Bart Hinkle makes some interesting observations in the Richmond Times‐Dispatch about the unfortunate similarities between neoconservatives and progressives. Progressives, he says (and of course they’re not really for progress, so they might better be called left‐liberals), spent the Bush years criticizing “bullying,” “heavy‐handed meddling,” and even “neoconservative theories of social engineering.” They preferred “soft power.”
Yet turn the subject to domestic policy, and what happens? Progressives eagerly embrace the use of coercive hard power to achieve their aims. Force industry to adopt a cumbersome cap‐and‐trade policy to reduce carbon emissions? Check. Force the country to adopt a health care “public option”? Check. Threaten people with fines and even prison to impose an individual mandate? Check.
So much for the concern about “social engineering” and well‐intentioned but “heavy‐handed meddling.” When it comes to domestic policy, progressives are just as eager as neocons are to embrace “expansive dreams” and “gargantuan plans.” Just as hopelessly romantic about what the threat of force can achieve. And just as arrogant about the rightness of wielding it.
After some more critical analysis of the inconsistency of the left, Hinkle concludes:
Of course, everything that has just been said about progressives could be turned with equal validity against conservatives of the talk‐radio right — many of whom think Americans should push the rest of the world around, but leave one another the heck alone.
If only there were an alternative to heavy‐handed liberals and heavy‐handed conservatives…