The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Petras Archive
Progressive Democrats: Resist and Submit, Retreat and Surrender
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks


Over the past quarter century progressive writers, activists and academics have followed a trajectory from left to right – with each presidential campaign seeming to move them further to the right. Beginning in the 1990’s progressives mobilized millions in opposition to wars, voicing demands for the transformation of the US’s corporate for-profit medical system into a national ‘Medicare For All’ public program. They condemned the notorious Wall Street swindlers and denounced police state legislation and violence. But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who pursued the exact opposite agenda.

Over time this political contrast between program and practice led to the transformation of the Progressives. And what we see today are US progressives embracing and promoting the politics of the far right.

To understand this transformation we will begin by identifying who and what the progressives are and describe their historical role. We will then proceed to identify their trajectory over the recent decades.

We will outline the contours of recent Presidential campaigns where Progressives were deeply involved.

We will focus on the dynamics of political regression: From resistance to submission, from retreat to surrender.

We will conclude by discussing the end result: The Progressives’ large-scale, long-term embrace of far-right ideology and practice.

Progressives by Name and Posture

Progressives purport to embrace ‘progress’, the growth of the economy, the enrichment of society and freedom from arbitrary government. Central to the Progressive agenda was the end of elite corruption and good governance, based on democratic procedures.

Progressives prided themselves as appealing to ‘reason, diplomacy and conciliation’, not brute force and wars. They upheld the sovereignty of other nations and eschewed militarism and armed intervention.

Progressives proposed a vision of their fellow citizens pursuing incremental evolution toward the ‘good society’, free from the foreign entanglements, which had entrapped the people in unjust wars.

Progressives in Historical Perspective

In the early part of the 20th century, progressives favored political equality while opposing extra-parliamentary social transformations. They supported gender equality and environmental preservation while failing to give prominence to the struggles of workers and African Americans.

They denounced militarism ‘in general’ but supported a series of ‘wars to end all wars’. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home and bloody imperial wars overseas. By the middle of the 20th century, different strands emerged under the progressive umbrella. Progressives split between traditional good government advocates and modernists who backed socio-economic reforms, civil liberties and rights.

Progressives supported legislation to regulate monopolies, encouraged collective bargaining and defended the Bill of Rights.

Progressives opposed wars and militarism in theory… until their government went to war.

Lacking an effective third political party, progressives came to see themselves as the ‘left wing’ of the Democratic Party, allies of labor and civil rights movements and defenders of civil liberties.

Progressives joined civil rights leaders in marches, but mostly relied on legal and electoral means to advance African American rights.

Progressives played a pivotal role in fighting McCarthyism, though ultimately it was the Secretary of the Army and the military high command that brought Senator McCarthy to his knees.

Progressives provided legal defense when the social movements disrupted the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.

They popularized the legislative arguments that eventually outlawed segregation, but it was courageous Afro-American leaders heading mass movements that won the struggle for integration and civil rights.

In many ways the Progressives complemented the mass struggles, but their limits were defined by the constraints of their membership in the Democratic Party.

The alliance between Progressives and social movements peaked in the late sixties to mid-1970’s when the Progressives followed the lead of dynamic and advancing social movements and community organizers especially in opposition to the wars in Indochina and the military draft.

The Retreat of the Progressives

By the late 1970’s the Progressives had cut their anchor to the social movements, as the anti-war, civil rights and labor movements lost their impetus (and direction).

The numbers of progressives within the left wing of the Democratic Party increased through recruitment from earlier social movements. Paradoxically, while their ‘numbers’ were up, their caliber had declined, as they sought to ‘fit in’ with the pro-business, pro-war agenda of their President’s party.

Without the pressure of the ‘populist street’ the ‘Progressives-turned-Democrats’ adapted to the corporate culture in the Party. The Progressives signed off on a fatal compromise: The corporate elite secured the electoral party while the Progressives were allowed to write enlightened manifestos about the candidates and their programs . . . which were quickly dismissed once the Democrats took office. Yet the ability to influence the ‘electoral rhetoric’ was seen by the Progressives as a sufficient justification for remaining inside the Democratic Party.

