Wednesday, Dec. 2, 2015    Login | Register        

Progressive values: Forever changing

Dr. Paul Kengor's picture

Bill and Hillary Clinton have endorsed gay marriage, completely reversing their support of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton calls herself a “progressive.” It’s funny: I wrote an entire book on Hillary Clinton, and never once heard her call herself a “progressive.”

Well, that’s just as well. The progressive tag fits best. After all, that’s what she and other liberals are doing: they are ever evolving, changing, progressing along to something.

Their positions are forever in flux, with the only commonality being that they favor more government centralization to handle perceived injustices. The evolution across issues is so vast, so unceasing, that no progressive can tell you where they will stand years from now. They merely know they’re progressing.

The marriage issue is an excellent case in point. No progressive 100 years ago could have conceived of gay marriage. In fact, merely a decade-and-a-half ago, the entirety of the Democratic Party supported traditional marriage, codified under law.

And yet, Democrats turned on a dime in faithful obedience to Barack Obama’s mountaintop-message sanctifying gay marriage a year ago.

Obama promised “change” and “fundamental transformation.” His faithful supporters roared approval, projecting upon his blank screen whatever they had in mind. In Obama’s mind, this included bestowing unto himself the monumental ability to literally redefine marriage, granting himself and his government a power heretofore reserved for the laws of nature and nature’s God.

As for the Clintons, consider their change, their fundamental transformation, their progress on this bedrock issue:

As noted, in 1996, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. The Arkansas Baptist stood for marriage as always understood.

As for Hillary, the lifelong Methodist was firmly in the camp of not rendering under government the ability to redefine marriage. Her youth pastor and mentor, the Rev. Don Jones, once said: “She is for gay rights. ... But I think both she and Bill still think of heterosexuality as normative.”

Yes, they did. Campaigning for the Senate in 2000, Hillary insisted: “Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.” In 2003, she reaffirmed: “marriage ... should be kept as it historically has been.” She continued that position throughout the 2008 Democratic primaries.

Alas, jump ahead to last month, where Hillary proudly proclaimed: “LGBT Americans are ... full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes gay marriage.”

Gee, what happened?

Well, if you’re confused, you need to unravel the illogic of progressive ideology.

By progressive thinking, the Hillary and Bill of, say, 5, 10, 15, or 50 years ago were not finished progressing. This should also mean that the Clintons were in fact wrong at each way-station in their journey to today’s progressive “truth” on marriage.

Thus, too, it should mean that every Democrat who agreed with them was wrong. Current progressive ideology asserts that only current progressives are currently “right” on marriage.

Are you with me?

But here’s the kicker: How can the Clintons — or any modern progressive — know they’re right now? How do they know they’ve progressed to the “correct” point on marriage? Progress, after all, never stops progressing.

And so, for progressives, where’s their next redefinition in the ongoing process of redefining marriage?

Does the evolution end with one man and one woman, or one man and one man, or one woman and one woman?

Why could it not next progress to one man and multiple women?

Could it involve an adult and a minor?

Could their evolving redefinition include first cousins or a parent and child?

Could it include multiple heterosexuals or homosexuals in single or even joint or group spousal relationships?

The answer: progressives, by their very definition, cannot answer you.

We do know, however, that progressives are happy to do with marriage what they do with everything: hand it over to the federal government. Render under government what is government’s.

And what is government’s province? It’s anything progressives decide.

As for Bill Clinton, who once assured us “the era of big government is over,” he’s on board for the grand project.

Progressives might disagree with conservatives, but at least they know where conservatives stand: we look to tradition, to Biblical law, to Natural Law, to time-tested things worth conserving. We see marriage best as it has been since the Garden of Eden. We can tell you our end-goal, our ideal. Progressives cannot.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a train-wreck of an ideology, with literally no end to its havoc. It is currently careening into the most fundamental building block of human civilization: the family.

[Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City (Penn.) College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values (, and author of the book, “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.” His other books include “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism” and “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”] © 2013 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.


