Liberal vs Progressive....

[JMS]

I've heard this a couple of times now from my tea party buddy and my religous right buddy......

Liberals aren't the real problem. Progressives are the problem. Progressives have taken over both parties. George W. Bush wasn't a conservative, he was a progressive. Clinton wasn't a liberal he was a progressive. The progressives are controlling the world and liberals and conservatives need to unite in the tea party movement to defeat the progressives plot to control the world....

Something about how progressives hatched this plot in the 1960's to control the US political system....

My thought is this conspiracy theory is a transparent attempt to absolve the conservative republicans from any responsibilities for the 8 years of mismanagement under Bush. Folks who supported him for eight years because he was a conservative, now want to suggest he was actually a lefty, and continue to support the same folks who enabled his disasterous policies.

I've always believed progressive is a synonym for Liberal and the dictionary bares this out. The word liberal has somehow become a bad word in American politics and liberals use the word Progressive because it's less politically charged. They basically mean the same thing.

from the dictionary...

Progressive

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive

favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.

liberal

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

Conservative

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conservative

disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/liberal

"Liberal", definition "progressive"

[daveakl]

the real problem is thesarus.

[JMS]

the real problem is thesarus.

thesarus, dictionary...

I think you were trying to be funny, but I think you are right. The conspiracy people invent their own meaning of words, which makes it very difficult to have a rational discussion with them. They simple shift in and out of their own conspiracy speak, and if you want to engage with them, you literally can't because you aren't speaking their language.

I think that is part of the problem. Suddenly even the dictionary is a publication controled by the evil liberal media....errrrr progressive media.

[@DCGoldPants]

I think it just showed a misunderstanding...and a need to label everything you're "not". You know?

Its like yelling socialist or communist at folks.

[daveakl]

thesarus, dictionary...

I think you were trying to be funny, but I think you are right. The conspiracy people invent their own meaning of words, which makes it very difficult to have a rational discussion with them. They simple shift in and out of their own conspiracy speak, and if you want to engage with them, you literally can't because you aren't speaking their language.

I think that is part of the problem. Suddenly even the dictionary is a publication controled by the evil liberal media....errrrr progressive media.

thesarus or thesaurus that was the joke.

[JMS]

I think it just showed a misunderstanding...and a need to label everything you're "not". You know?

Its like yelling socialist or communist at folks.

You know what kills me. My buddy who is now embracing the tea party movement is one of the brightest guys I know. He's brilliant. Not worldly, not well rounded, but just really intensely smart. The guy could discuss a paperclip for three hours and not repeat the same idea. Give him any process or technical problem and he'lll know everything about it along with the solution in a day. He's done everything professionally from designing high speed jet cars, to designing a boat which set a world record on open water. Currently he own a sucessful software company which consumes about 70 hours a week of his time. As brilliant as he is, he's told me in the early 90's he thought the UN was planning an invasion of US cities before when driving through a remote west Texas area, he passed a convoy of several hundred UN trucks in the desert. He didn't know the UN doesn't have any troops of it's own, and the folks he passed were likely American troops, preparing or practicing to deploy for the UN, or going to get their gear repainted.

Somehow he's sold on this utopian idea where everybody is a victim of this fictitious global "progressive" kabal. Now having heard this dribble from multiple sources, I'm convinced this wasn't something they invented, but it's something they were served up. It's the next straw man after healthcare goes away.

[SkinsHokieFan]

How about statists?

Its clear Bush was a statsist, just in a different sense then left leaning statsist.

Clinton was a stasist in his own way.

There are those who believe in the state, whether coming from t he right or left, and others who choose not to, again coming from the right or left.

I'd say Dennis Kucinich has many anti-state views, as does Ron Paul. And on the American political scale, they are polar opposites

[MassSkinsFan]

Here's my take on the difference between liberal and progressive, based on experience in my own city.

We have lots of each type (liberal and progressive) not only represented as politicians but as citizens/activists.