Moreover the Progressives argued that by strengthening their presence in the Democratic Party, (their self-proclaimed ‘boring from within’ strategy), they would capture the party membership, neutralize the pro-corporation, militarist elements that nominated the president and peacefully transform the party into a ‘vehicle for progressive changes’.

Upon their successful ‘deep penetration’ the Progressives, now cut off from the increasingly disorganized mass social movements, coopted and bought out many prominent black, labor and civil liberty activists and leaders, while collaborating with what they dubbed the more malleable ‘centrist’ Democrats. These mythical creatures were really pro-corporate Democrats who condescended to occasionally converse with the Progressives while working for the Wall Street and Pentagon elite.

The Retreat of the Progressives: The Clinton Decade

Progressives adapted the ‘crab strategy’: Moving side-ways and then backwards but never forward.

Progressives mounted candidates in the Presidential primaries, which were predictably defeated by the corporate Party apparatus, and then submitted immediately to the outcome. The election of President ‘Bill’ Clinton launched a period of unrestrained financial plunder, major wars of aggression in Europe (Yugoslavia) and the Middle East (Iraq), a military intervention in Somalia and secured Israel’s victory over any remnant of a secular Palestinian leadership as well as its destruction of Lebanon!


Like a huge collective ‘Monica Lewinsky’ robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton’s vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act, thereby opening the floodgates for massive speculation on Wall Street through the previously regulated banking sector. When President Clinton gutted welfare programs, forcing single mothers to take minimum-wage jobs without provision for safe childcare, millions of poor white and minority women were forced to abandon their children to dangerous makeshift arrangements in order to retain any residual public support and access to minimal health care. Progressives looked the other way.

Progressives followed Clinton’s deep throated thrust toward the far right, as he outsourced manufacturing jobs to Mexico (NAFTA) and re-appointed Federal Reserve’s free market, Ayn Rand-fanatic, Alan Greenspan.

Progressives repeatedly kneeled before President Clinton marking their submission to the Democrats’ ‘hard right’ policies.

The election of Republican President G. W. Bush (2001-2009) permitted Progressive’s to temporarily trot out and burnish their anti-war, anti-Wall Street credentials. Out in the street, they protested Bush’s savage invasion of Iraq (but not the destruction of Afghanistan). They protested the media reports of torture in Abu Ghraib under Bush, but not the massive bombing and starvation of millions of Iraqis that had occurred under Clinton. Progressives protested the expulsion of immigrants from Mexico and Central America, but were silent over the brutal uprooting of refugees resulting from US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the systematic destruction of their nations’ infrastructure.

Progressives embraced Israel’s bombing, jailing and torture of Palestinians by voting unanimously in favor of increasing the annual \$3 billion dollar military handouts to the brutal Jewish State. They supported Israel’s bombing and slaughter in Lebanon.

Progressives were in retreat, but retained a muffled voice and inconsequential vote in favor of peace, justice and civil liberties. They kept a certain distance from the worst of the police state decrees by the Republican Administration.

Progressives and Obama: From Retreat to Surrender

While Progressives maintained their tepid commitment to civil liberties, and their highly ‘leveraged’ hopes for peace in the Middle East, they jumped uncritically into the highly choreographed Democratic Party campaign for Barack Obama, ‘Wall Street’s First Black President’.

Progressives had given up their quest to ‘realign’ the Democratic Party ‘from within’: they turned from serious tourism to permanent residency. Progressives provided the foot soldiers for the election and re-election of the warmongering ‘Peace Candidate’ Obama. After the election, Progressives rushed to join the lower echelons of his Administration. Black and white politicos joined hands in their heroic struggle to erase the last vestiges of the Progressives’ historical legacy.

Obama increased the number of Bush-era imperial wars to attacking seven weak nations under American’s ‘First Black’ President’s bombardment, while the Progressives ensured that the streets were quiet and empty.

