So, by its very nature, progressivism moves forward continually (hence the Obama and MSNBC slogan). It advocates social, economic and political reform as being the norm. It favors constant change.
But why do they change? Because "Progressivism" is merely a collection of self-identified "under-represented," and "do-gooders," whose goal is constantly change dynamics depending on their small, invidual emotional needs. Fairness comes from the "equality" of outcomes of all different subgroups.
In some form, this has manifested itself as singular, and large under-represented classes of people (see real socialist regimes), or as a collective of multiple groups parading one another's banner in a fake spirit of brotherhood (the modern Democratic party).
Progressive constantly changes because someone is always "under-represented." Whether or not that is their goal, to keep someone under-represented, remains to be seen.
As such, what is the ultimately end result, if any, of progressivism?
To never settle and always fight for the next in line.
Also,if the movement is predicated on constant change, can it be rooted in any core beliefs that are unchanging?
I honestly believe that their core belief is equality, the problem with it is how they pursue it and how their ideas manifest into terribly inefficient ideas.
I also believe that the core belief in the "under-represented," reinforces the very thing that they think they fight for: equality.
It creates: Those who can do the helping, and those who need the helping, and keeps it that way. Sometimes, this ends up as, well communism, with those exploiting their "helping," maliciously under the ruse of equality. Where is the power concentrated?
Other times, this is just the mislead, genius academic who constantly see a need for "help," and "good works," aloof to the actual implications of his beliefs.
This post was edited on 12/4 at 11:40 am