"Progressive" vs Liberal

[Joz]

Hello. I consider myself to be a moderate liberal, and a Dean Democrat. I listen to Air America and hear on there as well as other sources a lot of talk about "the progressive voice" or how "the progressive people" need to get together. I have a bit of confusion regarding the term. Does everybody just see it as interchangeable with "Liberal"? Personally, I don't. The Independent Senator Jeffords who is an admitted socialist calls himself a "progressive" when asked what he is (won't call himself a liberal). In wikipedia it says the term is:

to create a contrast between center-left and farther-left politics. For example, John Kerry, Al Gore, and the Democratic Party are more likely to be described as or to describe themselves as liberal, whereas Dennis Kucinich (a Democrat), Ralph Nader (endorsed by the Green Party in 2000) and the Green Party are more likely to be described as or to describe themselves as progressive or social democratic. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressives)

That makes sense to me. So what doesn't make ANY sense to me, is somebody like Dean, who I don't see as being "progressive" at all - I go to look up democracy for america meet-ups and almost all of them describe themselves as "a place for progressives to meet up and blah blah blah". I want to work on fixing America's problems, not converting it to socialism, I'm not for creating a socialist state and I don't think most liberals are.

In fact, DU is ranked as the 4th most "progressive" website (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0630-20.htm) If that was the case shouldn't this be greenunderground.com?

Thoughts on "progressive" vs "liberal"? Is this a case of people pussying out to right-winged attacks and not wanting to be called "liberal" anymore? (If thats the case, thats pretty lame.) Am I at a socialist-like message board? Is there general confusion over the term? What in the hell is going on?

Sorry if this has been discussed but I really am very poor right now so I can't use the search feature.

[w4rma]

1. I prefer "progressive" since Democrats aren't "liberal" on economics.

liberal economics means to economics what liberal means to social laws: Less regulations and laws.

Progressives, in general, support more regulations with regards to money/economics and less regulations with regards to folks' personal lives.

I just think that the word "liberal" gets folks down in the South confused about Democrats and progressives. Republicans used to be the liberals, and really tore up the south. I think that's what alot of older southerners think of when they think of liberals, although now they've connected that to the Democratic Party instead of with the Republican Party who have not changed at all on economics since at least President Hoover's term in office.

[patrice]

2. Welcome to DU Joz! Are you saying Progressive = Socialistic?

I'm not sure that it does, necessarily.

I've been coming here for a few years now. The DU is a very big place; it is by no means monolithic. There are at least as many Capitalists as there are Socialists, probably more actually.

[Joz]

5. Not = , but almost.

Green Party / Jeffords seem to be pretty socialist to me.

[Justitia]

6. You really need to get educated on whos who in the Senate. -eom

[Joz]

10. Sorry, Meant Sanders

Completely confused Sanders with Jeffords.

[Justitia]

11. FYI - Bernie Sanders is in the House of Reps, not the Senate

I should also add, he is not a Democrat (but I like him anyway).

[Joz]

12. Yes, I am aware of that. n/t

[Mr_Spock]

3. This has been discussed from time to time

I wish I could provide you with some enlightened answer on this subject of terminology - instead, I'll just give you my opinion. My opinion is that the term "progressive" was used to enable someone to get past the name calling some of the nut-jobs were doing in the past WRT the older term "liberal". It seems to me that the term "liberal" is now becoming a kind of "badge of honor" for Democrats & liberals and the term is being re-introduced with sort of a rebellious "yeah, I'm a liberal - you got a problem with that" type mentality. Ed Schultz is a prime example of a new and stronger use of the word liberal. I'm starting to use the term more now too as it must be taken and put back into the proper context, albeit with a bit more gusto than before. I kind of like the resurgence of the term "liberal".

[Joz]

7. Thats me.

Thats what I'm about, liberal should be a "badge of honor". The liberals have done some of the best work in this country. Thats the sort of mentality that I have (I'm a liberal - you got a problem with that?) I love Ed Schultz. Though I must say, I've heard him throw around the "progressive" term in referring to himself, so still confused there!