When Obama provided trillions of dollars of public money to rescue Wall Street and the bankers, while sacrificing two million poor and middle class mortgage holders, the Progressives only criticized the bankers who received the bailout, but not Obama’s Presidential decision to protect and reward the mega-swindlers.

Under the Obama regime social inequalities within the United States grew at an unprecedented rate. The Police State Patriot Act was massively extended to give President Obama the power to order the assassination of US citizens abroad without judicial process. The Progressives did not resign when Obama’s ‘kill orders’ extended to the ‘mistaken’ murder of his target’s children and other family member, as well as unidentified bystanders. The icon carriers still paraded their banner of the ‘first black American President’ when tens of thousands of black Libyans and immigrant workers were slaughtered in his regime-change war against President Gadhafi.

Obama surpassed the record of all previous Republican office holders in terms of the massive numbers of immigrant workers arrested and expelled – 2 million. Progressives applauded the Latino protestors while supporting the policies of their ‘first black President’.

Progressive accepted that multiple wars, Wall Street bailouts and the extended police state were now the price they would pay to remain part of the “Democratic coalition’ (sic).

The deeper the Progressives swilled at the Democratic Party trough, the more they embraced the Obama’s free market agenda and the more they ignored the increasing impoverishment, exploitation and medical industry-led opioid addiction of American workers that was shortening their lives. Under Obama, the Progressives totally abandoned the historic American working class, accepting their degradation into what Madam Hillary Clinton curtly dismissed as the ‘deplorables’.

With the Obama Presidency, the Progressive retreat turned into a rout, surrendering with one flaccid caveat: the Democratic Party ‘Socialist’ Bernie Sanders, who had voted 90% of the time with the Corporate Party, had revived a bastardized military-welfare state agenda.

Sander’s Progressive demagogy shouted and rasped on the campaign trail, beguiling the young electorate. The ‘Bernie’ eventually ‘sheep-dogged’ his supporters into the pro-war Democratic Party corral. Sanders revived an illusion of the pre-1990 progressive agenda, promising resistance while demanding voter submission to Wall Street warlord Hillary Clinton. After Sanders’ round up of the motley progressive herd, he staked them tightly to the far-right Wall Street war mongering Hillary Clinton. The Progressives not only embraced Madame Secretary Clinton’s nuclear option and virulent anti-working class agenda, they embellished it by focusing on Republican billionaire Trump’s demagogic, nationalist, working class rhetoric which was designed to agitate ‘the deplorables’. They even turned on the working class voters, dismissing them as ‘irredeemable’ racists and illiterates or ‘white trash’ when they turned to support Trump in massive numbers in the ‘fly-over’ states of the central US.

Progressives, allied with the police state, the mass media and the war machine worked to defeat and impeach Trump. Progressives surrendered completely to the Democratic Party and started to advocate its far right agenda. Hysterical McCarthyism against anyone who questioned the Democrats’ promotion of war with Russia, mass media lies and manipulation of street protest against Republican elected officials became the centerpieces of the Progressive agenda. The working class and farmers had disappeared from their bastardized ‘identity-centered’ ideology.

Guilt by association spread throughout Progressive politics. Progressives embraced J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI tactics: “Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?” For progressives, ‘Russia-gate’ defined the real focus of contemporary political struggle in this huge, complex, nuclear-armed superpower.


Progressives joined the FBI/CIA’s ‘Russian Bear’ conspiracy: “Russia intervened and decided the Presidential election” – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street’s candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that ‘their constituents’, the masses, had rejected Madame Clinton and preferred ‘the Donald’. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient ‘white trash’ electorate of ‘Deploralandia’.

Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former ‘Director Comey’ of the FBI, and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger or footprints.