S. Lindsey's picture

...vs. Libertarian.

The only real villain in the mix is the Progressive. To know what one means when they can themselves a Progressive you must read a little History. The Progressive Party came into being in the 1920's.

They had some good ideas... but as the great sage Whoopie Goldberg said "Communism looks good on paper... the problem is humans screw it up"..

Progressivism in the 20's became so unpopular because of their ever changing views from protection of the labor force from unfair labor practices to outright Socialism that they went underground changed their names to Liberals, stealing that one from Libertarians, and began a campaign of "re-education" by infiltrating the College and University system.

As we can tell it is working today.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

kcchiefandy's picture

...government growth! Maybe USPS could close up shop and these 'navigators' could also deliver mail, too??

There appears to be much (too much) attention to 'labels' and not enough to how the majority of Americans are relating to one another as compared to 20-30 years ago. The trend looks promising to many. IMO The younger generation appears to be ignoring the 'clap trap'.

S. Lindsey's picture

... that is what the younger Generation is doing. Expecting Government to be the Nanny.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

JeffC's picture

Yes, societies evolve and change; much to the apparent consternation of Dr. Paul Kengor from Grove City College which seems to exist to propagate thinly reasoned right-wing claptrap.

In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the remaining anti-miscegenation laws were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. Does Dr. Kengor agree with the strike-down of the ban on interracial marriages. Presumably so. Presumably Dr. Kengor is a "Progressive" on marriage laws.

And "We see marriage best as it has been since the Garden of Eden." Seriously? The Bible says that if a man finds out his bride is not a virgin he can kill her. If a man dies with no child, his brother must marry his widow. Divorce in the absence of adultery is forbidden and if you divorce and remarry you are an adulterer. Ect.

And Dr. Kengor's question about polygamy: "Why could it not next progress to one man and multiple women?" begs the question of whether he has ever even glanced at the Bible.

This is really a sloppily reasoned, factually and historically inaccurate poorly written screed that really doesn't say much for Grove City College.

PTC Observer's picture

we agree on something.

Freedom, just not your entire version of the definition of freedom.

JeffC's picture

Freedom frightens conservatives much more than liberals because most liberals never consider the consequences.

PTC Observer's picture

You're correct again!

Is this a trend?

Progressives don't understand the philosophy of liberty either, only their version of it.

Starting with self evident Truths. Property is an extension of both life and freedom, they are inseparable, something progressives choose to ignore.

Thus they do indeed "never consider the consequences."

JeffC's picture

I think this is not a trend. More likely, it is a random alignment of policy arrived at by such a discontinuance of thought processes that neither of us could satisfactorily explain their underlying rational of arriving at these conclusions to the other.

A mere coincidence.

Nothing to be alarmed about.

PTC Observer's picture

run on sentence is evidence of the saying, "if you can't carry on a dialog, attempt to baffle them with BS."

Or to put it a different way, deflect on the salient point of the PTC_O's post.

Trust me, I am not alarmed.

BTW, why do you have a blue dog as your avatar? What part of the conservative philosophy do you agree with JeffC? I have never seen it represented in any of your posts here. Are you really socially conservative? The only thing left is financial and you certain aren't financially conservative. So, if you are neither of these, why don't you change your avatar to something more appropriate?

NUK_1's picture


And Dr. Kengor's question about polygamy: "Why could it not next progress to one man and multiple women?" begs the question of whether he has ever even glanced at the Bible.

This is really a sloppily reasoned, factually and historically inaccurate poorly written screed that really doesn't say much for Grove City College.[/quote]

I've never seen any column here from a Grove City author that didn't turn my stomach and also give me a headache.

Progressives and the ultra-libs are pretty predictable with their stuff so I'm already pre-conditioned to it, but Grove City manages to throw a nasty curve ball with anything they can dream up to justify their warped views of what they view as "conservatism."

