Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What is a "Progressive"? Can a person be opposed to, say, gay marriage and still be "Progressive"?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:42 AM
Original message
What is a "Progressive"? Can a person be opposed to, say, gay marriage and still be "Progressive"?
Can a person be for gun rights, but ok with gay marriage, and still be progressive? Can a person be for gay marriage but opposed to gun rights and still be "progressive"? Can a person be for personal responsibility and still be "progressive"? Can a person be for gay marriage, against gun rights, against abortion, and for unionization and be "progressive"? Can a person be for strong nationa security, for the Afganistan war, against the Iraq war, and for tax fairness and a living wage and still be "progressive"? How about for green energy development, against gay marriage but for civil unions, for fair taxation and a living wage, for unions, but against single payer healthcare and still "progressive"? Please, someone, show me two people are not in lockstep in each and every issue and yet both can be "progressive."

Considering myself, I think of myself as "progressive" since I believe in PROGRESS. I am for in tax fairness, government investment in infrastructure and education, clean energy, corporate responsiblity, gay marriage (that's their choice, why should anyone else care?), reproductive choice, and unionization. I am opposed to the Iraq war, but I do think, due to Iraq, we have to give the other one more time, but LIMITED time. I also believe in flying the flag and a whole lot of personal responsibility attached to opporunity (i.e. welfare to work programs, minimal grade requirements for publicly subsidized loans and schools, paying for your own abortion if that is your choice (rape, incest, and medical emergency excepted) etc.). I am for progress, even if it has to involve some compromise so at least small steps can be made. (Rarely does the whole world change overnight.) I woul prefer single payer healthcare, but I know we can't get that now and would even welcome insurance reform as a first step. How about it? Do I
qualify as "progressive"? Oh yes, I also vote virtually straight Dem, even if the Dem is not as "progressive" as I might like, since the RePUKE is always 10 times worse.

The point of all this?: It seems some are too quick to label themselves but not others as "progressive," even in a society where two people very rarely agree on all issues. These lables really are pretty mushy. Some "progressive" really need to be careful about ideological/issue purity. It is a sure loser nationally, as evidenced by the perennial Nader/Kucinich campaigns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. Well I believe you should have to pay for your own Viagra then.
The Hyde Amendment should be repealed. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and is health care needed by women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I agree that boner pills should be paid for by the consumer, but not all abortions should be paid
for either.

As stated in the OP, only abortions for rape, incest, life of the mother, etc., should be paid for. All other abortions are a choice the mother makes, a personal choice, that should also be a personal expense.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure and is health care needed by women.


I agree 100%. Abortions need to be kept safe and legal, but just like boner pills, personal choices should be a personal expense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Pregnancy is very preventable, so no public funding for abortion. Yes, also pay for Viagra.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. So then why should child birth be funded, if pregnancy is preventable?
What a ridiculous argument. All kinds of medical conditions are preventable, yet the government funds the treatment of them if the person has government medical coverage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Oh please. Are you serious? Yours is the ultimate example of apples and oranges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. Bullshit. Abortion is a legal medical procedure. No different than a tonsilectomy in that aspect.
Just because you don't approve of it doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to get one if the federal government covers my health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #19
64. BS right back at you on this. People need to be responsible. Are you for endless tax-paid
abortions? Want an abortion, fine. There are private programs that help. They're usually only a few hundred bucks. Go and get on the pill. Wear a condom. Whatever. And there are private programs to help with those too. But abortion except under the circumstances I've said should not require public financing. That is plenty fair. Just my opinion, and I still think I get to be "progressive". How about promoting wind power? Can we agree we are both "progressive" on that. I think it's great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #64
70. I gotcha loud and clear. Punish the sluts.
It's nice that you're for wind power but IMHO you are a forced birther authoritarian misogynist so NO, you are NOT a progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #70
89. And you hear only what you want to hear and chuck out insults like a TeaBagger. Real nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #64
79. I think you have managed to answer your original question in this sub thread.
Loud and clear: nope, you probably aren't a progressive. You are a mildly authoritarian moralist. You hold a mixture of opinions that range across the political spectrum, but you have nailed yourself to standard mainstream center right authoritarianism with your position on abortion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #79
122. Well, that pretty well nails it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #64
103. Endless abortions are pretty much a myth created by the RW anti-choice crowd
No birth control methods except abstinence are 100%. Good luck convincing adults to give up sex. Insurance companies are not even required to cover birth control. But this picture that has been painted of women who just willy nilly run off to the clinic for another abortion is on the same level as Ronnies' welfare queens. Those who oppose the use of tax dollars for abortions generally also oppose funding to help poor mothers raise the children and many of them oppose affordable access to family planning. It's just a vicious cycle. Deny access to family planning, deny access to abortion, then bitch about the 'welfare queens.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #103
107. Yup. It's hatred of poor people and women at it's core.
Poor people don't deserve any pleasure and neither do women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
113. The difference is that abortion for purposes of birth control (vice medical necessity) is ELECTIVE
surgery.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #113
114. A lot of surgery is elective
Having your gallbladder out if it hasn't ruptured yet is elective. Knee replacements are elective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #114
129. There is tipping point for those and other surgeries that are not "dire necessities"
I think the economic argument works for elective abortions as much as sterilization procedures, and I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.

