Liberal vs Progressive....

[Burgold]

Honestly, it's mostly bull, JMS. A very successful strategy of the Conservatives since at least Nixon has been to try to turn Liberal, Progressive, whatever into a curse word. They really hammered the idea in both the Reagan and Bush II eras, so much so that Liberals adopted a new label, progressive.

The other thing conservatives are desperately trying to do is slough off ownership of Bush in spite of their dogged support and the incredible ammount of agreement and popularity he had amongst "conservatives" for most of his term. It's really dishonest to now suddenly proclaim him a liberal or even a non-conservative when for practically the entirety of his terms he was the face, champion, and ideal of modern Conservatism and any deviation from his plan or whisper of disagreement made you an anti-American traitor.

[MassSkinsFan]

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

........

I know what you mean about the feeling being different.

Part of it is the history, and certainly the Kennedy clan is part of that. But, the liberalism here has traditionally been an across-the-board philosophy shared by blue and white collar workers and the elite. It is part of the background of everyday life. There's not a lot of heated discussion because there's a general understanding that we're all on the same side mostly (and excluding M_SF of course :laugh:).

[Predicto]

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

Perfect example of the exact same idea on the right. There is no question that Lamar Alexander and Sarah Palin both are Republicans, but they represent different things.

[zoony]

I know what you mean about the feeling being different.

Part of it is the history, and certainly the Kennedy clan is part of that. But, the liberalism here has traditionally been an across-the-board philosophy shared by blue and white collar workers and the elite. It is part of the background of everyday life. There's not a lot of heated discussion because there's a general understanding that we're all on the same side mostly (and excluding M_SF of course :laugh:).

Yet there is still a crazy Puritan feel there in many respects. In some respects South Carolina is more wide open. And you walk ten paces over to New Hampshire, you're in the wild west. Like I said, interesting state.

....

[MassSkinsFan]

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

The Good Ole Conservative Brothers Boys Band?

[zoony]

The Good Ole Conservative Brothers Boys Band?

basically

[JMS]

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.

Then why hasn't one national candidate for office embrased the term (Liberal)?

I think the last guy to embrace the term was Dukacis, and Bush Senior beat him senseless with the word. I can't think of any major candidate who has used the term since... Maybe Kucinich, who let's face it has always been a fringe candidate.

[Burgold]

Then why hasn't one national candidate for office embrased the term?

I think the last guy to embrace the term was Dukacis, and Bush Senior beat him senseless with the word. I can't think of any major candidate who has used the term since... Maybe Kucinich, who let's face it has always been a fringe candidate.

I think it's because there is still a hangover effect with some independents and conservatives who remember that the "L" word was supposed to be a negative thing. So, some libs are afraid if they wear the label it starts them behind in the race perceptually.

[zoony]

Then why hasn't one national candidate for office embrased the term?

I think the last guy to embrace the term was Dukacis, and Bush Senior beat him senseless with the word. I can't think of any major candidate who has used the term since... Maybe Kucinich, who let's face it has always been a fringe candidate.

The 2008 election (as most elections are) was more about capturing the middle. And I think you saw McCain trying to disassociate himself with the conservative movement of his party. I think Bush embraced it somewhat in 2000 because of the scandal involved in the Clinton white house.

I don't think any candidate in their right mind is going to come out and declare themselves liberal or conservative. That's for Howard Dean and Mike Huckabee.

My point is though- you don't see (to borrow your words) people getting bashed over the head with the term liberal anymore.

Or you might, and I just didn't notice

[JMS]

Honestly, it's mostly bull, JMS. A very successful strategy of the Conservatives since at least Nixon has been to try to turn Liberal, Progressive, whatever into a curse word. They really hammered the idea in both the Reagan and Bush II eras, so much so that Liberals adopted a new label, progressive.

That has always been my understanding. More so with the word Liberal than progressive however traditionally. Now they're trying to do the same thing with the word Progressive... Is my take on it.