Liberals try to persuade you that their leftist ideals/ideas are worth implementing, for certain reasons they share with you.

Progressives tell you that their leftists ideals/ideas are appropriate without telling you why. If you ask, they tell you they know what's right and that you don't need to understand - it's for your own good.

It comes down to an assumption by Progressives that the public is too stupid to "get it" and this assumption is based on the over-inflated sense of self these people have.

I had a run-in with one of my state representatives who is a progressive. I questioned her on a vote she was advocating and she told me it was for my own good. I then responded with an analysis that showed why it wasn't something good for me or anyone really, and she countered with "you just don't understand." It ended with me saying I did understand, and that I didn't appreciate her condescension since I am probably better-educated and smarter than she is. I also let her know in no uncertain terms that she had previously had my support but lost it by acting like an *******. I never heard from her again. Good riddance to her.

[JMS]

How about statists?

Its clear Bush was a statsist, just in a different sense then left leaning statsist.

Clinton was a stasist in his own way.

I understand why Bush was a "statsist", because he grew military and domestic spending consistantly across his eight years in office?

Why is Clinton a "statsist"? He declaired the era of big government was over in his state of the union. Reformed welfare by setting limits and removing the lifetime guarantee. He held spending contant, both military and discressional domestic spending, which eventually allowed him to run a federal revenue surplus.

Which was Clinton's policies did you find "statsist"?

Was he in your mind superior to Bush then or just different? and how so?

There are those who believe in the state, whether coming from the right or left, and others who choose not to, again coming from the right or left.

I would argue that's utopian. The state has always had a regulatory role in the economy. Since the industrial revolution came to our shores and before. Sometimes that regulartory role has worked to the benifit of the people.... Sometimes it's been more geared towards business. The Government has always played a role though.

[LaxBuddy21]

I hate labels like this. You are a person with individual beliefs. People tend to conform their individual beliefs to the group beliefs to feel a sense of belonging. They want to feel important. They want to feel their ideas are important. In turn, they end up losing their individuality in most cases. It seems like people need to feel this us against them mentality to justify themselves. These groups and labels allow people to blame other people for problems because they fit these so called labels. Conservatives blaming liberals and vice versa. Now, those labels are starting to have strong negative connotations so new labels are given. Its all a stupid ridiculous cycle that causes the political mess we are in now where we are no longer looking for real solutions and what is best but rather looking to say my side is right and yours is wrong and everything that is happening is your fault. Its just sickening in general.

[desioreo87]

Here's my take on the difference between liberal and progressive, based on experience in my own city.

We have lots of each type (liberal and progressive) not only represented as politicians but as citizens/activists.

Liberals try to persuade you that their leftist ideals/ideas are worth implementing, for certain reasons they share with you.

Progressives tell you that their leftists ideals/ideas are appropriate without telling you why. If you ask, they tell you they know what's right and that you don't need to understand - it's for your own good.

It comes down to an assumption by Progressives that the public is too stupid to "get it" and this assumption is based on the over-inflated sense of self these people have.

I had a run-in with one of my state representatives who is a progressive. I questioned her on a vote she was advocating and she told me it was for my own good. I then responded with an analysis that showed why it wasn't something good for me or anyone really, and she countered with "you just don't understand." It ended with me saying I did understand, and that I didn't appreciate her condescension since I am probably better-educated and smarter than she is. I also let her know in no uncertain terms that she had previously had my support but lost it by acting like an *******. I never heard from her again. Good riddance to her.

Thats not what it is at all.

When I think of liberals, I think of social programs and a big government that strives to help those who poorest in our society.

When I think of progressives I think of people who strive to make changes in areas where they think they can improve society. Equality in the work place, pro-social programs, affirmative action, and other stuff like this.

Of course, I am left wing and this is my view on things.

I would consider myself to be more progressive than liberal.

