—you're bound to be disappointed.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But there's a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line.
Obama is being presidential.
Damn that never gets old.
Shyeah. When you hold the Congress, the Senate and the Presidency, if you can't get your agenda passed, you need to start looking at your own party. You can't blame Rush Limbaugh for everything.
As a progressive I'm mad because we have the right answers to a lot of problems--not because we're especially intelligent but because the problems are so big and the solutions are so fucking obvious and we're the only ones at the table who aren't either insane or owned by corporate interests.
"That Obama could simply roll into Washington and ignore the myriad forces arrayed against a liberal agenda? That conservatives, Republicans, moderate Democrats, and interested industry groups would simply go away or shut up? That Obama, through force of will and liberal coolness, could use his awesome rhetorical ju-jujitsu skills to flip the opposition and defeat nutty right-wingers and conservative politicians forever?"
This is EXACTLY what they expected. He was OBAMA after all.
And pinning health-care reform's troubles entirely on Republicans seems like a stretch, at best.
I should say so since the dems control the White House and both chambers of Congress.
For now.
"we're the only ones at the table who aren't either insane or owned by corporate interests."
Union interests? That is another story altogether.
Why anyone had any particular expectations for someone as unknown and inexperienced as Obama is beyond me. Not to mention the whole Chicago thing. Before I knew anything about him, I knew there was a good chance he'd be corrupt in some way. Politically, if not morally.
"As a progressive I'm mad because we have the right answers to a lot of problems--not because we're especially intelligent but because the problems are so big and the solutions are so fucking obvious and we're the only ones at the table who aren't either insane or owned by corporate interests."
And this is why so many people label liberals as smug and arrogant.
Tony, we libertarians feel the exact same way. What a coinkidink!
Yes, that is exactly what they expected.
He was going to bring about a new golden age, and remake politics along with everything else.
Meanwhile, I wonder: What did progressives expect?
They thoguht they had trimphed over the evil nasty capitalist right once and for all.
Weren't you reading the editorials last January? It was the End of the Republican Party. The Collapse of Capitalism. The new World Order had arrived.
Strangely, capitalism still seems largely intact, except for those massive subsidies to the automobile and banking industries.
In any case, the Glorious Socialist Future doesn't seem to be unfolding as planned.
That Obama could simply roll into Washington and ignore the myriad forces arrayed against a liberal agenda? That conservatives, Republicans, moderate Democrats, and interested industry groups would simply go away or shut up?
That Obama, through force of will and liberal coolness, could use his awesome rhetorical ju-jujitsu skills to flip the opposition and defeat nutty right-wingers and conservative politicians forever?
I think he should. Bush managed to shove an $11Billion per month war down our throats. I would have NO problem with what Obama would shove down our throats...At least it goes toward helping people...and not killing people...and not making enemies that will in the future come here and fly airplanes into our buildings.
Unless, coservative groups start hiring Timothy McVey wanna-bees to blow up federal buildings because we now offer healthcare for the poor. I wouldn't see this to be in any moral conflict with the conservatives and jesus freaks.
Having "majorities" is meaningless if the majority of the majority refuses to compromise, thus losing the minority of the majority, and so turning the majority into a minority.
Is that clear enough?
we're the only ones at the table who aren't either insane or owned by corporate interests.
It's not a good sign when you start to think that everyone else is insane or part of a conspiracy.
He should just go ahead and institute the PUBLIC PLAN.
I wanna see how many people will vote in a REPUBLICAN that is willing to dismantle healthcare coverage for people on that PUBLIC PLAN.
As a progressive I'm mad because we have the right answers to a lot of problems--not because we're especially intelligent but because the problems are so big and the solutions are so fucking obvious and we're the only ones at the table who aren't either insane or owned by corporate interests.
What? You're proposing building a shitload of nuclear plants to deal with global warming?
I thought that was the BLINDLY FUCKING OBVIOUS solution. Therefore you must be supporting it. Obviously.
