In a window into the weird and wonderful workings of the progressive mind, Chuck Schumer hurls a thunderbolt at the conservatives. They actually (gasp!) want to take us back to the 19th century. Actually, most conservatives would happily settle for the 1950s, but 19th century morality with 21st century prosperity works too.
He says in an interview on Good Morning America as reported in the
Daily Caller:
On “Good Morning America” Monday, host George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. Charles Schumer how well he thought Barack Obama is working with Congress and what advice he’d give the president.
Schumer advised Obama against dealing with the “hard right,” arguing conservative Republicans aim to set the nation back centuries.
“My advice to the president is compromise when you can, but when people are being unreasonable, and we have hard right people who seem to be wanting to move us back to the 19th century, draw some lines in the sand and fight,”
Note: only members of the "hard left" call conservatives the "hard right." But hey, Chuck, we'll take the 19th century. To you that just means reversing the sexual revolution and getting rid of Marxism and that works for us.
Anything to get free of the mind-numbing, debauchery (both physical and intellectual) that scarred the 1960s and 70s. The cultural Marxism of the New Left and the ever-expanding welfare state would be gone. No more political correctness, second wave Feminism, mainstream porn, no-fault divorce, normalized homosexuality, leftist sex education in schools or crumbling inner cities devastated by welfare. No Holocaust, no Hiroshima, no Soviet Union, no Mao, no eugenics, no abortion on demand, no euthanasia - I'll take it any day.
You will have come up with a better doomsday scenario than that if you want to scare me, Chuck old boy.
1 comment:
I hate the label "progressive." Every time I hear it, I want to ask "Progressing toward what?" Those who call themselves progressive imply that their vision of the future is superior and that they will inevitably win. Neither implication should be conceded uncritically.
Post a Comment