home > archive > 2001 > this article

Dear Dr. Progressive

web posted July 9, 2001

Confused and liberal? Send your questions to the good doctor at jglazov@home.com

Dear Dr. Progressive,

After intense personal reflection on my political beliefs, brought on by this strange (if not disturbing) posting, I have regained my composure and can now lucidly explain why I am what could be classified as 'progressive' or 'radical.'

My first thought is on the environment -- no, wait, let's clear something up: I am not a Democrat. I am appalled by the corruption in every established political party. Politicians are unquestionably influenced by the big money and most government actions can be traced to campaign contributions. When people complain about the "bias liberal media" I feel like laughing at them. Every news network is owned by a huge corporation that would never endanger its own interests. Many liberal ideas conflict with the actions of these imaginary citizens (a.k.a. corporations); they are not liberal no matter what Ted Turner has been quoted as saying. At least conservatives have some media to look to; liberals are now few and far between. Don't get too excited about that. The majority may rule, but its not always right.

As my father told me many times, "If the majority were always right, we would still be living in caves." You, as a proponent of increased standard of living (I boldly presume), cannot easily debate this point. All that said, I will move on.

(From this point on, the word, media*, should be read as "the conservative media." "Conservative" generally means "consisting of Democrats and Republicans")

Conservatives everywhere in the media* talk about compromising between energy needs and the environment, compromising between economic issues and the environment, compromising between property rights and the environment. Somehow it seems that the social priorities of the 19th century have still not been updated. A growing segment of the workforce calling themselves "scientists" (sy-un-tists), though, says that the Earth is very sensitive to foreign interference, especially in the air. Since they cannot predict the consequences, the logical conclusion would be to stop meddling with what we don't understand. This is why I am perplexed by comparisons of the environment to energy production, the economy, property rights, or any other misplaced priority. I put my home before anything else.

I'm aware of the conservative aversion to globalization whether for religious or foreign-phobic reasons. Strangely, I agree -- for human rights reasons. Multinational corporations move into a host country and take control of the economy, and as the biggest source of tax revenue they essentially own the government. Not surprisingly the business takes over local employment and chooses to pay miniscule wages to workers in poverty and sometimes younger than 18. Not to mention the fact that American jobs are being replaced. (Of course the media* never mentions any of this when protests like those in Seattle and Quebec City occur)

That is about as much as I feel like writing for now. If you choose to respond, please feel free to bring up other issues. I'd like to rebut them.


Dr. Reactionary
in Houston

Dear Dr. Reactionary,

Ok, I think that you are confusing me for someone else. I am Dr. Progressive, and I give advice to angst-ridden Leftists who want to be good Leftists. So you appear to be on the far right and you are worried about globalization because you see it as creating a certain "New World Order" where individual freedom and democracy might be negated. Well, I don't know what to say. There are some dangers, yes, but I think you are slightly paranoid and also do not appreciate the benefits of globalization. You offer no alternatives. What do you suggest? What do my readers think of globalization and its costs and benefits?

Other related articles: (open in a new window)

Current Issue

Archive Main | 2001

E-mail ESR




1996-2019, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.