Intellectually I wonder if the government were not funding them, would the communities step up. Here in CA that is not an issue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #113
123. So are vasectomies and tubal ligations.
Yet those will be covered by plans in the exchange.

BTW, I don't want to bear a child. Ever. If I get pregnant abortion will be a medical necessity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #123
127. The argument for those is economic, though the anti choice crowd will not tell you that
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 06:59 PM by ProgressiveProfessor
I think the same math works for abortion as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. It does seem having a baby is a personal choice, also.
Consistency would demand we pay for no personal choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #20
42. Exactly. No drug or alcohol addiction treatment.
No treatment of injuries occuring while engaging in a sport or hobby either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #42
95. Ah, now now. We are mixing apples with oranges again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #95
100. Right, because abortions go to sluts.
Big difference.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #100
116. +1000 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #42
137. Or STDs.
Currently fifty year old businessmen who go to Thailand and sleep with nine year old kids and come back with chlamydia are covered.

But the forty year old woman with three kids who finds out she'd pregnant with a Downs baby and agonizes over the decision to burden her existing kids with that kind of lifelong commitment? She's the monster who needs to pay (along with her whole family) for her own poor life choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #137
141. But hey, Bristol and Sarah can do it so that woman should be able to as well
Even if she doesn't have a fraction of the money and resources the Palin family does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
90. A full term child is a very different matter. Let's please be real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #90
98. Of course but it was, nevertheless, preventable
And I have no problem with those who choose to have children. But, why should I pay for it? Isn't that always the argument against funding abortiong? I don't want to pay for it. Well, maybe I don't want to pay people to populate the planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #20
130. The magic word is theraputic...be it abortions or any other kind of treatment
If an pregnant healthy woman chooses an abortion, it is clearly elective surgery, which some compare to mamoplasty (boob job).

Sterilization however is covered, which clearly makes good economic sense. I think the math works for elective abortion as well.

Here in CA the courts have held the state must pay for elective abortions. Solves the issue for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. But again, what is a "progressive." With my description, do I qualify?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
2. Progressives should not discriminate.
But I guess people can call themselves whatever they want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Well, thanks. But objectively, do I qualify? (See OP)
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 12:00 PM by RBInMaine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hatchling Donating Member (968 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
126. nope. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
7. "Paying for your own abortion." OOPS.
Not a very progressive position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. But what about my other positions? Does that ONE disqualify me? Am I out of the club?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
82. There is no club. I don't run admissions.
I personally find your abortion view to be revealing of a deeply conservative streak somewhere.

But that is my opinion.

There is no club.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
8. "Progress" is an arbitrary term
We should adopt policies because they are right and be against policies that are wrong. Appeals to "progress" annoy the shit out of me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. But it is the very root meaning of the coveted title "progressive." And what is "right"? I don't
think taxpayer funded abortion is "right." I think welfare to work IS right? Am I "wrong"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
12. "Progressive" simply put means tending toward progress for the human condition.
It is pro-modernity, science, health, equality, egalitarian, standardization and democracy in the sense of popular accountability. It is against superstition, elitism, ideology, privilege, absolute property rules, oppressive traditions and democracy in the sense people are self-regulating rather than standardized. What I mean by this is that before say 1880, literally anyone could call himself a doctor. There was no standard training and very little hands-on experience. It was democratic in the sense that anyone could do it. The same way with patent medicine, a lack of education standards, a lack of environmental standards, etc. The Progressive point of view is that health care, safety, environmental, educational and just about anything that effects the community as a whole should be standardized based on scientific principles.

