http://www.progressive.org/wx041210.html

So the bamks gave the less well off a loan for a house, they are assholes.

10 years ago... the banks will not give the less well off loans for houses, they are assholes.

Do you see the trend?

Richard Hofstadter in the 1960's didn't mention progressives because they were then called something else.

This from wikipedia seems about right...

"
The Conservative

Consequent to the radical politics of the 1960s, and especially because of the student occupation and temporary closing of Columbia University in 1968, Hofstadter became more conservative; friend David Herbert Donald said: “He was appalled by the growing radical, even revolutionary, sentiment that he sensed among his colleagues and his students. He could never share their simplistic, moralistic approach”.[16] Moreover, he was “extremely critical of student tactics, believing that they were based on irrational romantic ideas, rather than sensible plans for achievable change, that they undermined the unique status of the university, as an institutional bastion of free thought, and that they were bound to provoke a political reaction from the right”.[17] Despite strongly disagreeing with their radical political methods, he invited his students to discuss goals and strategies with him. In the event, he employed one, Mike Wallace, to collaborate with him on American Violence: A Documentary History (1970); about the book, Hofstadter student Eric Foner said that it “utterly contradicted the consensus vision of a nation placidly evolving without serious disagreements”.
"

I don't think that he was a conservative really, just an anti extremist. In the case of many progressives they are just as conspiracy driven as the goofy right, as in Steve's 9/11 conspiracy views. So yes he did write about the conspiracy mind, 9/11 kooks being no different from anti-UN kooks, and he did not like the ridiculous antics of the fringe left, many of the progressives of today. So in the real world, yes Hofstadter did write about "the progressives".

Chomsky has devolved into the world of the conspiracy so far that whatever value he ever had is lost, the same way that Antony Sutton went off the deep end. Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent was good and some of his foreign policy stuff was good too. Chomsky's complaining about a temporary mass movement like in that link is a hoot. Like all mass movements in America it will burn out to be co-opted by either party.

The Steve's, Jeff's and Chomsky's will forget about the tea party in a few years when the tea party types lose interest it themselves. Like all of these movements in the past that have lost interest.

The tea Party isn't even remotely as deranged as the Christian Coalition types of the 80's early 90's. The obsession of the goofy left in this case is more interesting than the tea party who are a pretty pedestrian bunch really. The true believers on the left and right just hate the true believers on the other side is what this comes down to.

Well it's not just the "teabaggers" (whom I pay little attention to) who are willfully ignorant and seemingly proud of it. I read a comment from someone last night on another forum and they were complaining about the "teabaggers" and then they concluded their comment with this stuff: "After 8 years of torture, death and killing from Bush, Obama is a refreshing change."

I thought: REALLY? What drugs are you on?

I responded to them by saying: I take it you haven't been paying attention since Bush3's coronation because he is continuing "torture, death and killing." And I pointed out that just the other day BBC News reported 73+ innocent people dead in Pakistan due to US jets from The Chairman of Change. This man has been droning Pakistan since he took office, which is a war crime. Of course he did talk about attacking Pakistan during the campaign but his believers chose not to hear that part nor the part about escalating Afghanistan. They were only interested in The Pope of Hope's simplistic marketing slogans (you know the ones: "hope" and "change we can believe in" manure). And then there's this:

BBC News:
Thursday, 15 April 2010 11:51 UK
Afghans 'abused at secret prison' at Bagram airbase
By Hilary Andersson
BBC News, Bagram

"Afghan prisoners are being abused in a "secret jail" at Bagram airbase, according to nine witnesses whose stories the BBC has documented. The abuses are all said to have taken place since US President Barack Obama was elected, promising to end torture."

Well, a politician will say anything to dupe the gullible sheep. This is more of that "change we can believe in," bunk isn't it? What rational person thought that this man was going to end torture? Duh. Now, granted, the wishful-thinking, delusional Obama believers thought that and many of them still do because they are not paying the least bit of attention to what is going on.

So, either the person I responded to last night hasn't been paying the least bit of attention since their "messiah" Obama took office, OR all of this is okay because Bush3 has a D behind his name. It was only bad when Bush with the R behind his name was in office. I suggested to that person that they look up the definition of hypocrisy when they have a chance.

Jesus H Christ, what a load of BOLOX