While classical liberals have always relied on charity to help the less fortunate (but not the indigent), 'progressives' want to rely on government for that function. While neither mechanism is perfect, government has been tried for the past 100 years, and all we have to show for it is more poverty and more debt. That is because government cannot produce wealth, and when it tries to redistribute wealth, that merely discourages productivity and encourages dependency.
So why has 'progressivism' continued to flourish, while classical liberalism continues to decline? Is it because people don't really want to be free? Is it because people are fundamentally lazy? Is it because people don't like the prosperity that comes with freedom? I think not. So what then?
Well, I think we have been going about discrediting 'progressivism' all wrong. We've been using facts and logic. Facts and logic don't work on 'progressives', because 'progressivism' is a faith-based dogma. It's like a religion. Nowhere is this more evident than with anthropogenic
The man-made climate change hypothesis has so many discrepancies, loose ends, untestable truth-claims and outright fraud that it is just begging for some critical analysis.
Sympathetic peer review and "consensus" is not experiment. Without rigorous experimental confirmation, the climate change hypothesis is simply a matter of faith -- another religion. If it was properly called religion instead of science, the fact that it should have no role in public policy would be a no-brainer.
When the watermelons call us deniers instead of skeptics, I want to yell, "Don't you mean heretic? This isn't the Holy Roman Empire! I'm sorry about the rest of the world, but here in the United States, we have something called 'The First Amendment'. We don't have to subscribe to your religion!"
The fact is, classical liberals need to find out if anyone has ever discredited a religion before. If so, then we need to use that tactic. If there is no tactic, we need to invent one. The 'progressives' found a tactic that works well against us, namely Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. There are some books that claim to use Alinsky's rules against 'progressives' without compromising our principles, and maybe that will work.
However, I don't think a derivative approach is necessarily the best approach. I would like to come up with something purpose-built for defeating faith-based systems. So I started looking for articles on the web that claim to discredit established religions. I found one, but this argument fails against Christians, because it makes a fundamental error as to why Christians believe in God. Now don't get me wrong, many Christians and scientists have this wrong also (as I explain here), but this guy doesn't get it right.
So I don't have any good ideas yet, but let's all start thinking. Just remember that the same tactics that work against 'progressives' may also work on Christians and Jews. I don't want to hurt them, so we need to give them a heads-up. These are dangerous times.
*Classical liberals are people who believe in liberty, as opposed to those people who call themselves liberals, but who are really illiberal control freaks, A.K.A., 'progressives'. I'm reclaiming the word, "liberal".