The other thing conservatives are desperately trying to do is slough off ownership of Bush in spite of their dogged support and the incredible ammount of agreement and popularity he had amongst "conservatives" for most of his term. It's really dishonest to now suddenly proclaim him a liberal or even a non-conservative when for practically the entirety of his terms he was the face, champion, and ideal of modern Conservatism and any deviation from his plan or whisper of disagreement made you an anti-American traitor.

I agree with that too.... I would also fit the words "self serving" and "convient" into that explaination. It is an explaination which keeps them from having to re-assess their poliitical alligence.

It was Bush!... It wasn't the nearly universal support his politices had in the republican dominated Senate and House for six of his eight years in office... It's all on that damned progressive Bush.

[ljs]

JMS- study Woodrow Wilson and FDR- those guys were the real first progressives in charge, not sure who told you it started in the 60's- started way before that.

And Yes, there are progressive Republicans like GWB and McCain.

If you really want to educate your self on the differences, read the book by Mark Levin, "Liberty and Tyranny". May not agree with his view, but he lays out very solid examples as he describes the progressive theory vs conservative...or rather statist vs Federalists.

[JMS]

The 2008 election (as most elections are) was more about capturing the middle. And I think you saw McCain trying to disassociate himself with the conservative movement of his party. I think Bush embraced it somewhat in 2000 because of the scandal involved in the Clinton white house.

I totally disagree with you here...

(1) I think McCain owned the center before he anounced his candidacy for President. I think he changed basically all his political positions in order to come into line with the right and secure the nomination. McCain drove to the right, not the center. The net effect was the right distrusted him as a late comer to their social agenda; and he allienated the center.

(2) I don't think Bush drove to the center either. I think the one thing Bush was exceptional at was campagning and undertanding he could push to the right, allienate the center, and so empower his base to win tight elecitons. That was Carl Roves genius.

I agree pushing to the center was Clinton's formula for sucess. Clinton used to say, if you aren't allienating the fringe, you aren't doing your job. Clinton faced Jessie Jackson's objections to his policies and told him where are you going to go? That's not something Bush followed.

I don't think any candidate in their right mind is going to come out and declare themselves liberal or conservative. That's for Howard Dean and Mike Huckabee.

My point is though- you don't see (to borrow your words) people getting bashed over the head with the term liberal anymore.

I think Reagan, Bush, and Bush all declaired themselves and ran for offices as self described conservatives. I also disagree folks don't get bashed for being liberals anymore. I think both Kerry and Obama had been bashed for that from the right even though neither used the term to describe themselves as such.

Both were described as the most liberal Senators in the legislature..... remember.... which was always crazy; we have a self described socialist in the senate.

Traditionally you are much more likely to get bashed as a liberal, than as a progressive; which is why liberals use the word progressive.

As I've said I don't think we've had a liberal president in this country since LBJ, much less a self described liberal President.

[ljs]

As I've said I don't think we've had a liberal president in this country since LBJ, much less a self described liberal President.

Obama is a progressive and said so himself- I've seen him say in more than once in speeches. (mostly during his campaign)

Even Hilary Clinton said more than once in debates/speeches that she was a "modern progressive."

[Enzo]

The problem is most people who call themselves liberals aren't liberal at all. Being liberal has little to do with what you believe. If you believe that someone who completely disagrees with you should have an equal voice & have the same rights & privileges as anybody else regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation then you are a liberal. The media & politicians have turn the word liberal into meaning you are left wing. Sure you can have leftwing views & be liberal but being leftwing doesn't automatically make someone liberal. Just like being rightwing doesn't automatically make someone conservative. In fact you can be both conservative & liberal, which most people really are even if they deny it.

[NoCalMike]

Obama campaigned as a progressive, except for the War issue, and is governing like a centrist.

[TheLongshot]

Obama campaigned as a progressive, except for the War issue, and is governing like a centrist.

Which is why I get amused when conservative talking heads talk about Obama being "extremely left wing". Sorry, not even close. If anything Obama disappoints progressives by not pushing hard for what is important for progressives of various stripes. I mean, he did run on a platform of change, but not much is changing.

[Burgold]

Obama campaigned as a progressive, except for the War issue, and is governing like a centrist.

He actually campaigned as a pragmatist and called himself a progressive, but is governing like a centrist.

