How would Aristotle classify or describe progressivism?

In his book "The Politics", Aristotle writes about different forms of government, in their upkeep, revolutions, and so forth. I'm going to highlight one particular part of book 5(Part XI), asking a series of questions along with making a couple of observations and let others decide for themselves if it applies. I also use Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" as a reference point. It's available online, but I will not link to it. Instead, I recommend you buy it. If you truely wish to keep your freedom intact, this book is a near must to own. There are other writings which make fair substitutes, such as the STORM manual, but Alinsky's book is the one to have. Regarding the preservation of tyrannies, here's what Aristotle writes:

A tyrant should also endeavor to know what each of his subjects says or does, and should employ spies, like the 'female detectives' at Syracuse, and the eavesdroppers whom Hiero was in the habit of sending to any place of resort or meeting; for the fear of informers prevents people from speaking their minds, and if they do, they are more easily found out.

Cass Sunstein, who is Obama's chief regulatory agent, wrote a paper titled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures" (alternate link Scribd) in which he suggests that:

What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help. Each instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).

Now, it's important to note that this paper mentions truthers. So if and when(And I hope you do) go out looking for more information about this paper and Cass Sunstein, you be real careful what you read. Cass Sunstein is a progressive, and this is how progressives act when in power. If what you're reading can't honestly identify these ideological beliefs on it's pages and instead rants about "globalists" or "bankers" or other such vague and ambiguous terms, it probably has something to hide or may even be a progressive website itself. Back to Aristotle. I guess progressives want to or will employ spies after all, and it's not just official government agents. Aristotle wrote of the use of "informers and eavesdroppers". That too has been attempted, multiple times. They created an email in 2009 called flag at whitehouse.gov. During the 2008 election, they had watchdog at barackobama.com and of course that story also details the newest attempt to pit American versus American with the "attack watch" website.

Another art of the tyrant is to sow quarrels among the citizens; friends should be embroiled with friends, the people with the notables, and the rich with one another.

In short: class warfare. Obama routinely employs class warfare, and the progressives in the media back him up by rarely if ever reporting on the following data. According to the IRS's own data spreadsheet the top 1% pay 40% of the tax burden, the top 5%, 60%. The top 10% pay 70%. The top 25% pay 86% of the tax burden. And the top 50% pay nearly all of it. 97%. So who isn't paying their fair share? Don't answer the question. This isn't an issue of who pays what. It's about keeping quarrels among the citizens, friends versus friends, just as Aristotle wrote. The question regarding who is or isn't paying their fair share comes right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, which Alinsky writes on page 91, paragraph 5, sentence 4, about asking loaded questions. That's what it is, a loaded question designed to conceal the real goal. See this video of Obama for more on this. What's written above regarding the various snitch email addresses would also help keep Americans against each other in a semi or permanent state of agitated conflict. On page 117, paragraph 2 of Rules for Radicals, Alinsky writes that agitation to the point of conflict is indeed the goal.

Another practice of tyrants is to multiply taxes, after the manner of Dionysius at Syracuse, who contrived that within five years his subjects should bring into the treasury their whole property.

Obama may employ loaded questions regarding who is or isn't paying their fair share, but does anybody really doubt that if he actually had the chance to raise taxes, he'd actually do it? Benjamin Franklin also made a similar observation, I wrote about it here: Ben Franklin: wealth redistribution, that's what tyrants do

The tyrant is also fond of making war in order that his subjects may have something to do and be always in want of a leader.

Obama campaigned against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And what's happened since he got elected? Led by the wants of George Soros, we are now in Libya. And we've also made inroads to Yemen.

Hence tyrants are always fond of bad men, because they love to be flattered, but no man who has the spirit of a freeman in him will lower himself by flattery; good men love others, or at any rate do not flatter them. Moreover, the bad are useful for bad purposes; 'nail knocks out nail,' as the proverb says. It is characteristic of a tyrant to dislike every one who has dignity or independence; he wants to be alone in his glory, but any one who claims a like dignity or asserts his independence encroaches upon his prerogative, and is hated by him as an enemy to his power.

Obama has surrounded himself with radicals and revolutionaries. People like Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, Cass Sunstein, and others. As referenced earlier, the war in Libya. George Soros is the man who broke the bank of England, and gets his jollies off disrupting societies. At 30 seconds into this video, Soros talks about disrupting societies. Bodily expressions can be very informative; you should pause the video and take in the look on his face as he says the word 'disrupting'. It's incredible. This is highly disturbing.

Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him.

What's Obama's stated policy goal on amnesty for illegal aliens? And let's no stop there. It's no secret that progressivism is in both parties, the republicans and democrats. Let it be recorded that George Bush also pushed very hard for amnesty, led by John McCain in the senate, another republican progressive. To add insult to injury, Former President Bush said these things regarding the three isms. I for one, took this very personally, knowing exactly "what kinds of people, and with what kinds of beliefs" he was referring to. Whenever those in the establishment start throwing around the term 'nativism', they're almost always referring to those who want the border secured.

Such are the notes of the tyrant and the arts by which he preserves his power; there is no wickedness too great for him. All that we have said may be summed up under three heads, which answer to the three aims of the tyrant. These are, (1) the humiliation of his subjects;

Humiliation: Our country has been spent into oblivion. And the american people never wanted that healthcare bill. They passed it anyways. We want our constitution to be followed, not ignored and abused. We want our government limited and our children free. Sun Tzu wrote in his book "The Art of War" that:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

I won't claim to always get it right regarding progressivism. I can only observe from the outside, I can only read the words they've written and spoken, as well as any legislative history and make judgements based off of that as to their true means and goals. But at least I'm trying to examine their own history along with the history of elsewhere to try to get it right.