To answer the question in your subject line, without any real public policy reason to oppose same-sex marriage, I don't see how someone can be progressive who does oppose it. The objection is purely traditional and religious and has no basis in rationality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. But what if a person on that ONE issue is not "progressive" but is on all else? Is he/she out?
A person may just be opposed to gay marriage on principle. Still out in your book? ONE position on ONE issue that is not "progressive," and you are out? Hmmmm....seems like you're gonna be in a pretty TINY minority going that route.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. It's a general description, not a qualification for a social club.
So I don't think there is a definitive answer. Imposing religious prejudices on others generally is not a progressive thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. What if it has NOTHING to do with religion but merely personal opinion? What about other issues?
If you go out of lockstep with "progressives" on a singly issue, does it mean you can't be "progressive" anymore?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #22
36. Depends what is the factual basis for that opinion is.
I have yet to hear one that is not based in religious dogma about how people are "supposed" to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. The basis might just be they feel the best society is one where opposite sex marriage is best. Do
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 12:41 PM by RBInMaine
they not have right to a personal opinion? Why must it be attached to religion on this? I know plenty of folks opposed to it on personal principle and are not particularly "religious" at all. In fact they would have no problem with civil unions. Marriage is just too far for them. Anyhow, what if they are also for labor unions, fair taxes, single payer healthcare, peace, the environment...do they still get to be "progressive," or would the marriage issue be a non-qualifyer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. A gut feeling is not a factual basis.
Obviously people have a right to opinions. That does not prevent those opinions from being reactionary rather than progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. So "progressive" on EVERYTHING else, but OUT if not for gay marriage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Out of what? Explain. EDIT
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 12:46 PM by Deep13
The D. party? No one is being kicked out of the party. Progressives do not have membership lists or qualifications to be a member because it is not a social club. Opposition to gay marriage is reactionary. A person's other views may well be progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. "Out" of being a "progressive". It seems there are already some people here saying that if a person
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 12:49 PM by RBInMaine
is opposed to gay marriage (ONE issue), or opposed to public funding of abortion (ONE issue), or supports welfare to work programs (ONE issue), they can't call themselves "progressive" since those are not "progressive" positions. Must all "progressives" be in complete lockstep, or can there be some diverse views WITHIN the "progressive" population?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #51
125. Partly out, partly in.
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 06:07 PM by Orsino
People are allowed a bit of stupidity. Presumably, one does not shuck off the damage done by years of group-think in an instant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pool Hall Ace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #45
118. If a person is opposed to civil rights for all, then I would not
consider him/her to be progressive. But like Freddie Mertz, I'm not in charge of membership to the "club."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Does welfare to work policy in a market society not serve to improve the human condition at all?
If they are encouraged and given some skills but then REQUIRED to work, does that not improve society by having more people out there producing for the rest, creating, earning a living, earning self esteem and respect, etc.???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. I don't know. The answer lies in the data.
If it in fact works, then it would be progressive. If not, it isn't. It seems difficult to see how welfare-to-work can be successful now when there is no work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. How about ATTEMPTING over the LONG TERM to go from welfare to work? Better?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. The proof is always in the pudding.
Honestly, work is not the goal. The goal is prosperity. A lot of people work hard and are still dirt poor. So, it is a good idea to the extent it promotes those goals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. So all your policy positions are a matter of relying on data for proof they "work"? Hm. Principles?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. I never said that.
I was responding to your specific question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjorn Against Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. How do you intend to require people to work when unemployment is so high?
Tell me your plans for creating all the jobs that would be required to employ everyone who is on welfare right now. If you can't provide people with opportunities for jobs then I don't see how you can require them to work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. I am talking about general policies and using examples of them. Don't divert. What is progressive?
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 12:32 PM by RBInMaine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. It's pretty hard to follow a principle that ignores objective reality. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #33
53. Well, one principle for some "progressives" seems to be sitting out of voting to "send a message"
but where is the objective data to show that makes the person who didn't get those votes anymore "progressive". We can go around and around on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjorn Against Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #28
39. Well I would say the policy you are promoting is horribly regressive.
To suggest pulling government aid from people who don't work when there are so few jobs available right now is not a progressive policy it is a regressive policy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. You are WAY overthinking the thing. I am speaking generally, not about the right here and now. So
stop diverting and tell me what a progressive is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjorn Against Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #44
50. There is no strict definition of what a progressive is
There is no list of values that every progressive must follow, there are however progressive policies and regressive policies. Your idea of requiring people on welfare to find a job when there are no jobs available is regressive.

