I have to wonder at the motivations of those who write to the Eagle under the pretense of protecting the public from "progress." Most recently, a Mr. Lee from Dalton, in his interpretation of the history of this country ("Robbed, enslaved by progressivism," letter, March 18), equated a "progressive" political agenda with "enslav[ing]" people like him.
While I am no liberal (nor conservative -- I do have a soul), I can't help noticing that those who rail the loudest against economic and political agendas that tilt even slightly from the right to the center seem to have no understanding, whether fundamental or complex, of the realities of their own situations. In light of this ignorance, it is important to note that without "progressivism," this country would not have rights afforded to anyone who is not a Protestant, white, straight, male rich guy who owns property.
I join Mr. Lee in hoping for a better world in which liberalism is not the hope of the masses. We differ in many ways. One point of difference is that Mr. Lee and his ilk believe that "social justice" is a facet of governmental intervention in the lives of the citizenry as opposed to a value we should all aspire to help to make an integral part of our policy.
Another point of difference is that Mr. Lee somehow believes that the astronomical debt this country has accumulated in massaging the wealth of the richest among us, and fighting their wars, is a consideration that the people of this country need to worry about. The solution to this problem is simple. Tax the rich at 90 percent. But I digress.
Mr. Lee's understanding of history, politics, economics, and reality is typical of those who wish to roll back progress and the inevitable march of freedom. While he is correct that "liberalism" has no place in this equation, he should maybe look up the actual meaning of word.