Not that I think being "conservative" is all that great either. Frankly, conservatism as it is defined today is pretty putrid and is NOT in any way "conservative." It's ultimate crony capitalism with the God-stick beat over your head and the seizure of your rights under a different guise than the "other party" who doesn't really try to hide their agenda of taking. wow, such good choices! No wonder those with a somewhat libertarian bent get attention....people after a while can only take so much.

Editor's picture

You are better than "claptrap."

Come on, for us "evolve and change"-challenged persons, please describe what values ??? specifically ??? exist that progressives (or liberals circa 2013) truly consider to be unchanging or not subject to evolving.

If you feel it inappropriate to speak for progressives, what values do YOU believe are unchanging/unchangeable and not subject to popular opinion and/or popular vote?

Are ALL "values" subject to societies' evolving opinions (and consider the implications of that)?

Do some big picture stuff here. Does any value ??? like the value of a human life or belief in a supreme deity or the passionate disbelief in any deity ??? have any shelf life in the progressive universe?

And if you desire to go really big picture, where do values originate? What is their source?

Please, engage, not disparage.

Let's see what values we can agree upon that are not subject to the next public opinion poll.

A value that appears to work:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you . Individuals, organizations and nations still
have problems implementing this. When people have thought of the consequences of their actions, using the 'do unto' statement as a guide, often positive change occurred .

PTC Observer's picture

Is for each of us individually to follow, it should be realized that forcing others to follow the rule, is contrary to it. Thus, when a majority votes to take property by force they break the Golden Rule individually and collectively..

So, DM you can't steal and then preach The Golden Rule.

PTCO. I think I understand your concern with 'property' We heard this argument regarding human property and the use of public property. Some strongly felt that the change of 'who' constituted the public should not include citizens of all colors. Some have labeled this logic coded talk for going back to some Jim Crow practices Can you explain how this is an erroneous assumption ?

PTC Observer's picture

See no corollary to human "property" and real property.

Fear DM is a great pursuader, if you tell a lie often enough, bodly enough, you can get a great number of people to believe it. There is no "code" in my assertion that life, freedom and property are intricately tied. This is because there is no moral logic in having people as "property". Indeed, you can't "own" something that you steal, it is against God's law to steal a person's life, labor or property. We have had wars over this principle. Democracy gives no moral right to the majority to steal property. An individual cannot assign a right to a representative that the individual does not pocess individually. I cannot elect someone to enslave you, I don't have that right individually. Nor, would I ever want to, but if the majority ever did, you would have the right to defend your liberty! Unless of course you didn't have the means to do so.

Stop being afraid DM, embrace freedom, stop living in the 19th Century.

[Quote]Can you explain how this is an erroneous assumption[/quote]

This is your explanation? Nice try. Freedom equals eternal vigilance of those who stress individual freedom over just practices for all citizens. No one will steal my freedom in order to have their 'individual' freedom. Women, minorities , etc. will never let this happen again in America. Not all are operating with blinders on. Progress has been made, the new slavery is the interest on credit cards - and some 'libertarian' stuff. The younger generation will not make the same mistakes of being taken in with clap trap rhetoric.

PTC Observer's picture

Cannot make you see if you refuse to see.

[quote]Is for each of us individually to follow, it should be realized that forcing others to follow the rule, is contrary to it.[/quote]

Don't want to be forced to follow The Golden Rule? What do you want to be able to do that does not follow this rule? Doesn't this 'fly' in your belief in equal freedom for <strong>all?</strong> Is that your belief? Really? Equal freedom? But you have the individual freedom to not follow a rule that implements the Golden one? Hmmmmm. Typical Libertarian logic - as long as it gives them the right to do what THEY want to do.

PTC Observer's picture

You really should use it occasionally.

Stop banging your head against the wall. DM thinks the golden rule applies to the collectivist as opposed to the individual. It's pure socialism. This is why the skeezer from MSNBC stated that the children belong to society instead of the parents. They want more women to have as many children as they possibly can have out of wedlock and then let the responsible producers pay for their upbringing while the state teaches them collectivism.

