Skip to main content

Why it's sometimes frustrating being a progressive

Studies have often times shown that conservatives, especially those whom practice organized religion (mostly Christianity), are more content than liberals/progressives, especially those whom don't practice any organized religion. I think while believing in a rewarding paradise in the afterlife does make a difference to many people and allows them to be more regularly content than those whom don't, I think the main factor in this trend is at the root of the terms "conservative" and "progressive." Conservatives tend to like things to stay the way they are, so they're just as likely to vote for their candidates if little change is implemented during their terms as they would if a great deal of change was implemented. Progressives, on the other hand, typically want the nation to "progress," to move forward, for a great deal of change to occur. Often times, if several of the "promised" changes don't occur, this places a damper on their motivation to go out and vote on election day.

This is frustrating on multiple fronts. First off, like many other progressives, I'm often times frustrated by the very slow, gradual pace to some of these wanted changes. However, it may be even more frustrating to see so many progressives give up when these changes don't go into effect as quickly as they'd like, and we wind up having elections as we did on Tuesday.

With politics the way it is today, with the Citizen's United ruling, the Koch Brothers trying to take over the country (if they haven't already), talk radio being the way it is, and the older generation still hanging around being paranoid, it'd be virtually impossible to elect an extremely liberal president, such as Bernie Sanders or even Elizabeth Warren. While I'd personally love to see one of them run for the Oval Office and would vote for them in a heartbeat, I'm also trying to be realistic in knowing that's not going to happen for at least a few years. With each and every generation becoming more diverse, more accepting of the LGBT community, etc., it will become increasingly likely that we'll one day have an extremely progressive country, but unfortunately, we're not there yet. So, we have to make the best hand with the cards we're dealt and with the reality that is this country right here and now.

President Obama hasn't been as progressive as I'd like to see. I personally see him as a center-left president. However, think of our alternative. I also see Hillary Clinton as center-left, but again, come 2016, think of our alternative. The same goes for these midterm elections. So many progressives sat at home, unmotivated to vote, because Democrats in government hadn't followed through with all of their promised changes. But, once again, look at the alternatives. We may not be thrilled with Democrats in Congress or even with the president himself, but in these past six years, we've: Implemented healthcare reform, removed troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, created millions of jobs, decreased unemployment, increased solar and wind energy, seen positive changes with regard to LGBT rights, and have even started seeing some changes on the medical (even recreational) marijuana front as well. We may not have closed Guantanamo, may have started meddling in some affairs in the Middle East again, and may not have fought as hard for illegal immigration reform as we would have liked, but once again, many positive changes have occurred, and look at our alternative.

As progressives, we may be disappointed with our representatives in not implementing the changes we want as quickly as we'd like, however, if we sit on the sidelines during election day, we're going to see those gradual progressions come to a standstill. We can blame our politicians all we'd like for not quickly fulfilling their promises, but if we don't vote on election day, we only have ourselves to blame for those gradual progressions coming to a complete halt. Shame on us!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"