The Progressives’ far right– turn earned them hours and space on the mass media as long as they breathlessly savaged and insulted President Trump and his family members. When they managed to provoke him into a blind rage . . . they added the newly invented charge of ‘psychologically unfit to lead’ – presenting cheap psychobabble as grounds for impeachment. Finally! American Progressives were on their way to achieving their first and only political transformation: a Presidential coup d’état on behalf of the Far Right!

Progressives loudly condemned Trump’s overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement and betrayal!

In return, President Trump began to ‘out-militarize’ the Progressives by escalating US involvement in the Middle East and South China Sea. They swooned with joy when Trump ordered a missile strike against the Syrian government as Damascus engaged in a life and death struggle against mercenary terrorists. They dubbed the petulant release of Patriot missiles ‘Presidential’.

Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama’s actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more!

Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being ‘weak’ on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They chided him for his lack support for Israel’s suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump’s embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen!


Progressives turned full circle from supporting welfare to embracing Wall Street; from preaching peaceful co-existence to demanding a dozen wars; from recognizing the humanity and rights of undocumented immigrants to their expulsion under their ‘First Black’ President; from thoughtful mass media critics to servile media megaphones; from defenders of civil liberties to boosters for the police state; from staunch opponents of J. Edgar Hoover and his ‘dirty tricks’ to camp followers for the ‘intelligence community’ in its deep state campaign to overturn a national election.

Progressives moved from fighting and resisting the Right to submitting and retreating; from retreating to surrendering and finally embracing the far right.

Doing all that and more within the Democratic Party, Progressives retain and deepen their ties with the mass media, the security apparatus and the military machine, while occasionally digging up some Bernie Sanders-type demagogue to arouse an army of voters away from effective resistance to mindless collaboration.

(Republished from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Neoliberalism 
Hide 39 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who pursued the exact opposite agenda.

    Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph. There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with progressives to bolt the party.

    This piece accurately traces the path from Progressive to Maoist. It’s a pity the Republican Party is also a piece of shit. I think it was Sara Palin who said “We have two parties. Pick one.” This should be our collective epitaph.

  2. This is an excellent summary of the evolution of “progressives” into modern militarist fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras’ commentary.

  3. at this point, are they still progressives though? they are the new far right 🙂

  4. CCZ says:

    “Progressives loudly condemned Trump’s overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement and betrayal!”

    Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats) take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  5. The great Jimmy Dore is a big thorn for the Democrats. From my blog:

    Apr 29, 2017 – Obama is Scum!

    Barak Obama is America’s biggest con man who accomplished nothing “progressive” during eight years at the top, and didn’t even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a \$65 million “book deal”, which can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn’t get royalties based on sales, but gets the money up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.)

    Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering the Secret Service protection costs. He didn’t appear at charity fundraisers, didn’t campaign for Democrats, and didn’t help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him \$400,000, then he travels to Europe for more paid speeches.

    Obama gets over \$200,000 a year in retirement, just got a \$65 million deal, so doesn’t need more money. Why would a multi-millionaire ex-president fly around the globe collecting huge speaking fees from world corporations just after his political party was devastated in elections because Americans think the Democratic party represents Wall Street? The great Jimmy Dore expressed his outrage at Obama and the corrupt Democratic party in this great video.

    • Replies: @annamaria
    , @Alfa158
    , @El Dato
  6. Left in the good old days meant socialist, socialist meant that governments had the duty of redistributing income from rich to poor.
    Alas in Europe, after ‘socialists’ became pro EU and pro globalisation, they in fact became neoliberal.
    Both in France and the Netherlands ‘socialist’ parties virtually disappeared.
    So what nowadays is left, does anyone know ?

    Then the word ‘progressive’.
    The word suggests improvement, but what is improvement, improvement for whom ?
    There are those who see the possibility for euthanasia as an improvement, there are thos who see euthanasia as a great sin.

    Discussions about left and progressive are meaningless without properly defining the concepts.

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
  7. “Over the past quarter century progressive writers, activists and academics have followed a trajectory from left to right – with each presidential campaign seeming to move them further to the Over the past quarter century progressive writers, activists and academics have followed a trajectory from left to right – with each presidential campaign seeming to move them further to the right.”

