"It's about control" is hardly exclusive to progressivism. That's the entire goal of politics, amassing enough power and control to impose a particular point of view.
The difference is, progressivism isn't just trying to control thought, it's also designed to limit and control personal freedom. That is counter to the American way of being.
Sorry, Michael, I misread your earlier remark which is neither cogent nor accurate. The progressive era began before the Wilson Presidency, its birth usually ascribed to 1896. And, today, nothing "falls outside the scope of the media." Everything, including every mendacious conspiracy theory, is propagated somewhere on the media. Sifting through the lies and distortions to find nuggets of truth is the responsibility of every serious citizen. Sadly, most seek affirmation of their pre-existing beliefs, not information that might enlighten them. I certainly share your concern about the excessive and pervasive influence of corporate interests in our political discourse. Many comments posted in this thread reflect that perverse power, especially those denying anthropogenic climate change.
Neither cogent or accurate? It's true history, it's not up for debate. Being insulting while exhibiting proper grammar and an extensive vocabulary is still being insulting. I won't subscribe to your approach except to say, only you think you're smarter than the rest of us.... Your comment about climate change tells me all I need to know, you don't study, you just believe what they tell you to. There is plenty of scientific evidence to prove that human beings have virtually NO effect on the climate. But you keep looking dreamily into the mirror, those of us that DO get it are completely discounting you.
There was "plenty of scientific evidence" proving that tobacco was harmless and denying the prevailing scientific view expressed in the Surgeon General's admonitions until the deadly impacts of smoking and chewing tobacco took so many lives that the contrarian's "evidence" was shown to be completely bogus. The sugar industry paid a scientist at Harvard University to publish "research" that refuted the deleterious impact of sugar consumption on human health. His mendacious claims and his scientific reputation have been, thankfully, dismissed by real science.
Yes, there are legitimate scientists, very few of them climate scientists, who deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change. It appears to me that you and the climate change deniers are the ones who sought out views that affirmed what you wanted to believe and denied the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Suggest you read a book by the distinguished historian of science at Harvard, Naomi Oreskes: "Merchants of Doubt.: Oreskes documents how industry-supported "scientists" sow doubt and confusion about tobacco, climate change, sugar, and more recently, Covid-19.
You can't change history... It started with Wilson and it's never been about progress. It's about control, period.
"It's about control" is hardly exclusive to progressivism. That's the entire goal of politics, amassing enough power and control to impose a particular point of view.
The difference is, progressivism isn't just trying to control thought, it's also designed to limit and control personal freedom. That is counter to the American way of being.
Sorry, Michael, I misread your earlier remark which is neither cogent nor accurate. The progressive era began before the Wilson Presidency, its birth usually ascribed to 1896. And, today, nothing "falls outside the scope of the media." Everything, including every mendacious conspiracy theory, is propagated somewhere on the media. Sifting through the lies and distortions to find nuggets of truth is the responsibility of every serious citizen. Sadly, most seek affirmation of their pre-existing beliefs, not information that might enlighten them. I certainly share your concern about the excessive and pervasive influence of corporate interests in our political discourse. Many comments posted in this thread reflect that perverse power, especially those denying anthropogenic climate change.
Neither cogent or accurate? It's true history, it's not up for debate. Being insulting while exhibiting proper grammar and an extensive vocabulary is still being insulting. I won't subscribe to your approach except to say, only you think you're smarter than the rest of us.... Your comment about climate change tells me all I need to know, you don't study, you just believe what they tell you to. There is plenty of scientific evidence to prove that human beings have virtually NO effect on the climate. But you keep looking dreamily into the mirror, those of us that DO get it are completely discounting you.
There was "plenty of scientific evidence" proving that tobacco was harmless and denying the prevailing scientific view expressed in the Surgeon General's admonitions until the deadly impacts of smoking and chewing tobacco took so many lives that the contrarian's "evidence" was shown to be completely bogus. The sugar industry paid a scientist at Harvard University to publish "research" that refuted the deleterious impact of sugar consumption on human health. His mendacious claims and his scientific reputation have been, thankfully, dismissed by real science.
Yes, there are legitimate scientists, very few of them climate scientists, who deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change. It appears to me that you and the climate change deniers are the ones who sought out views that affirmed what you wanted to believe and denied the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Suggest you read a book by the distinguished historian of science at Harvard, Naomi Oreskes: "Merchants of Doubt.: Oreskes documents how industry-supported "scientists" sow doubt and confusion about tobacco, climate change, sugar, and more recently, Covid-19.