It was the right that tried to pin the super-duper never been anyone more liberal in Congress ever label on him. That points to what Zoony was saying. The Right called him liberal as often as they could and were surprised when it didn't have the sting and negative effect that it usually had had.

[JMS]

JMS- study Woodrow Wilson and FDR- those guys were the real first progressives in charge, not sure who told you it started in the 60's- started way before that.

I think that is my understanding of "tea party history" that the "progessives" began to subvert both liberals and conservatives in the 1960's.

I would also disagree the Klu Klux Klansman Woodrow Wilson was a liberal on par with FDR. Teddy Roosevelt was a liberal who ran on the progressive ticket in 1912. So was the republican Taft, who was Teddy's hand picked sucessor for the Presidency in 1908, and ran against Roosevelt in 1912. Taft and Roosevelt split the liberal vote which is how the moderate Democrat Woodrow Wilson got into office.

Moderate for his time, Conservative for our time. Very religious, fiscally socially conservative. Liberal Southern and Democrat aren't words which went together before FDR and the great depression.

Woodrow Wilson who was an conservative on social and fiscal issues and was seen as a moderate to the more liberal Taft and Roosevelt. (Wilson segregated the military, blocked the woman sufferage movement) The one issue where you could say he was "progressive" was in his support for global institutions like the league of nations and involving the US in European policies. Wilson was not considered a liberal in his day, he was moderate, the more conservative choice to the two liberal alternatives who split the liberal vote.

And Yes, there are progressive Republicans like GWB and McCain.

GWB, never appealed to any political group except conservatives. Specifically social conservatives. They put him in office and they kept him in office. McCain was a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. He was out of the Goldwater branch of the Republican party. The group which spawned Ronald Reagan before the social conservatives reached political critical mass in the GOP.

If you really want to educate your self on the differences, read the book by Mark Levin, "Liberty and Tyranny". May not agree with his view, but he lays out very solid examples as he describes the progressive theory vs conservative...or rather statist vs Federalists.

I don't think Statism or Federalism have been difiniative issues in elections since FDR. I think it's a red herriing. It's hard for me to read books which say otherwise. I get so frusterated by the interpretation of history. I'll try though, because I want to understand what they're saying.

[ljs]

I think that is my understanding of "tea party history" that the "progessives" began to subvert both liberals and conservatives in the 1960's.

I would also disagree the Klu Klux Klansman Woodrow Wilson was a liberal on par with FDR. Teddy Roosevelt was a liberal who ran on the progressive ticket. So was the republican Taft, who was Teddy's hand picked sucessor for the Presidency in 1908. Taft and Roosevelt split the liberal vote which is how Woodrow Wilson got into office.

Woodrow Wilson who was an arch conservative on social and fiscal issues. The one issue where you could say he was "progressive" was in his support for global institutions like the league of nations and involving the US in European policies. Wilson was not considered a liberal in his day, he was very conservative.

.

Woodrow wilson was absolutely NOT an arch conservative..man, go read his quotes and history- he was a progressive Democrat, regardless of his KKK ties.

What really cracks me up are all the people who have these beliefs, but refuse to actually educate themselves on the truth. If you study history, read the facts, you would know that Wilson was far from conservative.

here's a quick Wiki guide....you might want to read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

and that is just Wiki...there is a lot more history out there to show what I'm talking about.

Taft and Teddy were both Republican progressives btw.

[TheLongshot]

Woodrow wilson was absolutely NOT an arch conservative..man, go read his quotes and history- he was a progressive Democrat, regardless of his KKK ties.

What really cracks me up are all the people who have these beliefs, but refuse to actually educate themselves on the truth. If you study history, read the facts, you would know that Wilson was far from conservative.

Wilson was a progressive in many ways, just not about civil rights.

[zoony]

GWB, never appealed to any political group except conservatives. Specifically social conservatives. They put him in office and they kept him in office. McCain was a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. He was out of the Goldwater branch of the Republican party. The group which spawned Ronald Reagan before the social conservatives reached political critical mass in the GOP.

