The 'Progressives' Are Really 'Oppressives'
- From: jose el fontanero <josefsoplar@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:29:37 -0800 (PST)
The 'Progressives' Are Really 'Oppressives'
By Ryan Scott Welch
Carl Von Clausewitz, who wrote the seminal work On War, noted that
"[w]ar is a mere continuation of politics by other means." If politics
and warfare are a continuum, then military strategy should apply in
politics and in the contest of political ideas.
As a military officer, I study tactics as a part of my professional
development. One key military tactic is to never let the enemy dictate
the terms of the engagement. Sun Tzu, the famous Chinese military
strategist and philosopher who wrote The Art of War, said, "The clever
combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the
enemy's will to be imposed on him." In other words, never give the
enemy any advantage; therefore, never fight where, when, or how the
enemy wants you to fight. If you let the enemy set the terms of the
engagement, then you have already lost half the battle.
For example, during the Texas Revolutionary War with Mexico, Col.
Travis, Davy Crockett, James Bowie, and around 180 other volunteers
decided to defend the Alamo, mostly because of the many cannons that
were stored there. But General Sam Houston did not want the Alamo
defended because it was poorly situated and because that type of
warfare played to the strengths of General Santa Anna's vastly larger
army of around 2,400 soldiers. But Col. Travis and the others decided
to defend the Alamo regardless of General Houston's orders...and we
all know what happened. Although the defenders of the Alamo fought
valiantly and inflicted casualties on a three-to-one ratio, the
outcome was a forgone conclusion before the first shot was even fired.
The defenders of the Alamo were overrun, and everyone inside was
killed on March 6, 1836 because they made the tactical error of
letting the enemy fight the kind of battle they were most suited to
fight.
Conversely General Houston was committed to "never let the enemy
impose his will on him." So he never engaged Santa Anna, even to the
point of being called a coward and worse, until he could find a
situation which would give him an advantage. General Houston knew that
he could not afford to lose even one more battle, so he was forced to
run from Santa Anna until that fateful day on April 21, 1836, when he
and his army were (literally) able to catch Santa Anna and his troops
napping (they were taking a siesta because they had been traveling
hard, they were tired, and they thought that Sam Houston was a coward
and would not fight). With the tactical advantage of complete
surprise and the Mexican Army asleep in their tents, Houston's Army
was able to kill or capture all of Santa Anna's army, numbering more
than 1,360, with only nine of his own soldiers killed in what is now
known as the Battle of San Jacinto. General Houston also captured
General Santa Anna, which effectively ended the war. Sam Houston was
victorious because he did not let the enemy determine the terms of the
battle.
In the battle of ideas, progressives, with the aid of their academic
and media allies, have defined many of the terms and words that will
be used. They are able to "impose their will" by defining the terms of
the debate. That forces conservatives into an untenable position from
which they usually cannot win, because they have given the verbal
"high ground" to the progressives by using their terminology. A
progressive will always think that his position is superior by
definition (literally), and he will be right.
With that tactic in mind, you should not let an opponent define the
very words used in the political contest, because the words used in
the battle of ideas are analogous to the strategic high ground. He who
has the high ground has the advantage. Take the word "progressive,"
for example. The very word is positive. Who can possibly be against
progress, and how can stagnation or regression be better than
progress? While many of us know that Progressivism has led to some of
the most brutal, violent, oppressive regimes in the modern world,
those who apply the term to themselves obviously do not see it in a
negative way. Conservatives who still use that term in what they think
is a derisive, negative, or insulting manner will watch their statist/
progressive opponents laugh at them as they fall into the
progressives' trap.
The correct term should be "oppressive," not "progressive," because
statist/progressive/totalitarian governments have to oppress
individual freedom in order to force people to conform to the will of
the state, which invariably just ends up in one form or another of
enslavement, from confiscation and "redistribution" of earnings all
the way up to gulags and show trials.
So tactically speaking, never give your enemy the choice of the field
of battle by letting them impose their "verbal will."
Never adopt your opponent's use of the word "choice." Instead, use the
word "abortion" -- or better yet, "no choice." Certainly the unborn
gets no choice. Never let them use "fairness," as in "fairness
doctrine"; instead, use the word "unfairness." Never let them use the
term "social justice"; instead, use the term "social control." Never
let them use "working poor" because that assumes that only poor people
work. Never let them use "climate change"; instead, say "climate
hoax." Never let them use the term "health care reform," and instead
say "health care takeover." Think about every word used, and if any
term is tactically advantageous to the progressive cause, then refuse
to use it. Always correct them, every single time -- otherwise, you
cannot win this war of ideas. And never, ever let them call themselves
"progressives" when in reality they are "oppressives."
.
- Prev by Date: In the Wilsonian Tradition
- Next by Date: Emperor Obama and the Kamikaze House Democrats
- Previous by thread: In the Wilsonian Tradition
- Next by thread: Emperor Obama and the Kamikaze House Democrats
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