    Petras has confused Totalitarianism with being exclusively Right-Wing. Totalitarianism has perhaps more of a product of big-state “Progressive” movements than Right-Wing or even Far Right-Wing movements, which at worst have produced nothing more than petty dictatorships that were hardly the killing machines created by the Left-leaning “Progressives”

    I’ll leave it to you to figure out where the Nazis fell in the spectrum, but aside from calling themselves Socialists, they also seemed to embrace a number of Big State social welfare programmes that smacked of what we today would characterise as “Progressive.”

    • Replies: @Wally
  8. Anonymous [AKA "Call me Deplorable"] says:

    They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering in full flower throughout his second term. But, hey, the brother now has five mansions, collects half a mill per speech to the Chosen People on Wall Street, and parties for months at a time at exclusive resorts for billionaires only. Obviously, he’s got the world by the tail and you don’t. Hope he comes to the same end as Gaddaffi and Ceaușescu. Maybe the survivors of nuclear Armageddon can hold a double necktie party with Killary as the second honored guest that day.

  9. @jilles dykstra

    Discussions about left and progressive are meaningless without properly defining the concepts.

    Properly defining the concepts would impede the system’s ability to keep you confused.

  10. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home and bloody imperial wars overseas.

    You left out the other Roosevelt.

    Like a huge collective ‘Monica Lewinsky’ robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton’s vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act …

    Hilarious! 😀 😀 😀

    Ignoring Obama’s actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more!

    This is a huge myth. All that really happened is that the INS changed some of its internal terminology to make it sound as though they were deporting more people:

    • Replies: @Anonymous IV
  11. The Progressives now, failing electorally, are moving on to physical violence.


  12. annamaria says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    Obama, a paragon of American scoundrel

  13. @Seamus Padraig

    Agree on the bit about Obama as “deporter in chief.” Even the LA Times had to admit this was misleading

    … so it’s not just conservative conspiracy theory stuff as some might argue.

    Still, the overall point of this essay isn’t affected all that much. Open borders is still a “right wing” (in the sense this author uses the term) policy–pro-Wall Street, pro-Big Business. So Obama was still doing the bidding of the donor class in their quest for cheap labor.

    I’ve seen pro-immigration types try to use the Obama-deportation thing to argue that we don’t need more hardcore policies. After all, even the progressive Democrat Obama was on the ball when it came to policing our borders, right?! Who needed Trump?

  14. Agent76 says:

    “Who controls the issuance of money controls the government!” Nathan Meyer Rothschild

    June 13, 2016 Which Corporations Control The World?

    A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use?

    “Control the oil, and you control nations. Control the food, and you control the people.” Henry Kissenger

    • Replies: @Wally
  15. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The traitor kurds are US/Israel army, like ISIS, serving the mass murderes and criminal US/Israel geopolitical aims in the region. Thus, they should be treated, like ISIS, as TRAITORS. Traitors in every country in the world, including US, are EXECUTED. Please read the following article about these TRAITORS.

    “The PKK may embrace beautiful utopian goals of democratic confederalism but it is, at its heart, an organization dedicated to establishing Kurdish self-rule—and, as it turns out, not only on traditionally Kurdish territory, but on Arab territory, as well, making the parallel with Labour Zionism all the stronger. In both Syria and Iraq, Kurdish fighters have used the campaign against ISIS as an opportunity to extend Kurdistan into traditionally Arab territories in which Kurds have never been in the majority. ”

  16. Pancho says:

    Petras is wrong. “Progressives” have not changed, they have just shown their real regressive face. Progressivism has always been a manifestation of political hypocrisy. By the way, one of the main “progressive” hypocrites is Petras himself, an admirer of Fidel Castro, by far the most regressive totalitarian tyrant Latin America has suffered.

    • Replies: @annamaria
  17. vinteuil says:

    Is there anything more pathetic than an old school prog whining about new school progs – seemingly with no comprehension of how the one led to the other?