[Mr_Spock]

14. I think there is some benefit to having multiple terms to bandy about

I'm like you - all about taking back the term "liberal" and using it as a badge of honor. There are times when I feel the need to have an action associated with a cause - in that case one is being "progressive" - as in the opposite of doing nothing as conservatives would like to do on many issues. I guess I just don't object to either term, but I'm 100% behind the forceful use of the term "liberal" though - I'm going to use that term more and more just because it irks some people - I'm proud of that - as I should have been all along - shame on me! I try not to miss Ed's show - he seems to have a good idea how and where to expend his energy - I like that. And there aren't any issues that he has to walk away from :D

[Joz]

23. Rock On

Well, wasn't Ed a former republican? I thought I heard this on his show one day but am not sure. I am. I wasn't very politically informed/knowledgable - as is a frequent requirement of being a republican. I think there's just going to be more and more of us that Bush is going to piss off extremely that are going to do our research, realize we are on the wrong side, and move left. I think (hope) there's going to be a lot more patriotic energy coming to the left from these types of people and we're going to wear "liberal" on our sleeve, have no problem with that, and are down to get into fist fights with righties that are a-holes.

[Mr_Spock]

27. LOL - I'm glad you have chosen to fight for the "good - guys"

Yes, Ed was a former Republican and has since seen the light. I've always been fiscally conservative and socially liberal - like the majority of Americans (I'm pretty sure). I know that patriotism is something we all have - just like strong support for the kids who are dying for Bush's narrow minded policies. I choose to fight the policy and am highly irritated that the flag-waving dick-heads that try to accuse opponents of government policy as being "against America" or "against the troops". Quite the opposite is true. I so have to resist my urge to want to kick their asses from time to time - knowing it will accomplish little. I know the difference between a fascist-like patriotic fever and a true commitment to doing the right thing through actual (and meaningful) actions. I hope more of the well-informed types like you will see the light and fight for what is right.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joz]

9. Woops, not Jeffords

"Pussying out?" - not a real progressive term to me.

Thats because I'm not a progressive?

My apologies, I completely confused Jeffords with Sanders!

[Tamyrlin79]

8. I don't think about it like that.

To me, progressive as it is currently used is more like "liberals with backbone", rather than "farther left" liberals. I think progressive represents a broader term. Of course, part of that plays into the demonization of the word liberal, so I think that the current popular use of the word progressive is in a sense a reaction to that seizure of language by the Republicans.

However, I think most of us also see ourselves as in a similar position as (and therefore identify with) the progressive movement of the last century, when they fought against the robber barons, political corruption, and the powers that be of the age for a more open process, less wealth concentration, and more checks and balances in the system. It was a social movement that ultimately culminated in labor rights, women's rights, the repeal of prohibition, institution of child labor laws, direct election of Senators, the income tax, and the New Deal. And, if that's socialism, then I'm all for it. I don't like to categorize our ideas into previous "-isms", though. I hardly think most anyone here is advocating communism or socialism or any such "-ism" so much as the enlightenment philosophies and ideologies on which democracy in general is based. I think we are more openminded in the sense that we don't care whether the conservatives, communists, or whoever came up with the idea... If it helps sustain democracy, a just economic system, and a more equitable society, then I, at least, am all for it. So, I'm not sure that the old labels quite apply. I dare say that in the future we might be given an "-ism" of our own, hopefully something we choose, rather than a branding of our enemies.

[bookman]

13. Either is fine

I refused to get dragged into a "divide and conquer" game with the NeoCons. Progressives and/or Liberals need to get together and get these creeps out of power.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

15. I've always called myself a moderate liberal.

I was under the impression that many liberals started calling themselves progressives, because the term "liberal" had been so maligned by conservatives. I never really paid a lot of attention at first, but it does seem that progressives who insist on that label occupy a more defined quadrant of the Left-liberal sphere. Another problem is that the term "liberal" has changed over the years, and is so misapplied today.