Funny, that they feel betrayed by Obama's lack of fight for the public option, but not by his continuation (if not escalation) of the wars, renditions, domestic spying, and illegal detentions.
if you engage Tony-bot or "stammering crackhead" up there, you get what you deserve.
But finger pointing gets us nowhere!
Hazel! 😛
wars, renditions, domestic spying, and illegal detentions.
I am on Code Pink's spam list, and they are "disappointed" by those things.
Not really mad yet.
Tony! Stop it! You're killing me!
Woooooooo! That was a good one.
@ Hazel Meade
No, we don't need nuclear power plants when we can harness Obamas rhetoric and Tony's gaseous emissions to power wind turbines.
[T]here's a growing sense among progressives that they have, as my colleague Frank Rich suggests, been punked.
What was their first clue?
(1) The continuation of the Bush plan for Iraq?
(2) The escalation of the war in Afghanistan?
(3) The foot-dragging on Guantanamo closure?
(4) The cancellation of pending hearings for Guantanamo detainees?
(5) The promise to keep detainees imprisoned regardless of acquittal?
(6) The trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street, including the guarantee of seven and eight-figure bonuses?
(7) The continuation of medical marijuana raids in California?
(8) The escalation of partisan warfare in Washington?
(9) The open arms accorded to lobbyists in his administration, with numerous employees getting waivers from his "restrictions"?
Meanwhile, I wonder: What did progressives expect?
That Obama would make better use of the bully pulpit.
That Obama would be better at selling his vision of health care reform than he has been.
That Obama would not be negotiating with himself.
That Obama would take a clear position and not waver and have to walk back comments every other day.
That Obama would try and take a bit more ownership and exert pressure from the left on the Blue Dogs, rather than basically let Max Baucus and Kent Conrad undermine everything that progressives want.
At this point, I think progressives aren't sure what kind of bill Obama would like if could get whatever he wanted.
Just where do these reactionaries get off calling themselves "progressives?" Rolling back America to pre-1776 is not "progressive."
STFU, Tonie-bot!
"He was going to bring about a new golden age, and remake politics along with everything else."
And calm the seas IIRC.
"progressive" is the most intellectually dishonest attempt at a name change ever.
I hereby rename libertarianism into All Things Good and Wonderful-ism. Who could be against that?
Considering how the poor will pay for price inflation income-disproportionately to the rich (and faster than wages will increase), one can argue Keynesianism itself is anti-progressive.
"(9) The open arms accorded to lobbyists in his administration, with numerous employees getting waivers from his "restrictions"?"
But we needed waivers for these people because they were the best and the brightest.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
Strangely, capitalism still seems largely intact,
Let's not get ahead of ourselves, Hazel.
We heard the same stuff out of some of the folks who voted for Bush as well. Rinse, repeat.
Sometimes I think I am living in one of those sci-fi episodes where the spaceship, planet, etc. explodes because of a rift in space-time and the people are forced to repeat their lives up to that point over and over again.
*cough* Afghanistan? *cough*
In any case, the Glorious Socialist Future doesn't seem to be unfolding as planned.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves, Hazel.
I would have NO problem with what Obama would shove down our throats...
It's not our throats Obama is aiming for...
"progressive" is the most intellectually dishonest attempt at a name change ever.
Remember this one?
wingnutx,
I'm an atheist, and I found the term "bright" to be just stupid.
The very word "progressive" has the ring of a sloppy, wet fart. Hitch a political ideology to it and you can just about smell it.
I'm an agnostic who is just apathetic about the whole issue, and that stunt really made me wince.
I know people who are still trying to push it, though.
Meanwhile, I wonder: What did progressives expect?
They held him up as the messiah or at least Mother Teresa in a tailored suit. What do you think they expected?
Why yes, I do in fact support it.
Sometimes I think I am living in one of those sci-fi episodes where the spaceship, planet, etc. explodes because of a rift in space-time and the people are forced to repeat their lives up to that point over and over again.