You are accusing me of "overthinking", I would suggest that you are not thinking things through enough before you promote your poorly thought out ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #50
58. Bjorn, you have missed the whole point by a mile. I am not "promoting" anything. Not one thing.
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 01:01 PM by RBInMaine
This a philosphical discussion about ideology, the nature of it, and the limitations of it. The GENERAL policy points have been to illustrate philosphy and further the discussion. The point of the discussion is NOT about a very specific policy position at a particular point in time in a particular set of circumstances. We are talking political philosophy here, not the nuts and bolts of the present recession and its impact on specific policy areas. Think more generally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjorn Against Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #58
66. I get the point, now here are some questions to see if you get the point...
What issues can a person actively oppose Obama on and still be a good Democrat in your view? Can they actively campaign against the health care bill and still be a good Democrat? Can they believe that Obama is responsible for the deaths that result from his surge in Afghanistan and still be a good Democrat? Can they actively promote a primary challenger against Obama and still be a good Democrat?

You seem to insist it is wrong for progressives to have litmus tests on certain issues, but can you honestly tell me that you don't have litmus tests of your own?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #66
86. As to the electoral matters, yes, yes, and yes, BUT also remember that in electoral politics it
is also important to stress the GOOD things the officeholder and party are doing (i.e. Obama/Dem green energy initiatives, more stem cells, more choice, stimulus that created/saved lots of job, SCHIP, Lilly Leadbetter law, working to close GITMO, ending torture...). To always dwell on what is not "progressive" enough isn't fair and is counter-productive, especially when the other party is on balance far worse and when GOVERNING with a big, diverse NATIONAL caucus WILL require compromise. At the end of the day, the party needs to be SUPPORTED, not constantly and incessantly criticized by those who also claim they want to be "Good Democrats". Can't have it both ways when a member of a political party. It is like saying, "Can I be against the coach and how the other players do things and work to replace the coach and always criticize other players...but still be a 'good' member of the team." The goal is to beat the other "team", in our case Republicans, and not to constantly chew up our own.

As to Obama, he INHERITED the wars and a rotten economy, he SAID it would take a LONG time to deal with the HUGE set of problems, and he deserves that time. We have to get some things done with a broad caucus, one that is better broad than narrow like the TeaHaters. So let's give him the time he deserves. And let's support the team and remember that the other half of the glass is full.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
109. Requiring single mothers caring for young children to work generally isn't progressive, IMO
Whether we should strive for a society where everybody works is a more abstract question that progressives can genuinely disagree about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proudohioan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #17
121. Only in theory.
In practice, that program is about as corrupt as they come. Ever seen Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine"? Welfare to Work program is touched on, and I'll tell you, Michael Moore is right on the money. I know, I used to work for a Department of Human Services in a large county. The "jobs" they train these women for? Basically flipping burgers and filling salad bars. The companies that eventually hire them pay minimum wage, often for less than 40 hours per week. On top of that, the company will get a tax credit of up to $9000 (depending on what employee's age, type of assistance and length of time on assistance) per employee. It's called a Welfare-to-Work tax credit and any employer is eligible to receive it. There are NO requirements to provide for paying a living wage.

It was truly upsetting to see these women, sent for "training" at a "non-profit" cafeteria, given duties such as cashiering and making sandwiches (they never were given any training in any of the REAL cooking, managing, bookkeeping, etc... ), then "placed" with certain select employers after their training was complete. I imagine a lot of money changed hands in this set up, and you can figure who's palms DIDN'T get greased......

Now imagine that you need to pay housing, food and child care, all while making minimum wage. Yeah, most of these women were in Section 8 housing, food stamps, Medicaid and CCAP, so that helps a bit.
Well, more than a bit.......