  18. Alfa158 says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    If Jimmy keeps up these attacks on Wall Street, the Banksters, and rent-seekers he is going to get run out of the Progressive movement for dog-whistling virulent Anti-Semitism. Look at how the media screams at Trump every time he mentions Wall Street and the banks.

    • Replies: @RobinG
  19. yeah says:

    Mr. Petra has penned an excellent and very astute piece. Allow me a little satire on our progressive friends, entitled “The path to hell is paved with good intentions”.

    The early socialist/progressive travellers were well-intentioned but naïve in their understanding of human nature and fanatical about their agenda. To move the human herd forward, they had no compulsions about resorting to harsher and harsher prodding and whipping. They felt entitled to employ these means because, so they were convinced, man has to be pushed to move forward and they, the “progressives”, were the best qualified to lead the herd. Scoundrels, psychopaths, moral defectives, and sundry other rascals then joined in the whipping game, some out of the sheer joy of wielding the whip, others to better line their pockets.

    So the “progressive” journey degenerates into a forced march. The march becomes the progress, becoming both the means and the end at the same time. Look at the so-called “progressive” today and you will see the fanatic and the whip-wielder, steadfast about the correctness of his beliefs. Tell him/her/it that you are a man or a woman and he retorts “No, you are free to choose, you are genderless”. What if you decline such freedom? “Well, then you are a bigot, we will thrash you out of your bigotry”, replies the progressive. “May I, dear Sir/Madam/Whatever, keep my hard-earned money in my pocket for my and my family’s use” you ask. “No, you first have to pay for our peace-making wars, then pay for the upkeep of refugees, besides which you owe a lot of back taxes that are necessary to run this wonderful Big Government of ours that is leading you towards greener and greener pastures”, shouts back the progressive.

    Fed up, disgusted, and a little scared, you desperately seek a way out of this progress. “No way”, scream the march leaders. “We will be forever in your ears, sometimes whispering, sometimes screaming; we will take over your brain to improve your mind; we will saturate you with images on the box 24/7 and employ all sorts of imagery to make you progress. And if it all fails, we will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables and forget about you at election time.”

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  20. joe webb says:

    Joe McCarthy was right about everything.

    Progressives are communists.

    It is that simple but what is not simple is how people deny biological reality.

    Joe Webb

  21. TheJester says:

    Knowing who is “progressive” and know who is “far-right” is like knowing who is “fascist” and who is not. For obvious historical reasons, the Russian like to throw the “fascist” slogan against anyone who is a non-Russian nationalist. However, I accept the eminent historian Carroll Quigley’s definition of fascism as the incorporation of society and the state onto single entity on a permanent war footing. The state controls everything in a radically authoritarian social structure. As Quigley states, the Soviet Union was the most complete embodiment of fascism in WWII. In WWII Germany, on the other hand, industry retained its independence and in WWII Italy fascism was no more than an empty slogan.

    Same for “progressives”. Everyone wants to be “progressive”, right? Who wants to be “anti-progressive”? However, at the end of the day, “progressive” through verbal slights of hand has been nothing more than a euphemism for “socialist” or, in the extreme, “communist” … the verbal slight-of-hand because we don’t tend to use the latter terms in American political discourse.

    “Progressives” morphing into a new “far-right” in America is no more mysterious than the Soviet Union morphing from Leninism to Stalinism … or, the Jewish (Trotskyite) globalists fleeing Stalinist nationalism and then morphing into, first, “Scoop” Jackson Democrats and then into Bushite Republicans.

    As you might notice, the real issue is the authoritarian vs. the non-authoritarian state. In this context, an authoritarian government and social order (as in communism and neoconservatism) are practical pre-requisites necessity to force humanity to transition to their New World Order.

    Again, the defining characteristic of fascism is the unitary state enforced via an authoritarian political and social structure. Ideological rigor is enforced via the police powers of the state along with judicial activism and political correctness. Ring a bell?