"Crap. We're back. Next time, try cutting the yellow wire."
Except you're wrong and I'm right.
Sometimes I think I am living in one of those sci-fi episodes where the spaceship, planet, etc. explodes because of a rift in space-time and the people are forced to repeat their lives up to that point over and over again.
Sweet! I'll *finally* get to learn how to juggle.
(6) The trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street, including the guarantee of seven and eight-figure bonuses?
LOL! Obama and McCain were in a mad dash to see who'd halt their campaign first and then had a contest to see who could twist more arms in favor of the bailout. NOBODY can honestly claim surprise.
They expected that their angry shouting would cause Cheney to admit that he did indeed throw the switch to demolish WTC 1&2.
Oh wait... wrong group of delusionals. Let me start over:
hey expected that their righteous outrage coupled with Obama's Magdalenian Bloodline would usher in a new millenium of social ultrajustice.
I wanna see how many people will vote in a REPUBLICAN that is willing to dismantle healthcare coverage for people on that PUBLIC PLAN.
I'm hard pressed to find any lame-brained "progressive's" program that a Republican has ever dismantled. I'm sure there's one or two, but I'm a little weak on my recall of minutia at the moment.
I can't wait until 'progressives' start showing up with AR-15s. LOL.
Russ 2000,
They've chipped away but that's all they can do because the most important progressive programs are wildly popular. Let's not kid ourselves--Republicans don't want health care reform for political reasons alone. If Obama gets his version of Social Security they know they'll find themselves in the political wilderness again.
we're the only ones at the table who aren't either insane or owned by corporate interests.
I think this sentence actually PROVES you're insane.
They've chipped away...
Citations needed.
"Free money for everyone with no consequences" turns out to be a wildly popular political plank. Thank the lord for the wisdom of progressives to show us, I'm just a slack-jawed yokel who doesn't understand such complicated subjects.
I can't wait until 'progressives' start showing up with AR-15s. LOL.
I imagine it will look something like this.
I'm hard pressed to find any lame-brained "progressive's" program that a Republican has ever dismantled.
Take a look at this one's head about explode when asked if he would touch medicare:
http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/08/msnbcs-odonnell-unhinged-on-air-gop-rep.html
I think the interviewer has him dead to rights. No way will any party in power overturn coverage once a group of voters has it.
To paraphrase Machiavelli, it's a hell of a lot easier to not give it to them in the first place than it is to take it away.
Well it does have stiff competition with the GOP's traditional platform "run for your lives there are dark-skinned people afoot!"
I would have NO problem with what Obama would shove down our throats.
Come on now, this is too easy.
The only reason Republicans are against the Death Ray program is politics. They know that once Obama gets his Death Ray they'll find themselves in the political wilderness again.
As a Progressive, I'm terribly disappointed that Obama is not able to defy reality. Reality is such a pain in the ass.
i haven't read the thread yet, but Tony's statement at 2:48 was the most obnoxious douchebag statement ever. Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Tony.
i apologize for any redundancy, i'll get back to reading now.
Progressives have not had the right answer to anything since the 1920's- unless it is on how to kill more people than Hitler did.
If the public plan includes paying for the health care of child molesters who are out of jail or prison...
Liberals believe that the United States might be executing too many people.
Progressives are certain that Stalin did not execute enough people.
Well it does have stiff competition with the GOP's traditional platform "run for your lives there are dark-skinned people afoot!"
Perhaps it was your combination of arrogance and stupidity that put you on the cross. The Jim Crow laws were part-and-parcel of the Democrat strongholds of the South. Or do you still want to pretend that Democrats invented racial tolerance in the 1960's?
"Progressive" is the manic depressive's way of saying "passive-aggressive".
The Left believed Obama when he said, "this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless, this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal..." because he is The One.
Delusions of grandeur, anyone?
I don't know what you people are complaining about. Obama BARELY won the election...and will definitely loose the next election.