I am SO filled with pride at the thought of our "Free Market" at work! Ask me who I think the are biggest Welfare Queens in America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. Ew. Scientific [insert ideology/system of organization here] is never good
Scientific Socialism (Marxism)being a primary example of that principle. We should adopt policies because they are morally/ethically right, and not just because some loser in a white coat says that we should.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
41. That's not what science is.
There's nothing scientific about Marxism or any other ideology. I simply meant that public policy has to work in reality and not simply because it matches ones ideology, religion or other preconceptions. Here's an ideological statement: drugs are bad. Despite this the evidence is clear that the social cost of prosecuting marijuana crimes greatly outweighs any damage that the weed causes. Ergo, it should not be a crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #41
55. My bad. It sounded as if you were advocating scientific management of society
As opposed to simply using science to help society determine its own laws. Sorry about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
48. Good post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
16. imo, anyone opposed the equal civil rights for glbt folks i.e. marriage
should be drummed out of the party.
thats my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Even if they are fine with civil unions? Hm, seems like a wish for a pretty narrow party that won't
win many elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #18
35. civil unions do not provide over 1400 benefits that marriage does.
seperate but equal is horsemanure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #35
47. You are getting very stuck on this ONE issue. Hm... very telling. Very much indeed.
Single issue-ness is pretty darn dangerous, electorally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. you asked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #49
54. Well, thanks for the honesty. So for you, against gay marriage, OUT of "progressiveness" on that 1
issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #54
57. you might as well ask "should democrats support the rights of black and white people to marry"
same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #57
67. Hmmmm...not unless they are of the opposite sex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #57
68. Again, I'm ok with gay marriage, but should there be any limitation? i.e Age?
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 01:17 PM by RBInMaine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjorn Against Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #68
72. Did you seriously just compare gay marriage to beastiality?
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 01:18 PM by Bjorn Against
On edit: I see you just edited your post, but I saw what it said and it was disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #72
83. No, I was going to use a stark example to see where the limitations were on this issue were for some
people given some "absoluteness" I am hearing about "rights", but knew it would be very much misunderstood and perhaps too stark, so I edited it. And remember, I am all for marriage equality. I view it as a personal, private matter. However, I also respect the opinions of others on it, and most of those who are not for it, in my view, should not be labeled ignorant, and intolerant, etc. They have a right to their view, and they shouldn't be maligned for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #72
87. Yep. Saw that too
Fucking sick that this whole thread is standing.

Fucking sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #87
93. "Sick" to discuss political philosophy on a political board? Are you that intolerant?
Do not all my "progressive" positions count for anything with you? Maybe you are sick?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. Progressive my ass, you know what you EDITED out of that homophobic post
SICK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #96
102. Kindly chill out and watch the namecalling. I have explained it. Sorry if you can't understand the
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 02:14 PM by RBInMaine
explanation. Homophobic? I voted FOR marriage equality in Maine, donated to that cause, and headed up my locality on the '05 gay rights Maine initiative that DID pass. (I could not work on this last campaign because I was working on another of the referendums, to kill the right wing TABOR bill, another PROGRESSIVE position we WON on.) I knew the point of that reply would be misunderstood, so I edited it. You are only proving me correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #102
105. Name calling? Your post is HOMOPHOBIC.
It says it all, you prove your own homophobic shit with your posts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #105
108. Inside your narrow, intolerant thought process perhaps. But it is just an objective question and if
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 02:34 PM by RBInMaine
you have read the whole OP you would see I cite MANY policy positions. Just because someone posits using the marriage equality issue, you automatically label it "homophobic." Did you read the rest? Did you see I voted FOR marriage equality in Maine? Did you just see that I DONATED to the YES ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN MAINE campaign? Further, I wrote a letter to the local paper FOR it. I used this issue as just ONE of many to see how narrow or brod the philosophy "progressivism" is for some people according to their stances on particular issues, marriage equality being just ONE. You really do need to take a chill pill and try to see ALL of what a person writes and means. And thanks, you have answered my original question as well. I guess if a person doesn't agree with you on something, he or she is not "progressive."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #57
74. AND, that is NOT what I'm saying. I'm asking IF a person opposed on that ONE issue, could he or she
still be "progressive" even if he/she met all other "requirements"? Sounds like in your case, NO. Gay marriage is your litmus test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #76
94. Do you ever plan to run for office? You might want to lighten up a bit if you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #94
120. I wouldnt make it, I have ethics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. Democratic and Progressive overlap, but are not synonymous.
The party exists to win elections. Progressive is a point of view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. What point of view? And what of the importance of getting at least some of that view-
point enacted by winning elections?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Already answered the first question.
I was responding to a previous post that suggested that anyone opposed to gay marriage should be excluded from the Democratic Party. I was not commenting on the need for progressive legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #16
32. I agree
And I really don't care about most social issues. A belief in Equal Rights (EQUAL RIGHTS =/= SPECIAL RIGHTS) should be a requirement. Civil rights are non-negotiable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. But can there not be some disagreement on "rights" in a society of laws ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
31. People can have all kinds of weird combinations of views
Gay marriage - marriage is a patriarchal institution that one can be against, since it was designed for the oppression of women, according to some. Therefore it should be abolished, so why bother with gay marriage.