[quote]They want more women to have as many children as they possibly can have out of wedlock and then let the responsible producers pay for their upbringing while the state teaches them collectivism.[/quote]

Who is against abortion and who is for it? Who is against government involved in a women's control over her reproductive organs and who is for government control over reproductive organs of a woman? Logic??? Geez.

They are the welfare mothers that decide to have children that they cannot afford and then expect other people to pay for their upbringing because they are too lazy to go out and get a job.

I'm not against a woman deciding what to do, I just don't want to have to pay for their contraceptives and their abortions, but that is what far left liberal bedwetters like yourself demand. I wish liberals would avail themselves to contraceptives and abortions even more. But the welfare/food stamp leaches know that their is money to be made in having children that they can't afford out of wedlock and then claim that they are poor. Its shameful.

<cite>What do you want to be able to do that does not follow this rule?</cite>

[quote]See no corollary to human "property" and real property.[/quote]


(k̫r'??-l??r'??, k??r'-)
n., pl., -ies.
A proposition that follows with little or no proof required from one already proven.
A deduction or an inference.
A natural consequence or effect; a result.

There was a Civil War fought in the United States over 'human property and 'real property'. Check out the history of 'States Rights' in this country. I know very few 'libertarians' who do not see the corollary - but I don't know many libertarians.

PTC Observer's picture


PTC Observer's picture

See why too.

Morally there is no such thing as human "property" you can't own someone, morally it's an oxymoron. Slavery is forced labor or theft of one's output, it generally requires state authority (majority will by force of law) to exist widely, but not always.

The civil war was fought, like most wars, over money and power. It was merely convenient that slavery helped justify the war to a few participants.

Here's a quote from the late, great Margaret Thatcher when she was speaking before the House of Commons:

<cite>Mr Speaker, ALL levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. But what the honorable member is saying is that he would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich. That?۪s why you will NEVER create the wealth for better social services as we have. And what a policy! Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer, provided the rich were less rich. That is the liberal policy.</cite>

<a href=" Essence Of American Liberalism: They?۪d Rather The Poor Be Poorer Provided The Rich Are Less Rich</a>

obama: "I would look at raising the capital gains for puposes of fairness". Even though it is proven that raising capital gains would not increase tax revenues. He would rather everyone in the U.S. be poor than for everyone to benefit by the rising tide of a better economy.

Margaret Thatcher: ???I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society ??? from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain.?۝

God rest her soul. She is more intelligent and more courageous than anyone in the current administration or in congress......

JeffC's picture

1. contrived but foolish talk
2. insincere and pretentious talk

This isn't about existential values. It's about tax law, estate law and visitation laws affecting gays.

The good Dr. Kengor cites the immutability of his position back to the Garden of Eden when, in fact, marriage norms have always changed and evolved and adapted to different cultural aspects of societies.

As I pointed out, the Bible requires a man to marry his dead brother's wife if they have no children. Non-virgin brides are to be stoned. Divorce is forbidden. Adultery is a capital offense. Polygamy is common. On and on. Presumably Dr. Paul Kengor is aware of these Biblical happenings and presumably he has progressed along with the rest of civilized Western Societies to reject these standards being enforced by governments against citizens.

Nor, as I also pointed out, is the phenomena buried in history. Presumably (again), the laws outlawing inter-racial marriages were changed during Dr. Paul Kegor's lifetime and he should remember them as I do and presumably he supports those changes

So Dr. Kengor has presumably progressed along with everybody else on numerous changes in marriage customs except now for gay marriages and now he objects about the flexibility of the Progressive's values .

So yes, it was claptrap. It was foolish because he cited the Bible without any apparent knowledge of what was in it relating to his argument. Pretentious because he thought nobody would check his sources, insincere because he really didn't care because his whole argument is contrived. It's not about marriage it's about gays and he doesn't like them.

Editor's picture

You say, "This isn't about existential values."

Why? Because you say so?

This controversy arises out of a dispute over whose values should govern in the here and now; to that extent it is "existential." But it is also over the concept of "values" themselves. That is beyond "existentialism," and that's the part you evade.

