The myth of social progessivism

Social progressivism.  This is a concept many associate with as citizens and politicians organized for change.

A lot of people think this is a good thing.  "Who doesn't want bad situations to improve?" Is what they would ask us.

However, what social progressives do not talk about is how said change will occur.  We want to know who is deciding what must be changed and how.

Social progressivism in America is another name for socialism.  The modern progressive movement, historically ushered in by Teddy Roosevelt is an advocate of change enacted by government and determined by a few over the many.

In other countries with historical backgrounds of monarchies, dictatators, and communism, progressivism seems fine because they have little regard for individualism.  The individual exists to serve society.  Thus conformity with social "change" is not just expected, but demanded.

However, in America, ours is not a society of the many over the one.  Ours is a society where the one is not only protected, but empowered.

Our Constitution is written to guarantee that an individual's and a minorities rights cannot be easily voted away by a majority.

This is because our founding is predicated on the idea that we are a group of individuals engaged in voluntary association, each having natural rights that cannot be regulated, imposed or removed by other people.

Here, society exists because individuals agree to collaborate and be a society.  The individual does not exist at the whim or service of society.

Here, the individual has value because of our natural rights.  Society does not determine the value of the individual.

For social progressives, this means the change they want, no matter how well intentioned, cannot simply be imposed.

This is the main reason social progressives want to see the American Constitution as a fluid document rather than the bedrock that it is.

The more people understand that the Constitution is not easily editable and is indeed not meant to be changed simply for the sake of change, then the less influence these progressives will have on public policy and society in general.