There was a group of Feminists against abortion. They argued that the reasons women have them is due to the patriarchy - you can't afford the child because of it, women had them to escape having a child out of wedlock, because they would suffer socially for that, which was the patriarchy at work controlling women. There was a certain logic to it. Women have babies, they should never be sorry about that or have to get an abortion to satisfy or escape the patriarchy. It made a certain sense if you looked at it from that angle.

As you can see I used to read a lot of feminist stuff. Some of it was way out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heidi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
52. You cannot oppose gay marriage and be progressive, liberal or a truly decent human being.
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 12:57 PM by Heidi
It's a fact that being homophobic can get you tombstoned from DU; the "decent human being" part is is just my own opinion.

The Admins' position "gay rights and related issues": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

ETA: It's not "gay marriage," anyway. It's simply MARRIAGE, a contract which, in most states, excludes our gay brothers and sisters. What's progressive about denying marriage rights to consenting adults who love one another and are competent to enter into a state-sanctioned contract?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #52
59. So the majority of the American population is homophobic and bad? This SINGLE issue can destroy
all other "progressive" credentials? Gee, you are one strict constructionist on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heidi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. Selfish and ignorant would be better general descriptions than "bad," I guess,
but depending on the intent of those denying equal rights to other adult Americans, "bad" might apply, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #63
80. So the majority of Americans are "selfish" and "ignorant" because they disagree with you on a
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 01:29 PM by RBInMaine
social issue? Your opinion matters, but their's is wrong, ignorant, and selfish? This is a real trap you might reconsider. This is America. We have to respect other opinions even when we disagree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heidi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. My opinion does not at all impede your rights. However, homophobia
impedes the human rights of at least 10 percent of the population. And, frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what the majority believes. It's the same majority tha opposed my white grandfather marrying my non-white grandmother. See how that goes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #84
88. In a civilized nation, we can disagree without being disagreeable, as they say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heidi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #88
91. A grwt way to demonstrate civility is to support human and civil rights.
And since my every reply to you kicks this flamebait disguised as "civil" discussion, I'm finished here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #88
135. "we can disagree without being disagreeable"
Not really, not on all subjects. If a person is a bigot, they are by default already disagreeable, even if they say yes ma'am and yes sir while explaining their bigotry.

You're mistaken when you refer to people as single issue voters if they won't support a bigot. Bigotry is like a delta plain. It branches out in all different directions. It's never a "single issue" that it impacts because its foundation is rooted in a belief of supremacy of one group over another. That's tied to exploitation of the poor, militarism, colonialism, women's rights, corporate regulation, on and on.

Canary in a coal mine. It's the single issue of the one canary dying, and also it's the warning siren to back away before others are hurt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #80
124. No, I respect peoples' right to have an opinion but I don't have to respect the opinion itself. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #59
81. Uh, yeah, pretty much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #52
60. Yeah, well "gay marriage" gives us a way to put the discussion in context. Relax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heidi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #60
69. Oh, the irony of being advised to "relax" by someone framing a discussion
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 01:16 PM by Heidi
of what it is to be a progessive at the peril the human rights of Americans every bit as equal and human as you and I. Charming, but wholly unconvincing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #69
78. You're getting stuck in semantics and sensitivity. If "marriage equality" makes you happier, fine.
Is that better? Ok now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heidi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #78
85. Don't make me no never mind, hon.
If you think for even a second that my ethics are even slightly impacted by how you frame your little flamefest, you must not be from 'round here. I was givin' you the benefit of the doubt and tryin' to help you out. My mistake. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #85
92. Just an honest discussion about political philosophy and its parameters. Been interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
56. If you are...
Anti-Choice, anti-Labor, anti-Liberty, anti-Science, anti-poor, Anti-Enviromenment anti-Universal HealthCARE, a Fundamentalist, a cultural relativist, a militarist, a corporatist, a nanny-statist, a homophobe, a racist, and/or a eugenicist you are not a Progressive.

