Have you wondered what happened to old-fashioned liberalism? It went the way of VCRs and land lines. Today’s liberals are hiding in plain sight but they no longer refer to themselves as “liberal.” They refer to themselves as “progressive.”Let’s be clear about one thing: There is nothing “progressive” about liberalism, which is another word for socialism or communism.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
was a phrase popularized by Karl Marx. Sounds nice, doesn’t it? In a perfect world, it would be. Trouble is the world is far from perfect.
Socialism hasn’t worked and it isn’t about to work except for the person or persons at the controls of this system – the ones who get to define the terms “ability” and “need.”
Look at history: Every dictator or junta thinks the masses don’t need very much, but the dictator needs a “mass” of people working away to support his opulent lifestyle.
However, when you take away all incentives, the reality is that people don’t work very hard. Why should they when the rewards – or lack thereof – are all the same? As a result, productivity goes down and shortages occur. That’s why communist or socialist countries are poor countries. They always will be.
You will never convince today’s liberal of that. He or she is convinced that if socialism is done right, it will work.
Also, there is nothing “progressive” about killing unborn babies, which goes hand in hand with liberalism in this country. Yes, in the progressive mindset, the very young are expendable. It’s all about being “pro-choice” as it is called, unless the choice is to allow people to escape our broken educational system, or to work hard in order to enjoy a lavish lifestyle. In the liberal mind, that is evil and it should not be tolerated.
Cable news anchor Bill O’Reilly has taken this terminology one step further and dubbed liberals “secular progressives.”
The word “secular” can mean “worldly,” but, more often than not, it is anything that is not overtly or specifically religious. There is religious music and secular music. Is secular music inherently bad? Of course not! The term “secular” in everyday use is a neutral term.
Liberals in this country do tend to be worldly or godless. Some liberals acknowledge God, but want Him to keep His place. As long as He isn’t mentioned outside of the churches, as long as He can be designed to fit one’s own image or He (or she) doesn’t demand too much, He can stay. However, the God with moral absolutes is verboten.
Calling a liberal a “secular progressive” is tantamount to throwing red meat to the lions that were about to eat the Christians. Liberals love it! It validates the term they have coined for themselves and adds a nice little twist.
Today’s progressive is a liberal with sugar coating. Calling a liberal a progressive makes this tired old philosophy look fresh and appealing. Liberalism was dying. Why is O’Reilly assisting with this face lift?
Don’t get me wrong! I like Bill O’Reilly and consider him to be one of the best interviewers of our time, but his use of this term is wrong-headed. It also is part of a pattern. O’Reilly and many other journalists think they have to adopt any term the left throws at us. That’s nonsense!
Consider the widespread use of the term “fetus” in place of the word “baby” or “child” when referring to a human being in the womb. Fetus is an appropriate term in a hospital or medical school. However, journalists are taught to use plain, everyday language. We do that in every other instance.
If I report a story about someone who suffered a heart attack, I don’t say,
He had a coronary infarction.
He had a heart attack.
If I interview a football player about his broken arm I don’t say,
Tell me about your fractured distal radius.
Tell me about your broken arm.
Those in favor of abortion didn’t want to use that word so they dubbed themselves “pro-choice.” When forced to talk about what that choice entailed, they began using the term “fetus” because it made the baby in the womb seem somehow less than human.
Journalists tie themselves in knots needlessly trying to be kind to the people who advocate killing the most innocent among us. We should not follow their lead. Likewise, we should not follow Mr. O’Reilly’s lead by using the term “secular progressive” to describe godless liberals.
Don’t drink this Kool-Aid!