Liberal vs Progressive....

[Wrong Direction]

I wish people would ditch the terms conservative, liberal and progressive.

I'd rather be evidence and results oriented.

I understand there are issues like abortion and gay marriage which really still divide people, but the vast majority of our government problems relates to the trillions we spend to prop up the status quo. Sure, they always say that the problems will be fixed, but they're not. And, in the end, we have a huge national debt created by conservatives and liberals alike and a huge entitlement "mandatory" spending committment as far as the eye can see.

[JMS]

I wish people would ditch the terms conservative, liberal and progressive.

I'd rather be evidence and results oriented.

I understand there are issues like abortion and gay marriage which really still divide people, but the vast majority of our government problems relates to the trillions we spend to prop up the status quo. Sure, they always say that the problems will be fixed, but they're not. And, in the end, we have a huge national debt created by conservatives and liberals alike and a huge entitlement "mandatory" spending committment as far as the eye can see.

Preposterous. If we ditched those terms, folks would actually have to understand issues!

[Burgold]

It'll never happen, WD. People are too intent to turn off their brains and not pay attention. So, labels with handy pre-set definitions are really useful. If we did away with labels and categories conversations would get way too long and would have to be far too detailed.

Edit: I'm not only agreeing, but thinking like JMS???? I feel queazy.

[LaxBuddy21]

It'll never happen, WD. People are too intent to turn off their brains and not pay attention. So, labels with handy pre-set definitions are really useful. If we did away with labels and categories conversations would get way too long and would have to be far too detailed.

Edit: I'm not only agreeing, but thinking like JMS???? I feel queazy.

This is my point exactly. People want to complain about Congress and the President and the state of the country but are too lazy to do anything else other than tow party lines. Thank for yourself for once people! My grandmother told me I went over to the dark side because I told her I actually like Obama even though I dont agree with some of the things he does. But my grandmother is a die hard Republican (although she swears she is moderate) and Democrats apparently live on the death star and cannot be trusted :saber:

[Veretax]

The problem is the definitions of liberal and conservative have fluctuated in the political spectrum. That's one thing. But I agree with the OP, both sides have fowled up and should be held to account. However, the Democrats had more control of congress in Obama's first year then bush ever did have.

[greenspandan]

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.

man, i can only imagine what conservatives would be up to nowadays if he HAD lived up to their liberal-fringe boogeyman perceptions. (i guess not much, since they'd all be gunless and living in concentration camps)

[TheItalianStallion]

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

While there were racist conservative/classical liberal/free market types, racism was very much a part of the progressive movement.

[JMS]

However, the Democrats had more control of congress in Obama's first year then bush ever did have.

How do you figure that? On paper maybe, but practically not so much. Bush pushed through an 850 billion dollar "healthcare reform" package in 2006 and the country barely took any notice. It appeared on the countries conciousness for about two weeks, mostly after it was passed as some conservatives made a few sour faces and twisted uncomfortable in their seats. That was about as harsh as the critism got.

Obama tries to push though a similar ( slightly smaller) healthcare reform package and he get's crazy folks showing up shouting down congressmen, it monopolizes the sundy morning talks shows for months, and ultimatly consumes six or eight months of news cycles only to fall on it's face.

I wouldn't say the Dems have more control over congress than the GOP had in the first six years of Bush's eight years. Mostly because the Dems worked with the GOP. The Dems had numerous defectors. The GOP so far has kept remarkable party disipline with only 1 or 2 defectors and even then on just a few of the bills.

[JMS]

While there were racist conservative/classical liberal/free market types, racism was very much a part of the progressive movement.

? spit take...... Wilson segregated the army which was desegregated prior to him taking office. Wilson was a member of the Klu Klux Klan. Wilson wrote the epilog to the racist pro klan film, Birth of a nation; and he debued the film at the whitehouse. Hell the movie "Birth of a Nation" which glorified the Klan was largely based upon Wilson's own book "History of the American People".

Wilson was a devout southern Christian whose only tie in to progressivism was his support for internationalism. Things Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan and every president since FDR also subscribed too.

Wilson wasn't the progressive in the 1913 election, Teddy Roosevelt and Taft were. Wilson was what passed as a moderate in the 1913 election, not Progressive / Liberal.

I think you can make the case that America was a racist country in 1913 when Wilson took office. I don't think you can make the case Progessives / Liberals were at the forefront of that issue....

After all the Republican Abraham Lincoln considered himself a liberal progressive. Liberalism is much more associated with civil rights and equal rights than it's associated with the alternative in American history.

[TheLongshot]

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.

First off, you seem to be mixing up liberal and progressive, which seems to be the subject of this thread. You can be progressive and not liberal.

From Wikipedia:

In his first term, Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act,[3] Federal Trade Commission, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and America's first-ever federal progressive income tax in the Revenue Act of 1913.

Certainly sounds like some progressive ideas to me.

[JMS]

First off, you seem to be mixing up liberal and progressive, which seems to be the subject of this thread. You can be progressive and not liberal.

From Wikipedia:

I think you are confusing what you heard these words mean, with what they actually mean. The words are synonyms, and literally mean the same thing.