Then, you can all elect a guy that will take that money we would spend on common rabble...and give it to halliburton, lockhead, blackwater, etc. This way, they will create more jobs, and money will trickle down to the common rabble...and everyone will be happy.
Long Live the Conservative/Libertarian Movement !!!
U can't help the weak...by punishing the strong.
I would have NO problem with what Obama would shove down our throats...At least it goes toward helping people
If by "people" you mean Wall Street executives, well-connected international financiers, and Dem hangers-on, I would agree.
So far, though, I don't see that he's done anything to help anybody else.
Progressives have not had the right answer to anything since the 1920's- unless it is on how to kill more people than Hitler did.
You just topped Tony. Good job, hero.
Obama BARELY won the election...and will definitely loose the next election.
I heard a lot of that in 2003.
I'm an atheist, and I found the term "bright" to be just stupid.
What Seward said.
As a progressive I'm mad because we have the right answers to a lot of problems--not because we're especially intelligent but because the problems are so big and the solutions are so fucking obvious...
Yes! More government is always the answer. Double-digit trillions are right around the corner!
God, learn your history. The Democratic party as it exists today has nothing to do with more ancient forms that merely share its name. Party demographics do change you know.
I refuse to call them "progressives".
They're just middle-class liberals
GILMORE,
Here's the appropriate response to someone who tells you that he is a Progressive: "That's bullshit. You're a white suburban punk just like me."
While not a landslide, Obama handily won the 2008 election.
The saddest thing about the American Left is that they can't come up with a name for themselves, they just appropriate the name of another political movement that sounds good at the time. First they stole "liberal" from the classical liberals (how the heck did they pull that one off anyway?), and having sullied that they are now adopting the moniker of a decades-extinct movement whose love for government solutions they share but not much else.
Though their semantic redistribution policy does mirror their view of how wealth should be treated, so it's not entirely inappropriate.
I recently managed to moderately piss off my rather squishy/conventional lefty-lib sister-in-law by repeatedly referring to "obsessive" rather than "progessive" politics.
I felt kinda bad afterward.
Everyone has their opinion, but here is my take on progressive:
Lemming #1: Where are we going again?
Lemming #2: I don't know, but we're definitely making PROGRESS. The line is moving a little faster all the time.
I think the suggestion passive aggressive manic depressives someone made upstream was spot on. I know that it fits me like a warm glove. and it damn sure drives my politics more than my ability to form coherent thoughts.
What did progressives expect? That Obama could simply roll into Washington and ignore the myriad forces arrayed against a liberal agenda? That conservatives, Republicans, moderate Democrats, and interested industry groups would simply go away or shut up? That Obama, through force of will and liberal coolness, could use his awesome rhetorical ju-jujitsu skills to flip the opposition and defeat nutty right-wingers and conservative politicians forever?
Yes! Yes, goddammit!
alice bowie | August 21, 2009, 2:59pm | #
I would have NO problem with what Obama would shove down our throats...At least it goes toward helping people...
The role of the Chief Executive is open to rational interpretation, but if you're saying he has the right and power, constitutionally, to steal from some to benefit others, I would have to disagree.
"and the solutions are so fucking obvious"
Yeah, they are:
1. Stab a few more kabob skewers into the private sector.
2. Pound into young minds the idea that wealth is evil by forcing them to read "The Rainbow Fish" until their fingertips bleed.
3. While waiting for the private sector to finish bleeding to death, have Naomi Klein and Joe Biden confab on how to manufacture a "please save our pitiful asses, government" crisis.
4. Said crisis would be a great opening to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, thereby shutting down AM/FM radio seditionists - though it might be a bit harder to clamp down on internet infidelism.
God, I hope Obama doesn't read this, though I'm sure there's a plan like this somewhere in the White House...
So this is what passes for logic in DC:
"We have enough Democratic votes that, if we all vote as a bloc, we can pass anything without a single Republican's assent. Thus, it is all the fault of Republicans that we can't pass our liberal agenda."
J sub D | August 21, 2009, 5:46pm | #
Obama BARELY won the election...and will definitely loose the next election.