Then you shift the argument to a dispute over Biblical interpretation. But you travel widely and know that marriage is understood by most of the world's population to be precisely that which is argued by Kengor (between two members of the opposite sex), and most of the world's multitudes don't resort to any Biblical defenses of that societal standard.

How do you answer their objections ??? those multiple billions of currently existing humans who see marriage exactly as it has been seen for thousands of years? (I'm thinking in continental terms ??? the whole of Asia, Africa, South America, etc.) Are you progressives better than them all? Progressivism ??? irony intact ??? crashes into the moral relativism of multiculturalism.

Your quote, "marriage norms have always changed and evolved and adapted to different cultural aspects of societies" is disingenuous and begs the question: Except for miniscule numbers of individuals in almost all societies known in human history, where and when has marriage ever "changed and evolved and adapted" to include recognized and state-sanctioned same-sex "marriages" prior to the last 50 years ??? a blink of the eye in humans' time on earth?

A little humility is warranted by you progressives in the face of the multi-millenia standard you choose to denigrate as bigotry.

Have so many billions been so wrong for so long, and has the great majority of the world been so morally stunted until you progressives arrived in the late 20th Century to deliver us from our benighted wretchedness ??? whether we like it or not?

Progressives seem to be pretty special beings, godlike in self-righteousness.

But I digress.

I'm not sure you endorsed or dismissed Kengor's take on the "the flexibility of the Progressive's values."

However, I must press the issue: I restate my request for enlightenment about exactly what are core progressive values. Name three or four core progressive values and then defend them by citing some authority beyond your own enlightened opinion.

Ye Olde Editor

PTC Observer's picture

I must insert my thought here that the left has always had one core value, "the end justifies the means".

The end of course is their vision of Utopia an equalitarian society.

Since only you know who I am, it would be interesting to sit down with you and discuss the folly of majority rule against the backdrop of individual freedom and religious doctrine.

I predict that you will never pin down JeffC, he is unprepared to defend his position. It would require that he conclude that it is based on debauched morals.

JeffC's picture

I support the right of two consenting adults to have the freedom to enter into a relationship of their choosing and you support your being able to deny them that right and yet I'm the one with the debauched morals and you want to talk to the self-proclaimed editor about individual freedom?

PTC Observer's picture


PTC Observer's picture

Did I say anything about gay marriage? I must have missed that, maybe I was asleep?

You can't defend individual rights only when you think it relevant to your argument JeffC. You are just like a conservative in this regard.

You can defend gay marriage, but at the same time support the democratic theft of property. This is morally corrupt Jeff, it is in fact moral debauchery.

You sir, have no principles to argue your point, just as Mr. Beverly has pointed out in his posts. Please define one or two of your fundamental principles JeffC. "Socialist principle" is morally bankrupt, force is force and socialism requires force against the individual, as does the tacit approval of the same "principles" by conservatives and the "will" of the majority.

Let's see your principles here in writing.

JeffC's picture

Then freedom is not a principle for you?

No, you didn't say anything about gay marriage. When you accused me of having debauched morals, I assumed it from the context. Since your reference to my debauched morals was not related to my position on gay marriages then I'm really at a loss as to which particular moral I have debauched to your apparent consternation.

I told you. My principle is for the freedom of consenting adults to be able to do what they want to do. How simple is that? Consenting adults deciding between themselves what kind of relationship they want to spend their lives in. I support their right to decide for themselves. I don't particularly care if someone disagrees. What is the "value" that you are touting that trumps this freedom of individual choice?

You accuse me of "...defend[ing] individual rights only when you think it relevant to your argument". Not from my point of view. You either support individual rights or not. When have I ever not defended individual human rights? But here, now, you are not. In this case, the question is not why am I supporting these rights but rather why are y'all not?

It's so easy to support freedom until somebody uses their freedom to do something you don't like. At that point, I'm still supporting freedom and you're telling me that I have no principles.