[desioreo87]

I hate labels like this. You are a person with individual beliefs. People tend to conform their individual beliefs to the group beliefs to feel a sense of belonging. They want to feel important. They want to feel their ideas are important. In turn, they end up losing their individuality in most cases. It seems like people need to feel this us against them mentality to justify themselves. These groups and labels allow people to blame other people for problems because they fit these so called labels. Conservatives blaming liberals and vice versa. Now, those labels are starting to have strong negative connotations so new labels are given. Its all a stupid ridiculous cycle that causes the political mess we are in now where we are no longer looking for real solutions and what is best but rather looking to say my side is right and yours is wrong and everything that is happening is your fault. Its just sickening in general.

Yea its all very nice to think that each person has a mind so unique as to be completely different than everyone around them but that is just not the case.

People think very similarly. They very rarely have unique/original thoughts and therefore they have a propensity to agree with like-minded individuals.

I think ES proves this pretty well considering their are always opinions that are echoed or shared and in any given thread about politics or religion or anything like that you will find maybe 3 or 4 completely different viewpoints.

What makes people different is their personal experience.

[zoony]

In bad times lots of folks scramble to try to re-invent themselves so they can be above the fray and not share any of the blame for where our country is. I mean, how can a "Republican" even show their face after the last 8 years? Better to tell everyone you're really a libertarian, or that you don't identify with "neo-cons", or most recently you can throw your hat in the tea-party ring (though you're not fooling anyone).

I also clearly remember the 1980s where "liberal" was literally a dirty word. It was a political death sentence coming off the Carter administration and then 8 years of a very popular Ronald Reagan. I still remember the political cartoon of Michael Dukakis reciting his "I am not a liberal" speech.

So, same holds true for a large portion of democrats. They'll re-invent themselves when the going gets tough, too.

All this talk about "progressives" is another bad attempt at the above.

Me, I voted for George Bush and Obama. Feel free to blame all the problems on me.

.....

[Predicto]

In San Francisco, these terms mean two very different things.

Liberals are like me. Our most obvious local example is Gavin Newsome, the mayor of San Francisco. They are social libertarians, and moderate on economic issues. In general, we do not view business as the "enemy," but as a generally positive force whose excesses sometimes must be reigned in. We read the San Francisco Chronicle. We operate within the system and tend to vote Democratic, with an occasional Republican who shares our values. Sometimes we get things done, but sometimes we just wring our hands in indecision.

"Progressives" are the true leftists. The most obvious local examples are on the board of supervisors. They view business as the enemy, and consider society inherently unfair. They read the San Francisco Bay Guardian (our version of the Village Voice). They attend Code Pink rallies, and would never vote for any Republican, and often view mainstream Democrats as even worse. Sometimes they get things done, and sometimes they just march around yelling and pissing people off.

I don't think the rest of the conutry follows these definitions, but they are set in stone here.

[zoony]

In San Francisco, they mean two very different things. .

I disagree with that. I think it is simply varying degrees of the political spectrum. The irony being that the further right and left you go, the more they start to look similar, i.e. Hitler and Stalin. MSF and crazyhorse.

No need for separate labels. You're varying degrees of liberal or conservative, economically, politically, and socially.

.....

[MassSkinsFan]

Thats not what it is at all.

When I think of liberals, I think of social programs and a big government that strives to help those who poorest in our society.

When I think of progressives I think of people who strive to make changes in areas where they think they can improve society. Equality in the work place, pro-social programs, affirmative action, and other stuff like this.

Of course, I am left wing and this is my view on things.

I would consider myself to be more progressive than liberal.

Do you see what you did there? You told me I was wrong and you know better, even though I prefaced my statements with "this is my experience in my city."

QED - I'll be here all week... :evilg:

[MassSkinsFan]

In San Francisco, these terms mean two very different things.

Liberals are like me. Our most obvious local example is Gavin Newsome, the mayor of San Francisco. They are social libertarians, and moderate on economic issues. In general, we do not view business as the "enemy," but as a generally positive force whose excesses sometimes must be reigned in. We read the San Francisco Chronicle. We operate within the system and tend to vote Democratic, with an occasional Republican who shares our values. Sometimes we get things done, but sometimes we just wring our hands in indecision.