I don't think Statism or Federalism have been difiniative issues in elections since FDR. I think it's a red herriing. It's hard for me to read books which say otherwise. I get so frusterated by the interpretation of history. I'll try though, because I want to understand what they're saying.

why did you change ljs's name to mine? who are you talking to? I didn't write that stuff

(let me help you)

[JMS]

Obama is a progressive and said so himself- I've seen him say in more than once in speeches. (mostly during his campaign)

Right that's my point. He used the term progressive not liberal. Cause the word Liberal carries too much bagage.

Clinton's both had described themselves as progressives too for the same reason. Code words for the liberals that he's really one of them.... I just don't think any of them were...

Jimmy Carter was a conservative southern evangelical who faced a liberal revolt in the democratic party. He wasn't a liberal, he was a conservative moderate.

Bill Clinton wasn't a liberal either. He was a moderate who reformed social security, held down spending, and declaired in his state of the union the era of big government was over. He passed NAFTA for gods sake..

I paint Hillary with that same brush because we don't know otherwise.

Likewise Obama, I see him as a pragmatist, more than a liberal. He's a moderate. The left is enraged by the guy's policies, just like the right is. That puts him in the center; not on the fringe. It's just that this also puts him to the left of most of the GOP supporters.

Even Hilary Clinton said more than once in debates/speeches that she was a "modern progressive."

I agree she did, but not a liberal.... Maybe she is a liberal. We don't know because she's not gotten into the Presidency. I tend to think of her as a moderate like her husband.

[JMS]

Woodrow wilson was absolutely NOT an arch conservative..man, go read his quotes and history- he was a progressive Democrat, regardless of his KKK ties.

By 1912 perspective he was a moderate. To the right of the more liberal Roosevelt and Taft.

By 2010 perspective he was a religous conservative southern Democrat; fiscally and socially conservative.

As I said the single new policy which folks are claiming marks him as "progressive" or "liberal" was internationalism. Internationalism which was new in his day, but which has become the standard of every American President democrate, republican, conservative or liberal since FDR. Eisenhower for example was an internationalist, so was Nixon, Reagan, and both Bush's.

What really cracks me up are all the people who have these beliefs, but refuse to actually educate themselves on the truth. If you study history, read the facts, you would know that Wilson was far from conservative.

How can you make that statement about "educating myself to history" and not back it up with one historical perspective either fiscally or socially which supports your case? I've given you social issues which would put him in the conservative camp. I've stated Taft and Roosevelt were Liberals and you didn't challenge that. I've also stated they split the liberal vote, again you didn't challenge that.

I've also given you the single issue which you could claim Wilson was a liberal or progressive on. Internationalism... Non isolationist for his day.

Tell me that's not the only issue you are hanging on Wilson to make the claim he was a liberal?

Taft and Teddy were both Republican progressives btw.

Teddy was not a Republican in 1912. Teddy after serving nearly 8 years in office left the Presidency in 1908 and endorsed the "liberal" republican Taft as his sucessor. Thus Taft won the Presidency in 1908 with Teddy's blessing. Taft didn't turn out to be liberal enough for Teddy. So Teddy challenged him for the Presidency in 1912. Teddy ran as a third party candidate because he knew he couldn't get the GOP nomination from the incombant Taft.

Teddy and Taft split the liberal vote. Which is what allowed the more moderate Wilson to gain office.

[JMS]

why did you change ljs's name to mine? who are you talking to? I didn't write that stuff

(let me help you)

cut and paste error... sorry.

[JMS]

Wilson was a progressive in many ways, just not about civil rights.

Name one.... other than his support for international institutions like the League of Nations, or making the world safe for Democracy. Stances which everybody (right and left) subscribe too today and have since FDR...

Name one socialy or fiscally liberal policy Wilson ever endorsed. Wilson was the moderate candidate in 1912, not the liberal/progressive candidate. Teddy and Taft were both much more liberal than Wilson.

The only reason Wilson won was because Teddy and Taft split the liberal vote.

Wilson get's picked on by the right mostly because he's a Democrat. He's represented as the father of the Neo Conservatives again blaiming all evil on the Democratic party.... Which is preposterous. Neo conservatives hate international institutions, like the UN. Wilson tried to create these institutions.