In the 19th century, many of the economically conservative libertarians of today, would have been called liberal back then. Nixon was liberal by current Republican standards. Many Republicans see McCain as liberal (he has a 85% rating from the American Conservative Union, for Christ's sake!)

Anyway, it can all be a bit confusing, which is why I try to reject a lot of these labels. For all intents and purposes, I'm a center-Left Liberal, a Christian, and a proud American (not necessarily in that order).

[Radical Activist]

16. The term has taken on new meanings lately.

Historically, it did refer to those who are very liberal, especially on economic issues. That doesn't mean they are socialists. Dennis Kucinich is very liberal, but he isn't a socialist. The historical Progressive Party ran Presidential candidates who were to the left of the major party candidates, but they were not socialist. Although, many socialists did support Wallace's run as a Progressive Party Presidential candidate in '48. The progressive movement in addition to being liberal and reform-minded was more urban based than the populist movement.

More recently, many Democrats are using progressive as a replacement for the world liberal because Republicans have been successful in demonizing the word liberal and associating it with everything evil in the world.

Howard Dean is a moderate, not a liberal or a progressive. It is indeed misleading to call DFA a progressive organization because it has supported many moderate and even conservative Democrats. I've seen Dean supporters on this board and elsewhere try to redefine progressive once again in an effort to excuse the deception and cover their butts.

The term has recently lost much of its traditional meaning so I'm sure you'll get a lot of different answers. Everyone has their own idea about what progressive means these days and I even see moderates try to adopt it as their own.

[Joz]

17. So DFA is not far left

That is one of the main things I wanted to figure out. I don't want to go to a DFA meeting and be surrounded by nothing but far-left people. I think of myself as more Dean-like so this didn't make sense to me. Thanks.

[Radical Activist]

22. It depends on where you go

DFA has a different flavor in different cities. You will probably be surrounded by people with a lot of different philosophies. There might be a bunch of far-left people or there might not be.

People on this board get sick of my criticizing Dean. This issue is largely why. I think DFA has a lot of very liberal Democrats who are working for a moderate organization led by a moderate, establishment Democrat. I think it diverts energy and resources away from the progressive movement that could be spent elsewhere. Anyway, if you like Dean, chances are good that you will fit in fine at a DFA meeting.

[Justitia]

20. see, many conflicting opinions on this

I think this is a useless exercise, but I'll add some stuff.

I'm fairly sure Radical Activist is to the left of me (LOL).

However, INTRA-party, I would call myself a progressive because I believe in fiscal conservatism and the active use of policy to foment a desired outcome. These are key, in my opinion, to the protection of social justice.

INTRA-party, I see "liberals" as more sort of "laissez-faire" on policy and deficits.

I am less liberal on guns and the death penalty (w/certain requirements).

I NEVER make these distinctions OUTSIDE our party, it is a useless exercise mostly, but I also do not like the negative connotation "liberal" has gotten outside our party and don't ever want to appear to not embrace the term.

I am totally cool with non-dems calling me a liberal.

[ConsAreLiars]

18. Words change meanings over time. Don't get hung up on labels.

Once upon a time the term "progressive" (research the "Progressive Party") meant something like radical or (r)evolutionary anti-corporatist. If in popular usage it now means something even more accommodationist than "liberal," well, that is a shame. But the bottom line is that if you want to work for peace and justice, just do it and don't worry too much about what label you, or others, apply to that effort. If you find the discussion here valuable and feel you can participate constructively, do so, and don't worry about what labels others use.

(And as for contributing to get a star and search capabilities, there is no minimum.)

[Selatius]

19. Progressive = Liberal in my mind

It's just that "liberal" has been attacked by those opposed to liberalism as a philosophy to the point where "progressive" has been chosen instead. This is just my opinion though.

Frankly, most folks on DU would be members of the Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, Greens, or various socialist groups if the electoral system in this country allowed more than two political parties and didn't stifle debate.