    In the ongoing contest between Trump and the remnants of the American “progressive” movement, who are the populists and who the authoritarians? Who are the democrats and who are the fascists?

    I would say that who lands where in this dichotomy is obvious.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
  22. RobinG says:

    Is Jimmy Dore really a “Progressive?” (and what does that mean, anyway?) Isn’t Jimmy’s show hosted by the Young Turks Network, which is unabashedly Libertarian?

    Anyway, what’s so great about “the Progressive movement?” Seems to me, they’re just pathetic sheepdogs for the war-crazed Dems. Jimmy should be supporting the #UNRIG movement (“Beyond Trump & Sanders”) for ALL Americans:

    On 1 May 2017 Cynthia McKinney, Ellen Brown, and Robert Steele launched

    We the People – Unity for Integrity.

    The User’s Guide to the 2nd American Revolution.

    Death to the Deep State.

  23. Wally says: • Website
    @The Alarmist

    “I’ll leave it to you to figure out where the Nazis fell in the spectrum, but aside from calling themselves Socialists, they also seemed to embrace a number of Big State social welfare programmes that smacked of what we today would characterise as “Progressive.””

    While attempting to be profound you have ignored that when you start with false premises, everything you subsequently extrapolate from those premises will likewise carry along the original error and thus exhibit error within themselves;
    aka: garbage in, garbage out.

    There were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    The ‘6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are laughable, scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

  24. Wally says:

    But oil is found, shipped, and sold by countless companies/ “corporations”.

    Hence the desire to get everyone to drive ‘electric cars’, where recharging means going through a highly controlled centralized source.

  25. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    A highly controlled, centralized source?

    You mean, like OPEC?

    • Replies: @Wally
  26. Petras, for some reason, low balls the number of people ejected from
    assets when the mafia came to seize real estate in the name of the ruling class and their expensive wars, morality, the Constitution or whatever shit they could make up to fuck huge numbers of people over. Undoubtedly just like 9/11, the whole thing was planned in advance. Political whores are clearly useless when the system is at such extremes.

    Banks like Capital One specialize in getting a signature and “giving” a car loan to someone they know won’t
    be able to pay, but is simply being used, shaken down and repossessed
    for corporate gain. ” No one held a gun to their head! ” Get ready, the police state will in fact put a gun to your head.

    Depending on the time period in question, which might be the case here, more than 20 million people were put out of homes and/or bankrupted with more to come. Clearly a bipartisan effort featuring widespread criminal conduct across the country – an attack on the population to sustain militarism.

  27. Wally says:

    You’re the typical uninformed, clueless redneck Zionist, always looking for an angle to assist “that shitty little country”, regardless of the truth.

    OPEC no longer controls the bulk of world’s supply of oil.

    The world’s awash in oil, and most suppliers are NOT in OPEC

    You’re ignorantly still in the 70s.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @annamaria
  28. peterAUS says:


    If I may add:
    “and you also have to dearly pay for you being white male heterosexual for oppressing all colored, all the women and all the sexually different through the history”.

    “And if it all fails, we will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables and forget about you at election time. If we see that you still don’t get with the program we will reeducate you. Should you resist that in any way we’ll incarcerate you. And, no, normal legal procedure does not work with racists/bigots/haters/whatever we don’t like”.

  29. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    OPEC sells 60% of the world’s oil. What Israel has to do with any of that is beyond me. I know age causes a tendency for the mind to wander but try to stay focused, ok?

    • Replies: @Wally
  30. annamaria says:

    Know your “friend:”
    “There had been some serious fighting after recent al-Qaeda attacks on Baath city near the Golan. During these the Israeli airforce had multiple times supported the al-Qaeda groups with attacks on the Syrian army.

  31. Wally says:

    Dumb hick Zionist.
    OPEC member countries produce about 40 percent of the world’s crude oil.

    Zionists like you will say anything to get the US worried about energy supply, which serves parasite ‘Israel’s’ interest.