While not a landslide, Obama handily won the 2008 election.
The Electoral College makes wins seem bigger than they are.
I wouldn't say Obama won "handily". Out of 131 million votes cast, McCain could have won if he had gotten just over 500,000 total voters to switch in the right numbers in swing states won by Bush: Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, and Nevada.
@ alice bowie...
WTF are you talking about? Barely won? Long live the conservative/libertarian movement? How could you say two things that are so obviously incorrect and be serious?
Tony,
If you came here to change the hearts and minds of libertarians, you failed miserably. Ya know, arrogant assurances has never helped anyone's cause. Thanks for trying though.
Pro Libertate | August 21, 2009, 5:35pm | #
GILMORE,
Here's the appropriate response to someone who tells you that he is a Progressive: "That's bullshit. You're a white suburban punk just like me."
ha ha ha. I love Repo Man. One of my tops. My favorite line:
Debbi: hey...Duke?... let's go do some crimes.
Duke: Yeah. Let's... go get sushi and not pay.
Seriously, is it remotely possible to just once mention right wing opposition without throwing in the adjective nutty? Or are you too busy fucking pandering to the audience that reads Sullivan or whatever other blog you are "crossposting" on to be fair and objective? I don't give a fuck how many times people want to throw up the "death panel" smoke screen, opposition to Obama's budget-busting, ration-necessating reforms is not nutty, and someone posting at Reason should at least be fucking aware of that, even if he does have his fucking nose between Andrew Sullivan's glutes.
I wouldn't say Obama won "handily". Out of 131 million votes cast, McCain could have won if he had gotten just over 500,000 total voters to switch in the right numbers in swing states won by Bush: Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Iowa, and Nevada.
Hey prolefeed ,
I'm a computer programmer and i work with a Lot of Russians. The Russians have a saying:
"...IF Grandma had a Dick, she'd be a Grandpa..."
That's a lot of IF in your statement.
However, I think he would have clearly lost if the Credit Crisis didn't happen.
Nonetheless, I'm happy and proud to see WHITE AMERICA vote in a BLACK presidient. I'd be even happier to see ALL America vote in a TRUE-PROGRESSIVE...a kind hearted person that would do RIGHT by the PEOPLE ... and not Corporate America.
That quote i gave earlier: You can't help the weak by punishing the poor... is from Ronald Reagan. I completely disagree with him. Making the wealth/healthy americans pay their FAIR share...and even a little more than their FAIR share IS NOT PUNISHMENT. It's a FAIR price to keep America Healthy, STRONG, and #1.
With all due respects to Libertarians, is see no problem tapping into Americas wealth to help bring everyone up.
Trickle Down Economics ONLY helps the big guy. Helping the little guy out Helps EVERYONE. The wealthy depend on a healthly/livable wage for the regular guy...to buy products and services in which the Wealthy enjoy a rather generous profit.
Sorry ... the Reagan quote is You can't help the weak by punishing the Strong
Uhh, alice,
... tapping into America's wealth ...
What wealth? What didn't disappear in the housing and financial collapses is pledged as repayment for the debt you progressives have piled on the next couple of generations.
You can't spread the wealth around once you've already destroyed it.
I am no economist but it seems to me that financial cycles take years to work themselves out. I often wonder if the robust economy and the dot-com boom during the Clinton years were in part a result of Reagan's economic policies. If so, is the dip we are in now a result of Clinton's economic policies?
We give the current president credit or blame for what happens while they are in office when it seems that oftentime they are reaping what someone sowed years before.
I alway get irritated when I hear leftists refer to themselves as "progressives".
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Socialism, marxism, communism, liberalism, whatever flavor of collectivism anyone subscribes to has never never constituted anything that even remotely resembles progress anywhere on earth at any time.
"With all due respects to Libertarians, is see no problem tapping into Americas wealth to help bring everyone up."
America doesn't have any wealth - specific individuals do.
