Defining "Progress"

The name of this site, naturally, is "ProgressiveU," the implication being that it is a website primarily geared towards those who would be considered, or would consider themselves, "progressives." Being new here as I am, I'm not quite sure if that is the intended implication or not, but regardless of whether or not that is in fact the case, it gives rise to what I would consider to be a good question, one more than relevant for this website: How does one define "progress?"

Many would define that as entering into a new age of government intervention and societal reformation. By that I mean such things as universal healthcare, increases in taxation, legalization of abortion in virtually any circumstances, legalization of drugs, more government regulation of business, the expansion of government to provide more services to the people, what have you. The expansion of government and massive social changes, therefore, define what is "progress."

I would define "progress," however, in a different way; that is, in terms of slimming down the size and scope of government, decreasing government regulations on businesses and the individual, opening up to more personal freedom (though not at the expense of the elimination of a moral fabric), and dealing with the problems at hand in an effective manner which surrounds massive government reforms and limitations. By government reforms I don't mean more ethics reforms in the form of such things as campaign finance or the like. Rather, these reforms should surround the streamlining of government and efforts to make it more efficient; that means less wasteful spending, the eradication of useless federal programs, the dismantling of departments and agencies that can be done away with.

I would like to see "progress" in returning power to the marketplace and allowing the individual consumer more choice and businesses the freedom to carry out their work more effectively with that lessening of government regulation. "Progress" needs to happen on such issues as healthcare - and I don't mean through the expansion of government control, but through the exact opposite - illegal immigration, education, and entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.

One might say that my definition of progress is "backwards" thinking, that I am a "reactionary" who wants to return to the days of the robber barons and abuse of the worker. I would, however, disagree with that assertion. Yes, conservatives like myself do look back to the days of smaller government with a strong sense of appreciation and some sense of longing, yet that does not mean that we are necessarily looking to return to the 1800s. Rather, we look towards the founding principles of this nation and a vision of restoring those principles to a new age of technological advancement and bigger government, the latter of which is a fact that we are forced to accept.

Progress, to us, is utilizing technology to make government more efficient and towards, yes, returning the country to an age of smaller government, yet doing so mindful of the government regulations upon which few disagree in terms of their significance and the intrinsic nature of things that can neither be eliminated over night nor changed to such an extent.

For instance, Ronald Reagan, fearful of an ever-expanding federal domination of education, sought to eliminate the Department of Education when it was in its infancy. He failed, however, and the DE began to grow substantially, culminating under President Bush with the No Child Left Behind Act. True conservatives such as myself would like to see the complete termination of the Department, yet most of us recognize that it has become so ingrained into our system that to eliminate it would be virtually impossible and perhaps harmful to the system. That is why, for instance, I advocate the substantial decrease in the power and authority of the DE so as to enable it to do little more than establish the most basic of standards and provide monetary support to the states (and students in the form of grants for education), thereby maintaining the fundamental fabric of our current education system while returning primary control to those who know the students best - the states, the school boards, and the parents, not bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. These states should then implement their own reforms, I believe instituting a wide-ranging voucher system similar to the one used in Belgium where the money is attached to the students and competition is spurred amongst the schools (a subject I will address in a future post).

When it comes to healthcare, another subject I will speak of later on, the fact of the matter is that the real reason healthcare costs are so high is because of the many government regulations which clog up the system and cause businesses to have to raise their costs in order to pay for the increased mandates placed upon them. It is also because of the third-party system we have in place as the result of government policies and regulations, essentially placing us into a situation where individuals work through a middleman in order to receive their services, and because of the inequality in the tax laws as they relate to health insurance for employers who provide it and those who have to purchase it on their own. Progress, therefore, is substantially decreasing the regulations placed upon businesses, ending the third-party system, and equalizing the tax laws so that everyone can receive health insurance coverage on an equal playing field, all while maintaining the most essential elements of government in the system, meaning the retention of the most critical regulations in the industry.

I could go on and on with further examples, but the central premise I'm getting at is that my idea of progress, which is espoused by many, is the opening up of markets, shrinking down of government, increasing individual choice and freedom and responsibility, lessening government regulations and returning power to the states, using technology to make government more efficient, cracking down on wasteful spending, and reforming taxes to make them fairer and flatter, all while maintaining (but reforming) such things as Medicare and some healthcare regulations, among others.

Is it very much a reactionary approach and attempts at returning to the days of smaller government? You could say that, but again, the conservative philosophy is one based upon the founding principles of this nation and a simultaneous understanding of the way the world works, what is possible and what isn't possible, if given the political will, of course. Bigger government isn't progress; smaller government is.

Such is my position, however, and you may stand in disagreement with it, which is why I ask you, what do you define as "progress?" Is it more government regulations and programs, or fewer? More federal control, or more power to the states? More individual freedom, or less? Should we streamline government like a business would, or should we not? Do you believe that increased government control in healthcare is progress, or that decreased government involvement in the industry is progress?

Certainly there is no right or wrong answer, and I'm looking forward to reading and responding to what the rest of you had to think on what the definition of "progress" is!

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •    •