The American Dream

[fewwillfindit]

Today, I heard a political commentator say that Martin Luther King Jr's vision of the American dream was, "the same opportunity for all," and contrasted that with the modern progressive vision of, "the same outcome for all."

Questions for debate:

1. Is this an accurate representation of progressive philosophy?
2. Which is best for America?
3. Does the Bible promote or endorse either of these visions?

[LiamOS]

Is this an accurate representation of progressive philosophy?

I think so. A mundane, predictable life is what we're conditioned and educated for in Ireland, and from my limited knowledge, America seems far worse.

Which is best for America?

Obviously a workforce of robotic, unquestioning drones is best for America as an entity.
What is best for people is arguable, as appropriate conditioning renders situations we regard as unfortunate desirable.

[Slopeshoulder]

Today, I heard a political commentator say that Martin Luther King Jr's vision of the American dream was, "the same opportunity for all," and that the modern progressive vision is, "the same outcome for all."

Questions for debate:

1. Is this an accurate representation of progressive philosophy?
2. Which is best for America?
3. Does the Bible promote or endorse either of these visions?

The opportunity vs. outcome distinction is well known, and usually applied by the center and right to criticize the left. I can't vouch for what else your commentator might have said, but these two quotes I think are pretty accurate on the surface. Although it gets a little more complicated when the issue of negative vs. positive rights, which I think is the stronger issue, gets introduced.

I'm not a MLK expert, but I gather he was about equal opportunity as a threshold, but was also in favor of some positive rights and outcomes that were just and fair if not specifically equalized. I'm pretty sure that's accurate.

So the commentator is oversimplifying a bit and perhaps trying to coopt MLK into an anti-progressive agenda.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the bible. My net impression is that both versions can be and have been well supported, with an argument favoring outcomes. Jesus was more of a socialist than a laissez faire capitalist.

[FrostyM288]

1. I say that this isn't an accurate representation of progressive philosophy. I consider myself a liberal, and though I can't speak for everyone, this is my mindset:

I'm fortunate enough to be born into such and such situation and live a comfortable lifestyle. If I hadn't been this fortunate and had to be raised in the inner city having to deal with gangs and failing schools, or if I had been born gay, I would want the government to ensure I had a passable lifestyle despite my birth/where life has led me. So, I would translate this into..."same opportunity for all and no outcome worse than X" assuming no one attempts to abuse those safeguards. Obviously where "X" lies is up for debate, but this is my general thinking.

2. Depends on what you define as best... We've had our best GDP in recent years, but obviously unemployment is down, average income (disregarding top 2%) hasn't move in years, etc... So I would obviously not deem this good. Personally, I feel a good indication of how a country is doing is the prosperity of the "middle class". Thus, having a high enough "worst case scenario" so that those that are doing poorly can work their way up to middle class is good for America in my opinion.

3. I will pass since my knowledge if the bible is relatively sparse. Though...gov't should definitely not base decisions on what the bible says is good (just because of the bible says it's good). Doubt this was the point of the question though.

[WinePusher]

Today, I heard a political commentator say that Martin Luther King Jr's vision of the American dream was, "the same opportunity for all," and contrasted that with the modern progressive vision of, "the same outcome for all."

Questions for debate:

1. 1 Is this an accurate representation of progressive philosophy?
2. 2 Which is best for America?
3. 3 Does the Bible promote or endorse either of these visions?

1) Yes, it is the foundational cornerstone of progressivism. Progressive policies, one after the other, fall nicely in line with the"equal outcome" mentality, whether it be Affirmative Action or the Welfare State or the idolization of government and the belief that the state can fix all our problems.

2) If the same oppurtunities are not available to both Jack and John, then the government has a role to remedy this problem. If both Jack and John are presented with the same oppurtunities but Jack is to lazy to make use of of these oppurtunities while John does and becomes successful, tough luck for Jack. The government has no right to punish John's success and reward Jack's laziness. The best thing that could happen to America is a revival of the diligence and hard work ethics that dominated the early decades of this country along with the adherence to the philosophy of the Framers. America has been and always will be the land of opportunity and a place where the average citizen can rise to success independently of government interference.

