Why Roseanne Barr’s Opposition to Progressivism May Be More Than Just Shallow Views

Roseanne Barr is no longer considered a proponent of progressivism, and there are profound reasons behind this shift in her views. Beyond the obvious support of Grover Norquist—a notorious figure in conservative circles—is a deeper critique of progressive policies that she now sees as counterproductive and harmful.

Shallow Understanding and Inauthentic Support

Barr's past support of progressive causes was often characterized as superficial and inauthentic. Her recent statements and actions suggest a more critical and disenchanted view of progressivism. If she ever had true progressive views, she now sees them as based on a shallow understanding and a lack of commitment to the long-term goal of empowerment, rather than immediate handouts or unthoughtful policies.

Surveying the Effects of Progressive Policies

The shift in Barr's perspective stems from a growing recognition that many progressive policies fail to achieve their stated goals and instead exacerbate problems they were meant to solve. This realization is not just anecdotal but backed by a more comprehensive view of the consequences of such policies.

The Great Society Programs and the Breakdown of Families

In the 1960s, progressives initiated programs like the "Great Society" to address the economic disparities faced by Black communities. However, these programs often prioritized short-term financial assistance over long-term solutions like education and job creation. As a result, one of the unintended consequences was an increase in single-parent households, particularly among African American families. Critics argue that these policies, aimed at helping families, inadvertently led to the destruction of the family structure in the long run.

Food Vouchers and Addictive Habits

Another example of a well-intentioned but ill-conceived policy was the provision of food vouchers. The intention was to assist families in need, especially those struggling to provide basic necessities. However, these vouchers often fell into the wrong hands, particularly those of drug and alcohol addicts. While some parents used the vouchers responsibly, many traded them for cash to feed their vices, thereby prolonging and exacerbating their addictions. This has resulted in a cycle of dependence rather than the intended support and improvement of living conditions.

The Affordable Care Act and Its Ineffectiveness

The "Affordable Care Act" (ACA) is another instance where intentions were noble but outcomes inconsequential. The goal was to expand access to healthcare and make it more affordable. However, the reality has been quite different. In some areas, the ACA led to higher premiums, narrowing of the insurance market, and in some cases, only government insurance remained an option. For those areas with viable insurance options, the cost of coverage has become prohibitive, leaving many unable to afford necessary care. Personally, I've experienced a significant increase in the cost of my insurance plan, with triple the previous price and a sixfold increase in the deductible. If the goal was to make healthcare affordable and accessible, the reality of today's situation is anything but 'affordable.'

Conclusion: Blind Ideologues and Progressive Interventions

In the face of such stark realities, it's challenging to remain a passive supporter of progressive policies. Only someone ideologically blind or naive could continue to champion such interventions without acknowledging the wide-ranging negative impacts they have had. The evidence suggests that many progressive policies are not merely ineffective but may be actively detrimental to society, leading to a cycle of dependency and further problems. For those who seek to intelligently assess the results of these policies, true progressivism demands a more nuanced and critical approach, one that recognizes and addresses the underlying issues rather than merely treating surface-level symptoms.