Think what you like, I don't care. Freedom for gays to chose is an almost incontestable argument.

My side has already won. All that's left now is for it to play out. We all agree on that, right?

PTC Observer's picture

Your principles are convenient.

Individuals have the right to choose, as long as the majority agrees that they have this right?

They have a right to life?
They have the right to own weapons for self defense of the right to life?
They have the right to use their labor to improve their lot?
Their property derived from their labor is their life? It is the product of their life?

However, their right to their life, liberty and property is conditional on whether the majority agrees?

The majority of prewar Germans gave us Hitler a democratically elected leader. The majority consistently proves that democracy doesn't work.

Tell us all what you are for JeffC, then give us examples of it in your life. Tell us all about social engineering. Tell us about your support of government "initiatives", the EPA, Education, Energy, health care, the list is endless. Let us know which light bulb we can choose, let us know what doctor we can use, let us know what kind of car we can drive, or what food we're allowed to have, or what drugs we are allowed to use in our treatment, or where and how we can buy a gun, or what size soda we can drink, yes indeed it is lucky we have the government to help out with relieving us of our life, liberty and property.

There is a reason for the Bill of Rigths JeffC, just as there was a purpose in framing the Constitution. It is your philosophy that steals property, limits choice and is morally bankrupt. It is you and people like you that make livings on the backs of others. Politics, power, and money that's the "game" being played across our great land. You are simply a reflection of it.
Now get out there and do what you do best, limit our right to choose based on your "vision" of what is "best" for us masses. Admit that you don't have consistent principles, that your principles are not based on fundamental truths.

You have no principles, only convenient ones.

JeffC's picture

One core value is less government intrusion and control of individual's private lives. Way too many of the social conservatives values involve legislating some aspect of other people's sex lives.

"Have so many billions been so wrong for so long, and has the great majority of the world been so morally stunted until you progressives arrived in the late 20th Century to deliver us from our benighted wretchedness ??? whether we like it or not?"

Surely the same lament was heard against the end of slavery, giving women the right to vote, legalizing contraception, giving blacks the right to vote. Were so many billions so wrong for so long? The same question would apply to any controversial legislation.

Which of your values gives you the right to deny two consenting adults the freedom to get married if they wish? Please defend your position by citing some authority beyond your own enlightened opinion.

S. Lindsey's picture

[quote=JeffC]One core value is less government intrusion and control of individual's private lives.

Jeff just where do you get this? Progressives love using Government. The bigger the better. They are all about Government.

Bloomberg is a prime example of Progressive Government gone wild.
He wants to tell you what to eat , what to drink, how much of each etc... Also what other States must do.. where is that in any way LESS Government much less what is considered private.

Did you not just hear what Melissa Harris-Perry just said? Yeah Progressives are just Libertarians in disguise...right.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

JeffC's picture

I don't claim to speak for Progressives. I don't care what Bloomberg does or says. I don't care how many sodas you drink. I don't care what you eat. Smoke 'em if you've got them, but don't leave me the bill at the hospital. Wear your condom or not just don't leave me with the bill for your kids.

But if you do abandon your kids or end up broke in the hospital, then, yes, I probably would support bailing your sorry ass out because I am a liberal.

But gays marrying? Who cares and why? I'll tell you a secret known only to Progressives and those like me who can speak frankly with them. They don't see what the question is. They don't understand the fear of gay people. They either are or are not gay and it has absolutely nothing to do with the law. They are bemused by the your concern, baffled and wondering if it is a real concern of the social conservatives that if the law changes suddenly then what will happen? Everybody is going to see the homosexual lifestyle as valid and affecting them personally because the government has decided not to legally discriminate?


I cannot imagine how it will adversely affect me if my gay friends can marry.

Why do you care? What business is it of yours? How are you affected?

S. Lindsey's picture

Never said anything about Gays... they can do anything they want as long as they don't infringe on my Rights... Couldn't care less..

