Progressive conservatism

Z said I should do a blog about this and not having much else to blog about these days besides Oil and maybe Lindsay Lohan it's a good idea. It's a term I used the other day in the Rand Paul discussion and it really means things like if we've made some social progress, in this case regarding race, then by all means just accept it. Don't go back and reargue the whole 1964 Civil Rights Act, Barry Goldwater is not the guiding force of the movement anymore. Progressive conservatism is meant to directly take on what I consider the drawbacks of libertarianism or rather extreme libertarianism. Some drawbacks of extreme libertarianism in my view:

(1) Free association means if you're a private establishment you have the right to discriminate against blacks (or anyone of your choosing). It's retro and backwards and definitely out-of-the-mainstream. It's an interesting intellectual point but ultimately folds in on itself. Libertarians are not big on civil rights, the rest of us got with the program a long time ago and have moved on. They're in a timewarp.
(2) The War on Drugs is somehow invalid in libertarian thought. No it's not and it's kind of murky if libertarians actually support drug use as a harmless recreational activity or simply it's legalization. The War on Drugs seems to conjure up alot of passion on their part but explain WHY it's invalid. The root of the anger at government over this is also interesting, is it as simple as you want to drop some acid? Not sure why the National Review has become a leader in this vanguard, maybe Wm. F. Buckley Jr. toked towards the end. Rich Lowry is usually more sensible than this.
(3) Pro-Life. Libertarians hate social conservatives and their concerns. This is why Barry Goldwater became testy in his old age towards the Right. They got no problem with starving the cognitively disabled to death as long as they're able to order Chinese and a pizza while they're visiting their aging uncle who is now on the ultimate diet and a burden on the family treasury. On the unborn they really really hate you and get all fidgety. They've no use for Pro-Life as there's no $$$$$$ involved, the only thing they seem to care about. They tend to be secular (tend?).

Those are just three items plucked at random. Even though they're not racists themselves their intellectual framework would allow racist practices to flourish. They have no problem with narcotizing the masses even if you have some LSD and PCP mind-bending mofos walking around. If you somehow make it past the birth process they'll deny you food and water in your old age or disabled state or allow others to do so (BUTT OUT!!!). Most of us here are libertarian to a point but our libertarianism is moderated and allows for other social and moral concerns. It's a blend as any successful recipe has to be, theirs is one ingredient. LIBERTY AT ALL COSTS has never really caught on though and despite the wide variety of political beliefs in this country theirs is as minority status as you can get though they somehow feel their influence is so important it should be more dominant within the party.

Progressive conservatism - Accepting racial progress, drugs are bad for society and it's better to have a pro-life culture to name but a few. Progressive conservatism, if the enemy does something good give him credit but as of this date the only good thing I can come up with (seriously) is when Obama gave the go-ahead to have those Navy snipers shoot the Somali pirates and that's going backaways. We can throw in progressive conservatism is by no means hawkish but not pacifist in nature either. We don't need anymore cowboy diplomacy but we don't need a president apologizing to our enemies either. Progessive conservatism is forward-looking and hopeful and it's a theme I'll have more to say on in the future.