I will see your Wikipedia artical with the dictionary... and raise you the thesaurus.

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.

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

Liberal-

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

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

Progressive-

definition Liberal

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

Liberal-

definition Progressive

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

Certainly sounds like some progressive ideas to me.

A "progressive tax" is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases. It's not in and of itself either liberal or conservative, or ideologically "progressive".

Likewise a federal reserve type bank was first proposed by Alexander Hamilton, largely considered the most influencial conservative among the founding fathers. It certainly wouldn't be considered a progressive or liberal idea, unless you consider all the ideas you are against as liberal. A totally arbitrary and unhistorical perspective.

To label Wilson as a progressive you really must judge him based upon who he ran against in the general election. Teddy Roosvelt and Taft, both self identified progressive. Teddy ran on the Progressive Parties ticket for god's sake, a party he founded.

Wilson was the moderate or more conservative choice in that election, not the liberal choice.

[ljs]

everyone give up...no matter how much evidence, including Wilsons own words- JMS will never believe he was a progressive. laughable, but true.

[TheItalianStallion]

I think you can make the case that America was a racist country in 1913 when Wilson took office. I don't think you can make the case Progessives / Liberals were at the forefront of that issue....

Yes you can, though that's not to say that the other end of the spectrum doesn't have racism in its history, because it does. Anyway, the original argument that many progressives used in favor of legalizing abortion was that lots of black babies would get killed off. One of the commonly used arguments in favor of minimum wage was that it'd make things more difficult for small business (the employess of which were often minorities), thus more minorities would go unemployed and thus starve to death. While not defending conservatives like David Duke, racism and eugenics were very much a part of the progressive movement.

[JMS]

Yes you can, though that's not to say that the other end of the spectrum doesn't have racism in its history, because it does. Anyway, the original argument that many progressives used in favor of legalizing abortion was that lots of black babies would get killed off. One of the commonly used arguments in favor of minimum wage was that it'd make things more difficult for small business (the employess of which were often minorities), thus more minorities would go unemployed and thus starve to death. While not defending conservatives like David Duke, racism and eugenics were very much a part of the progressive movement.

You are going to have to provide links to that..... The fact is racism was the established philosophy in the United States most of our existance. By definition Liberalism, progressives are reformers looking for new ideas. That's why liberal progressive presidents like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Kennedy, and Johnson were all supportive of alternatives to the status quoe in race relations.... Because they were new ideas!

New is what Liberalism is about, by definition.

Now I'm not saying there were racist liberals, I'm just saying racism was a property of the country, not liberalism which is largely credited with confronting racism more than the alternative philosophy which is more concerned with maintaining the status queue and fixing problems by returning to what has worked in the passed.

[luckydevil]

Someone else mentioned it, but the 60's left were most certainly not progressives. In fact, they hated the early progressive movement and many of its leaders. The progressive movement goes back to the early 20th century. The notion that Woodrow Wilson is a fiscal conservative is laughable. A fiscal conservative would have never embraced the creation of the federal reserve or the income tax. Those ideas were rooted in the progressive moment, there is a reason why Woodrow Wilson is identified as a progressive president. But than again, JMS, your definition off fiscal conservatism is different than most people's.

[Smoot Point Really]

It doesn't really matter to me what you call yourself... I know what you are...

[Hubbs]

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"?

Man, this is like Carlos Rogers making fun of someone for having bad hands. :pfft:

[Veretax]

How do you figure that? On paper maybe, but practically not so much. Bush pushed through an 850 billion dollar "healthcare reform" package in 2006 and the country barely took any notice. It appeared on the countries conciousness for about two weeks, mostly after it was passed as some conservatives made a few sour faces and twisted uncomfortable in their seats. That was about as harsh as the critism got.

Obama tries to push though a similar ( slightly smaller) healthcare reform package and he get's crazy folks showing up shouting down congressmen, it monopolizes the sundy morning talks shows for months, and ultimatly consumes six or eight months of news cycles only to fall on it's face.

I wouldn't say the Dems have more control over congress than the GOP had in the first six years of Bush's eight years. Mostly because the Dems worked with the GOP. The Dems had numerous defectors. The GOP so far has kept remarkable party disipline with only 1 or 2 defectors and even then on just a few of the bills.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Bush never had a fillibuster proof majority in the senate. He may have had control of the house pretty soundly, but the division int he senate for like all of the first half of his first term, etc never really materialized like the dems had. As for the healthcare thing that bush did I honestly don't remember it being anywhere near that big. I'd have to go look it up.

[TheLongshot]

I think you are confusing what you heard these words mean, with what they actually mean. The words are synonyms, and literally mean the same thing.

I will see your Wikipedia artical with the dictionary... and raise you the thesaurus.

The definition of "liberal" (as is "socialist") has been corrupted over the years. A Liberal believes in individual liberty. Liberalism takes many forms depending on what aspect of liberty people were looking for, if it is the freedom of equal rights, freedom from government interference, freedom to own guns, freedom to do whatever you want in your home or whatever.

You are correct that Liberals also tend to be Progressives, but you do not have to be a Liberal to be a Progressive. Ron Paul is a Progressive in many ways, because he wants major changes and reform in the government. He's also a liberal, but not of the same brand that populates the Democratic party. He's closer to a Libertarian.