"Progressives" are the true leftists. The most obvious local examples are on the board of supervisors. They view business as the enemy, and consider society inherently unfair. They read the San Francisco Bay Guardian (our version of the Village Voice). They attend Code Pink rallies, and would never vote for any Republican, and often view mainstream Democrats as even worse. Sometimes they get things done, and sometimes they just march around yelling and pissing people off.

I don't think the rest of the conutry follows these definitions, but they are set in stone here.

It's not that far off from where I live.

The main difference is that you must add "their own constituents" to the list of people progressives consider beneath them.

You know those Green Police Super Bowl ads? That's a utopian vision for our local Progressives.

[Predicto]

I disagree with that. I think it is simply varying degrees of the political spectrum. The irony being that the further right and left you go, the more they start to look similar, i.e. Hitler and Stalin. MSF and crazyhorse.

No need for separate labels. You're varying degrees of liberal or conservative, economically, politically, and socially.

.....

Everything you are saying may be correct, for the nation in general.

However, in San Francisco, it is not correct. There are virtually no Republicans here. Politics is divided into two camps. Mainstream Liberals/Democrats, and Progressives. That is how the groups label themselves, to distinguish themselves from each other. These terms mean very specific things HERE. Not where you live, perhaps.

[zoony]

It's not that far off from where I live.

The main difference is that you must add "their own constituents" to the list of people progressives consider beneath them.

You know those Green Police Super Bowl ads? That's a utopian vision for our local Progressives.

Massachusetts is an interesting state, politically. I used to spend a lot of time up there.

After a while, I kind of got the feeling that they're more about the Kennedy family than they are about being Democrats/liberals. In other words, had the Kennedy's actually been Republican the state would be notoriously conservative.

I mean- some places you go to and they have a uniquely liberal feel. Like Portland OR or Northern California for instance. Massachussetts didn't feel that way at all.

Just my unfounded opinion of course

........

[JMS]

I disagree with that. I think it is simply varying degrees of the political spectrum. The irony being that the further right and left you go, the more they start to look similar, i.e. Hitler and Stalin. MSF and crazyhorse.

No need for separate labels. You're varying degrees of liberal or conservative, economically, politically, and socially.

.....

Leaving San Fransisco's regional definitions asside, and returning to the national definition;

I agree with zonney.... Moderate left and left seems to be the San Fran definitions of liberal and progressive....

Nationally, I think liberal is basically a bad word in American Politics and has been since Johnson our last liberal President. That's why typically moderate left leaning folks use the word Teddy Roosevelt used to discribe himself... Progressive, as code word for liberal.

I think nationally self described progressives are actually more moderate than folks who bare the name liberal. Self posessed Liberals are bold enough to use the word which is deamonized... Where I think progressive is a less politically charged word. Obama calls himself a "pragmatic progressive" because he doesn't want to use the bagage the word "liberal" would carry if he called himself a "pragmatic liberal". Bill and Hillary have each called themselves progressives, but they weren't really even liberals. They were moderates. They charged to the center of every issue.

It's commical to call G W. Bush, Bush Senior, or Reagan a Progressive, to my mind. They ruled from varying degrees of conservative politics defined mostly by their own intellectual abilities to interpret what those were when faced with ever changing issues.

The words though are synonyms. It's just that some folks are afraid to use the "L" word.

[zoony]

Everything you are saying may be correct, for the nation in general.

However, in San Francisco, it is not correct. There are virtually no Republicans here. Politics is divided into two camps. Mainstream Liberals/Democrats, and Progressives. That is how the groups label themselves, to distinguish themselves from each other. These terms mean very specific things HERE. Not where you live, perhaps.

We have both political parties where I live- Republicans AND Tea Partiers!

[MassSkinsFan]

I disagree with that. I think it is simply varying degrees of the political spectrum. The irony being that the further right and left you go, the more they start to look similar, i.e. Hitler and Stalin. MSF and crazyhorse.