    • Replies: @Anon
  32. @CCZ

    …take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee…

    …which itself was a progressive invention. There was no “right wing” anywhere in sight when it was estsblished in 1938.

  33. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    They produce 40% but sell 60%. In short, they dominate the market.

    Me? A hick? Dumb?


  34. annamaria says:

    The “progressive” Democrats are facing the wrecking ball of their own making:

    “Lawyers for Christopher Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence in the United Kingdom filed a response with the British court. This is like a statement under oath and it presents the following facts:
    1. Orbis Business Intelligence was engaged by Fusion GPS sometime in early June 2016 to prepare a series of confidential memorandum based on intelligence concerning Russian efforts to influence the U.S. Presidential election process and links between Russia and Donald Trump (the first memo was dated 20 June 2016).
    2. Fusion GPS is run by three former Wall Street Journal reporters: Glenn Simpson; Tom Catan; and Peter Fritsch.
    3. Senator John McCain, accompanied by David Kramer (a Senior Director at Senator McCain’s Institute for International Leadership), met in London with an Associate of Orbis, former British Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, to arrange a subsequent meeting with Christopher Steele in order to read the now infamous Steele Dossier.
    4. David Kramer and Christopher Steele met in Surrey on 28 November 2016, where Kramer was briefed on the contents of the memos.
    5. Once Senator McCain and David Kramer returned to the United States, arrangements were made for Fusion GPS to provide Senator McCain hard copies of the memoranda.
    6. After Donald Trump was elected, Christopher Steele prepared an additional memorandum (dated 13 December 2016) ….

    The role of Fusion GPS in this whole sordid affair needs to be thoroughly investigated. Circumstantial evidence opens them to charges of facilitating and enabling sedition. What they did appears to go beyond conventional opposition research and dirty tricks. Spreading a lie that Donald Trump and his team are Russian operatives crosses a line and, as we have witnessed over the last six months, roiled and disrupted the American political system.

    McCain is not the only one guilty here. The work of Fusion GPS was paid for by unnamed Democrats (and one unnamed Republican). And this is not the only instance of collusion with a foreign intelligence organization. Hillary Clinton and her campaign reportedly consorted with Ukrainian operatives:
    Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.”

    • Replies: @annamaria
  35. El Dato says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    [Barak] signed a \$65 million “book deal”, which can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless presidency to justify that sum.

    It will work if everyone is forced to buy at least one copy to wave it at popular public events.

    (Pick up that can!)

  36. annamaria says:

    Pancho, why such irritation against the honorable and courageous Petras? At least Mr. Petras does an extremely important job of defacing the war-mongering scoundrels – and he does this courageous job without a funny pseudonym.
    By the way, the progressives’ squealing is directly related to a displeasure of a certain puppeteering nation that wants a different geopolitical configuration in the Middle East than the Russians see it. This certain puppeteering nation is in debt to the US in many ways, including the blood of US servicemen:

  37. annamaria says:

    “Fusion GPS founder, and man behind ‘Trump dossier’ cancels testimony to Congress:”
    “Questions now arise as to why the man behind the Trump smear dossier (paid for by the DNC and HRC) is not going to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee, while Trump Jr. is now being called to testify before Congress for simply having a 20 minute meeting with a Russian lawyer with zero ties to the Kremlin?
    Perhaps a subpoena for Mr. Simpson is in order.”

  38. Thirdeye says:

    The street left turned against the working class at the end of the 1960s and the party progressives followed a few years later. They took the party’s working class base for granted while offering bribes to various identity groups at the expense of the party base. 1972 should have been a wake-up call. The Jimma Cahtuh neoliberals turned their backs on the party base while they were getting hammered economically and socially in the late 1970s. The estrangement between the party and its old base was complete during the 1980s, but the party doubled down on what caused that estrangement – elitism and interest group politics. If there’s any silver lining in the current situation it’s that those tendencies have become so overt that they can’t be hidden behind a politician’s skin or in their vagina.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Petras Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Becker update V1.3.2