3) No, the Bible nor the message of Jesus can be or should be simplified into terms of "equal outcome" or "equal opportunity." Christianity has become a propaganda tool used by politicians to garner support for their agenda and this trend should be condemned by the Christian community. For example, if we were to trace the philosophy of Social Justice back to Jesus we would see that he unequivocally commands us to care for the least of our brethren and condemns greed and selfish, yet liberals come along and declare Jesus was a socialist and would have supported 21st century socialist programs. It doesn't get much better than that, and Christians should vehemently resist the politicalization of their Lord and Savior. Aside from that, socialism strips human beings of their God-Given gift of Free Will and coerces people to be compassionate which is clearly antithetical to what Jesus taught. Aquinas submits that humans have, imbued within them, a natural law and drive to distinguish and do what is right however there also exists the capacity for humans to reject this. I cannot honestly say that it is moral for a person to give a portion of their income to the poor due to the fear and coercion of penalities, it's a morally bankrupt action.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 5:

Is this an accurate representation of progressive philosophy?

1) Yes, it is the foundational cornerstone of progressivism. Progressive policies, one after the other, fall nicely in line with the"equal outcome" mentality, whether it be Affirmative Action or the Welfare State or the idolization of government and the belief that the state can fix all our problems.

I'd contend those who hold vast amounts of wealth tend towards more equal "outcomes". There is simply no comparing "equal outcomes" to the advantage of wealth and the social / political connections thereof.

Which is best for America?

If the same oppurtunities are not available to both Jack and John, then the government has a role to remedy this problem. If both Jack and John are presented with the same oppurtunities but Jack is to lazy to make use of of these oppurtunities while John does and becomes successful, tough luck for Jack...

Fair 'nuff.

The government has no right to punish John's success and reward Jack's laziness...

Yet we see in Michigan the Governor is attempting to "punish" Union "success". I contend those who reap the most rewards from America's "greatness" should pay the most.

The best thing that could happen to America is a revival of the diligence and hard work ethics that dominated the early decades of this country along with the adherence to the philosophy of the Framers.

Indeed, the "Framers" did 'preciate the diligence and hard work of their slaves.

America has been and always will be the land of opportunity and a place where the average citizen can rise to success independently of government interference.

As mentioned, political and other benefits await the wealthy, and those born into wealth, at a disproportionate rate to their numbers.

Does the Bible promote or endorse either of these visions?

No, the Bible nor the message of Jesus can be or should be simplified into terms of "equal outcome" or "equal opportunity." Christianity has become a propaganda tool used by politicians to garner support for their agenda and this trend should be condemned by the Christian community...

I would contend the more fundamentalist conservative types are as guilty as any group.

For example, if we were to trace the philosophy of Social Justice back to Jesus we would see that he unequivocally commands us to care for the least of our brethren and condemns greed and selfish, yet liberals come along and declare Jesus was a socialist and would have supported 21st century socialist programs...

I'm not too up on the teachings of Jesus, but that whole "help others" deal sure seems socialish to me.

It doesn't get much better than that, and Christians should vehemently resist the politicalization of their Lord and Savior. Aside from that, socialism strips human beings of their God-Given gift of Free Will and coerces people to be compassionate which is clearly antithetical to what Jesus taught...

I find it funny that one would rail against coercion, while belonging to a group whose holy text does just that.

Aquinas submits that humans have, imbued within them, a natural law and drive to distinguish and do what is right however there also exists the capacity for humans to reject this. I cannot honestly say that it is moral for a person to give a portion of their income to the poor due to the fear and coercion of penalities, it's a morally bankrupt action.

I can dig that. The only problem being that taxes are ultimately a form of coercion.

[Kuan]

EDIT: I forgot to mention the bible. My net impression is that both versions can be and have been well supported, with an argument favoring outcomes. Jesus was more of a socialist than a laissez faire capitalist.

I dont think the concept of laissez faire capitalist nor socialism were known during the time of Jesus. To claim that he was one or the other is foolish, he might have had ideas similar to some aspects of each though.

[Slopeshoulder]

EDIT: I forgot to mention the bible. My net impression is that both versions can be and have been well supported, with an argument favoring outcomes. Jesus was more of a socialist than a laissez faire capitalist.

I dont think the concept of laissez faire capitalist nor socialism were known during the time of Jesus. To claim that he was one or the other is foolish, he might have had ideas similar to some aspects of each though.

I didn't claim is was either. I'm simply saying that he is well known as a share the wealth, care for the poor kinda guy. He didn't seem very interested in wealth creation.

[fewwillfindit]

For the record, I did not write the quote that is attributed to me in the last two posts that begins with EDIT:. Mormon Boy didn't use the quote code correctly and Slopeshoulder inadvertently copied the error.

[Slopeshoulder]

For the record, I did not write the quote that is attributed to me in the last two posts that begins with EDIT:. Mormon Boy didn't use the quote code correctly and Slopeshoulder inadvertently copied the error.

sorry for the error.