BTW, I'm of the libertarian socialist variety.

[mattclearing]

21. You don't have to be a socialist to be progressive.

I kinda think the main issue is that only unelectable people have defined themselves as progressive at a level high enough to get noticed.

No one in their correct mind seriously accused Paul Wellstone of being a socialist, did they?

Wes Clark is often talked about as being progressive, but I don't think the "socialist" tag would stick to him in an election; do you?

I think of progressivism as endorsing reasonable controls on runaway greed, and a bit of a social safety net. It supports a free market, but also makes allowances for casualies of that system.

Is that socialist?

[Lexingtonian]

24. there is no real consensus

But there are more or less two real wings to the Democratic Party, one of which is very much identified with liberalism. The labelling trouble is with the other wing, which basically represents the traditional ideas of the moderate Left, and where the word "progressive" turns up more often but isn't quite adopted. The term 'Left' is associated with unions and farmers in American history, but was poisoned by the American Communist Party and Stalinism and Castro's revolutionism.

There is a mistaken idea in this country that Right=Conservative and Left=Liberal. It's very hard to get out of peoples' heads. We have a two-axis politics, of Right-Left and Conservative-Liberal, that one could diagram as an 'X'. Of the four poles, traditionally Right and Liberal are the strong halves of the axes, Left and Conservative the weak ones, and majority power is attained by the weaker two aligning with one of the strong two. Right-Left is an economic power dynamic, Liberal-Conservative a social one.

The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is socially liberal in general and economically pragmatic in recent years- the economy is so transitional that adapting rather than forcing matters strongly in some direction is its consensus.

The 'progressive' wing of the Democratic Party is socially moderate/conservative and economically variable from moderate to radically Left. Its essential idea is actually democratic socialism of the European variety, not that anyone in the U.S. really ever seems to know what socialism is. It is technically something very distinct from the planned economy and social pseudoegalitarianism of Soviet rule. 'Capitalism', btw, was as bankrupt a shorthand for a hybrid of industrial age capitalism with agrarian age colonialist economics.

The term Left vanishing into thin air is the root of the problem. People went back to the old Progressivism to get a different one, then went back the well when they didn't want to be called liberals. Which has greatly confused things.

The Party is in a running quandry on which emphasis- liberal or Left/progressive, or neither ('moderate')- to follow to regain power. The messy arguments involved have further mangled the precision of the terminology employed. The Right hasn't helped either, intentionally screwing around with it all to confuse and disunite Democrats further.

Personally, I think Clinton and Gore took the Left/progressive/populist part of things to about their useful limit.

[EST]

25. Terms, labels, names, epithets

We call people names in order to classify or categorize them and show our own feelings about each category. There is nothing inherently bad or wrong about any particular label, just our own particular baggage we bring with us.

We form governments to accomplish goals and tasks that are simply too large, complex, or expensive to tackle alone. Those governments must (in order to yield the greatest good, while protecting against tyranny) include elements of all those things with labels-socialism, communism, capitalism, on and on, ad nauseum. The rub begins to show up when any large group decides that everything must be run solely by one ism absent all others.

"Progressivism" seems to include a mixture most of the others and does not carry the taint that liberal good-naturedness and pollyannaishness(pollyannaiety?) have allowed some fiercely self centered, partisan mouthpieces to smear on the term "liberal."
Communism and socialism are not necessarily bad ideas, but have a lot of negative historical symbology due to the rise of dictators that seems nearly always to accompany them or to fill a vacuum inherent in them.

My own guess would be that the denizens of DU are (with the exception of a few trolls, here and there) quite progressive, mostly liberal and nearly always powerless. In addition, where the flame of outrage has not guttered low, I find a lot of anger.

[Joz]

26. Impressive

For my first question posted to General Discussion, I'd like to thank everyone for their answers and also say that I am quite impressed. I am impressed by the quality of the answers and thought provoking nature of them. I especially liked the last couple comments about labels. Very good and rich discussion. This place is great.