A "progressive tax" is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases. It's not in and of itself either liberal or conservative, or ideologically "progressive".

Likewise a federal reserve type bank was first proposed by Alexander Hamilton, largely considered the most influencial conservative among the founding fathers. It certainly wouldn't be considered a progressive or liberal idea, unless you consider all the ideas you are against as liberal. A totally arbitrary and unhistorical perspective.

To label Wilson as a progressive you really must judge him based upon who he ran against in the general election. Teddy Roosvelt and Taft, both self identified progressive. Teddy ran on the Progressive Parties ticket for god's sake, a party he founded.

Wilson was the moderate or more conservative choice in that election, not the liberal choice.

So, a guy isn't progressive if he creates the FTC, which changed how the government treated big companies in a major way? Or instituted a federal income tax, which affects all of us in a major way? Sorry, but that's the opposite of being a conservative. While he ran of a limited government ticket, his administration hardly resembled that.

Conservatism is mostly about maintaining the status quo, that changes and reform should be looked at suspiciously. It is the counterbalance to Progressivism.

[luckydevil]

. While he ran of a limited government ticket, his administration hardly resembled that.

It's important to note so did FDR, yet JMS rightly identifies him as a progressive.

[NavyDave]

Clinton was Liberal until the GOP took over congress (Congressional post office scandal, HillaryCare,raising taxes retroactively, initially trying to force openly gays in the military) then after that, he began to Triangulate and learned how to take credit for some of the GOP's Contract of America Successes

[dockeryfan]

Progressive is the new communist. It's always the other bad bad people that are the problem.

[JMS]

Someone else mentioned it, but the 60's left were most certainly not progressives. In fact, they hated the early progressive movement and many of its leaders. The progressive movement goes back to the early 20th century. The notion that Woodrow Wilson is a fiscal conservative is laughable.

Which is why I've not heard anybody make that claim. Wilson was a moderate in the 1912 election. Well to the right of both of his primary compeditors for the Presidency. Teddy Roosevelt, the founder of the American Progressive Party. And Taft; TR's hand picked sucessor to the Presidency in 1908.

The two liberals split the liberal vote, that's how Woodrow Wilson got elected. Wilson was a social conservative evangelical religious southerner. Overall he was considered a moderate for his time, and today he would certainly be a conservative.

A fiscal conservative would have never embraced the creation of the federal reserve or the income tax.

?? So now you are saying Alexander Hamilton was a liberal? Cause the federal reserve or central bank of the United States was originally his idea.

Likewise every Republican President in the 20's and 21st century has supported both the federal reserve and the income tax...

Those ideas were rooted in the progressive moment, there is a reason why Woodrow Wilson is identified as a progressive president. But than again, JMS, your definition off fiscal conservatism is different than most people's.

Well my definition from progressive and conservative come from the dictionary. So I would say it's your idea of both which are different than most peoples.

The only reason the right calls Woodrow Wilson a progressive is because they were looking for a scape goat for their neo-conservative problem. The right supported the neocons for eight years and empowered them, now they want to say the neocons were really Democrats. An argument only an idiot would buy. Woodrow Wilson was the first American president to break with George Washington's farewell address and align us with a european power in a european war. Something George W. warned us not to do when he left office in 1796. The modern conservative movement in this country grasping at straws saw similarities between this now largely forgotten war and the proactive war in Iraq. Thus they've claimed Wilson the guy who tried to found the league of nations, was the father of the neocon movment; the guys who wanted to destroy the United Nations. Laying all the now widely accepted incompetence and failures of the Neocon movement and Bush at the feet of the Democrat Wilson from 100 years ago. Really stupid.

Facts are Wilson did believe the United States interests were at stake in WWI. He aligned us with a European power; again something every president since FDR both liberal and conservative has done. Wilson didn't start the war proactively, and he certainly wasn't against international institutions to safeguard the peace.

[TheLongshot]

I guess it is pointless to argue with JMS, since he sees no difference between "liberal" and "progressive". Then again, in the public sphere such labels have been rendered meaningless since they no longer are used by the proper definition (same goes for Socialist, which has been misused by the right for a long time.)

[JMS]

Correct me if I am wrong, but Bush never had a fillibuster proof majority in the senate. He may have had control of the house pretty soundly, but the division int he senate for like all of the first half of his first term, etc never really materialized like the dems had. As for the healthcare thing that bush did I honestly don't remember it being anywhere near that big. I'd have to go look it up.

Bush didn't have a super majority in the senate. But bush didn't need it. He could count on some democratic support for most of his projects... a few votes. While the GOP today has been very disiplined and not given Obama's projects hardly any votes at all.

Also Bush didn't need the super majority on some of his most controversial projects like oil drilling in Alaska, his tax cuts, and granting his presidency trade authority as well as other executive priorities, because Bush used Reconcilliation. An technique by which the simple majority can pass legislation in the senate. Obama hasn't been willing to do that yet.

The net result is Bush had much better strategies for getting things through the senate than Obama has had, even though Bush didn't have a super majority.