The TOPIC was Progressive values, you were asked to name one core value your response was:

[quote=JeffC]One core value is less government intrusion and control of individual's private lives.

..and instead of answering that question you go off on Gay Marriage. WTFC about it?

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

JeffC's picture

Read the thread. That's what it's about.

Who cares you ask? That would be your political party. You Teas are going to have to go through Santorum and Michele Bachmann before you even get to the Dems. Maybe you can align with the neocons like McCain and Graham against the social conservative Santorum wing.

On second thought, that won't work either will it?

S. Lindsey's picture far as I am concerned I am ready for the Tar and Feathers...

I got the feathers you got any tar?

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

kcchiefandy's picture will ours. This is just part of evolving to our demise. Glad I'll be dead by then, but feel sorry for my kids & the future families.

This would all end. :)

NUK_1's picture

Seems like that would solve the whole "gay problem." Along with global climate change due to overpopulation and development, retarded and doomed children, psychopaths who want to kill everything alive and blow up stuff, etc. etc. Let's just make them all in a test tube to assure only the best can survive! Ehhh...maybe not.

I work closely with a proud and totally out of the closet lesbian. She's totally against gay marriage because she doesn't want to have to deal with the issues of divorce when the relationship may end. "Who gets this, who gets the dog, etc." I can see her point :)

These endless diatribes from Grove City College faculty repel all but the most militant conservatives. Even when one agrees with the views expressed, the Grove City writers pontificate with such mudslinging that one feels like he needs a bath after reading the hate-filled messages.

How nice it would be to be treated to thoughtful conservative columnists like David Brooks or George Will instead of the Grove City venom. I assume that these essays are provided to The Citizen for free (or for cheap), and this explains why Cal prints them.

This latest column from Kengor is especially repugnant because he dismisses Progressives as compass-less vagabonds but fails to acknowledge how the policies of conservatives and moderates equally evolve over time. Over the last 100 years, the attitudes about voting rights for women, equal protection under the law for all races, etc. have evolved for conservatives as well as liberals. This evolution is very positive for all the groups and should be applauded instead of vilified. Let?۪s send Mr. Kengor and his Grove City Neanderthals back to their caves.

Is this guy for real!
Talk about spewing hatred and intolerance.
Why is this being published by The Citizen!
This is right up there with the rabid raccoon at Starr's Mill or was that
Dr. Kengor...wondering who is more rabid!

The Wedge's picture

Dr. Kengor is using the process of rhetoric questions leading to a possible slippery slope. In no way is this hatred or intolerance. Hatred and intolerance is nothing more than challenging your viewpoint , it seems. Your discussion is nothing more than ad hominem, but at least you are posting under your own name this week. Kudos for progress. A discussion of what a "progressive" believes is not hatred. Hatred for a viewpoint was better illustrated by you. Thanks for raising the discourse with your sharp intellect.

I get Dr. Kengor's rhetoric and very subtle stance, but actually his message still portrays intolerance.

Extremism in any religion or on any side should be a cause for concern as subtle as it may be. Progessive thought can help to alter unchecked extremism otherwise it could lead to religious police enforcing their form of law in the streets. We see it in Iran enforcing Sheria law and parts of Israel and the US enforcing Hasidic law. Lets not forget Westboro, they now blame gays for a wide range of social ills and deaths. All extreme but plausible.

Luckily, we, along with Dr. Kengor and the Clintons, get to express our thoughts publiclly including both of our hateful and insulting messages even when cloaked behind an alias.

Free speech, was a progessive idea during a time when people were executed for speaking out against the King of England.

S. Lindsey's picture

... Prohibition and Internment?

So much for that Freedom that Progressives brought us...

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Not much into labels, that's why I remain mostly independent.
Lots of dumb republicans, democrats, liberals, progressives, and conservatives. Extremists worry me the most which is why I'm not buying into Kengor's rhetoric he is quietly promoting.
I believe in individual freedom, straight or gay. Frankly I don't care just don't tread on me!


Ad space area 4 internal

Sponsored Content