And the government has no legitimate authority to be redistributing it.
This guy "B" really curses a lot. One might argue unnecessarily so, but who am I to talk.
Liberals believe that the police in the U.S. should not use torture.
Progressives are certain that Stalin did not use enough torture.
And the government has no legitimate authority to be redistributing it.
Sure we do. We are the government. Our entire system is based on wealth distribution...And it has made America the BEST PLACE to BE...OF ALL times in the human experience.
Taxes is a wealth distribution.
America would be no different than Bombay or Guatamala City had it not been for the distribution system we have developed.
Yea, the housing projects and american ghettos are not pretty places...but these people do NOT live in the EXTREME poverty that is seen in Bombay. Rich people are subjected to live in beautiful homes...in the middle of a bunch of huts and shanty towns. The Indian poor are just not as defiant as the american poor.
would be no different than Bombay or Guatamala City had it not been for the distribution system we have developed.
So you're saying that the thriving economy that the U.S. had before the Progressives started building their fucking welfare state, the economy that was a magnet for immigrants all over the world and allowed said immigrants to grow wealthy if they applied themselves -- that all the stuff about that in history books is false?
no...America was an emerging martket at the time. And yes, the free market was a great magnet for immigrants. In fact, immigrants are still coming in droves today (even after the Progressives started building their fucking welfare state).
What I'm saying is that the welfare state, took many people out of extreme poverty. And these people would have never been pulled out by the free market at the time when water canons, Bull Conor, and George Wallace.
The MAJORITY of the children of the Welfare state were SAVED. And, it was a good thing when Clinton put a limit to that welfare state created in the 60's. America had matured. And the need for what was in the 60's was no longer needed in the 90's.
Perhaps you, prolefeed, had a better opportunity in your life. And, I'm glad. America would be NOWHERE without people like yourself.
I speak for people that you probably never had met. People that grew up in the projects, used food stamps, WIC, financial aid, and medicaid. And made something of themselves.
prolefeed: I don't know you. so I'm not going to accuse you personally of anything. But, many libertarians/conservatives paint us (the benefactors of the GREAT SOCIETY) as a bunch of leaches. A bunch of Porch monkeys that do nothing but Smoke Crack with our Welfare money and HATE Whitie. Let me tell you, many of use made it. And not just out of the poverty class...but into the upper middle class as well.
And I thank WHITE America for helping me and many people like me. We were unable to help ourselves. Regardless of how precious you consider your FREE MARKET. The only place the FREE MARKET had for us was in the slums, the back of the bus, and jobs as porters.
Of course, many Black Americans as well as poor Americans who where EXTRA ORDINARY where able to get out of the rut. These people would succeed in anything. But us poor white, poor minorities who were merely mediocre...had no chance against the children of the people in power...who where themselves, mediocre.
I swear to God, if I hear "white privilege" one more fucking time, I may forget my pledge to never take up an AR-15 and start mowing people down at random.
Charming. Is it that you deny that whites have been privileged historically, or that you acknowledge they have and that you're just fine with that? Do you find threats of mass murder in response to opinions you disagree with amusing?
"...whatever flavor of collectivism anyone subscribes to has never never constituted anything that even remotely resembles progress anywhere on earth at any time."
It's because an end state of some flavor of collectivism is what so-called "Progressives" are trying to progress toward.
Ahh, here's the problem, Tony... YOU TOOK IT SERIOUSLY.
It was a FUCKING JOKE, you twit.
As for the rest of your post above... piss off. I'm white, and I don't have jack shit. But you won't see me feeding off the taxpayer teat, as I refuse to take food stamps or any other "entitlement" program largesse.
Now that I've found the "advocating mass murder" lie you've been spreading in other threads, I can counter your arguments on this new tactic you're using - which isn't surprising, this is how the Axelrods and the Rahms of your party operate, right up there with the Goebbels and Roves on the other side.
Schmuck.
As for "advocating mass murder", I doubt you'd agree that the abortion industry counts as a real perpetrator.