No need for separate labels. You're varying degrees of liberal or conservative, economically, politically, and socially.

.....

I generally agree with the notion that the political "spectrum" is actually a circle that meets in Crazytown.

But, in some places whole pieces of the circle have been removed, and it thus assumes the spectrum form again. That's mostly the case in the Boston area. The only Republicans that get any play are Gubenatorial candidates (because someone has to keep the corruption in the State House below the blantantly obvious level) and Scott Brown, who was really a protest vote.

Otherwise, it's a matter of to what extreme your liberal views are carried.

[zoony]

The words though are synonyms. It's just that some folks are afraid to use the "L" word.

As I posted above- I think it was that way in the 1980s and even into the 1990s.

Clinton and Bush II changed all that. "liberal" is not a bad word anymore- far from it.

[TheLongshot]

Maybe we should start with a definition of "Progressive".

Here's a nice starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Progressivism is a political and social term for ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in an egalitarian direction for economic policies (public management) and liberal direction for social policies. Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies. Progressive Movement is a movement began in the cities with the settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working condition for women.

It doesn't sound like such a bad thing to me. Also, I'm not sure if you could call Dubya a "progressive", tho he did start some programs on his watch. I wouldn't call him a "reformer", tho.

As for in relation to Liberalism:

The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal". Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress, "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics, It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressives see progressivism as an attitude towards the world of politics that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, and as an attempt to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy.[4][5]

Cultural Liberalism is ultimately founded on a concept of natural rights and civil liberties, and the belief that the major purpose of the government is to protect those rights. Liberals are often called "left-wing", as opposed to "right-wing" conservatives. The progressive school, as a unique branch of contemporary political thought, tends to advocate certain center-left or left-wing views that may conflict with mainstream liberal views, despite the fact that modern liberalism and progressivism may still both support many of the same policies (such as the concept of war as a general last resort).

American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate progressive taxation and oppose the growing influence of corporations. Conversely, European and Australian progressives tend to be more pro-business[citation needed], and will often have policies that are soft on taxation of large corporations[citation needed]. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. Yet progressives tend to be more concerned with environmentalism than mainstream liberals, and are often more skeptical of the government, positioning themselves as whistleblowers and advocates of governmental reform. In the United States, liberals and progressives are often conflated, and in general are the primary voters of the Democratic Party which has a "large tent" policy, combining similar if not congruent ideologies into large voting blocs. Many progressives also support the Green Party or local parties such as the Vermont Progressive Party. In Canada, liberals usually support the national-majority Liberal Party while progressives usually support the New Democratic Party, which usually dominates provincial politics on the coasts.

Looking at this and the definition of "Liberal", I would guess that most democrats are mislabeled. They are actually Progressives. While they also believe in some aspects of liberalism, they aren't the pure form of that. That would be Libertarians.

Given these definitions, I would probably call myself a Progressive and I'd be proud of that label.

[LaxBuddy21]

Yea its all very nice to think that each person has a mind so unique as to be completely different than everyone around them but that is just not the case.

People think very similarly. They very rarely have unique/original thoughts and therefore they have a propensity to agree with like-minded individuals.

I think ES proves this pretty well considering their are always opinions that are echoed or shared and in any given thread about politics or religion or anything like that you will find maybe 3 or 4 completely different viewpoints.

What makes people different is their personal experience.

We think similarly on certain things. But to take an entire spectrum of political issues and think most people agree on most things is even ridiculous. These labels cause people to change their opinions in so many cases. If you took people and presented them with individual issues across the board and got opinions then took those same issues and presented the democratic and republican stances on each issue, do you really think the responses would be the same? People form opinions based on political affiliations in many cases not based on their own personal beliefs. Its that us against them mentality that is so prominent. Otherwise you would not see people praising Obama for things that they denounced Bush for and vice versa. I have these conversations with my grandmother all the time because she despises Obama yet supported Bush for many of the same decisions. These labels get us away from what is best for this country and move us to what is best for the political party we are affiliated with.