To be a progressive you must believe in the absoluteness of Human Rights, the absoluteness of Equality Under the Law, An absolute right to the privacy of one's personal life, and rational and scientific public policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #56
61. What if a person is FOR all you said, EXCEPT abortion? Not progressive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #61
71. Not progressive.
Violation of the absolute right to privacy of one's personal life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. Gee. You are a real strict constructionist on all this. Seems it would make for a pretty thin
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 01:22 PM by RBInMaine
electorate. Maybe that's why Kucinich and Nader aren't winning the presidency?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #75
111. You are assuming there will be no compromise (real compromise, not Centrist capitulation).
Real compromise would have been starting with Single Player and having a strong Public Option and strict regulation of insurance companies as a compromise, not the POS bill we have now. The Centrist capitulationists Failed Negotiation 101, which is NEVER unconditionally give in, especially at the very start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #56
132. Color me there. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
62. on health care, it is not compromise that's offensive but that they didn't even fight for the best
but when straight to letting the insurance companies and drug companies write their own ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
65. Well of course.
As little as some people here would like to admit it, the world doesn't break down into just DUers and neocons. There's people who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. And vice versa. Or the distinction between populist leftism and authoritarian leftism. Some of these are legitimate differences of opinion, some are cases were people might need more education, others are simply the political spectrum in action.

Take me. I'm a liberal with populist/libertarian leanings. The way I see it, I believe in a free country--one where you can get drunk, worship any deity or none at all, marry anyone you like, buy a gun, smoke a joint, and nobody looks at you twice over your life choices because it's your own business and no one else's. And moreover a world where you can do all those things safely, because we have a government that keeps the roads clear, the capitalists in check, and the citizens from hurting each other.

There are other people on this board who define themselves as "progressive," but don't believe in, say, ownership of personal cars, or it being legal for people to smoke, or owning guns, or other things that they deem unprogressive or distasteful. Personally I see that attitude as not being that much different from the attitude of the fundies, who want to be able to run people's lives "for their own good" and the supposed good of the community. Once you accept the premise that one group of people should be able to regulate the personal behavior of another group when the latter isn't directly harming anyone, that's an incredibly slippery slope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #65
110. A very thoughtful response. Many thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
73. You get to decide for yourself if you're progressive. Others may disagree with your assessment.
Such is life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #73
77. Thank you. That sounds reasonable. I just wish some "progressives" wouldn't label me a DLCer if I
happen to disagree with them on a point or two. Don't I get any credit for 80+ % we DO agree on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
97. Gee, only on DU could a person with so many "Progressive" positions get flamed. Very telling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
99. To be "progressive" is to be in favor of progress, or moving forward.
Opposing marriage equality is not moving forward.
Wanting to overturn Roe vs Wade is not moving forward.
Continuing imperialistic wars for resources is not moving forward.
Opposing unions, supporting further privatization of health care, or anything else that promotes a return to a robber baron existence is absolutely regressive, moving backwards, not forward.

I would have a hard time considering anybody who supported any or all of those positions as a true "progressive".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #99
101. Progress is an extremely arbitrary term
and should not be used as the basis for any political ideology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #101
106. Interesting. Many on this board would probably take issue with you. I do up to a point. I just
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 02:19 PM by RBInMaine
don't see it as an all-or-nothing thing. That's my whole point. Too bad that some do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #99
104. "Any"? Really? Boy, you sure are shutting a lot of people out then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #104
112. Well, there are a lot of people claiming to be "progressive" who are not
BECAUSE they support these regressive positions. You bring up abortion as an example. If someone is personally opposed to abortion, that's one thing. I'm not a big fan of it myself. But to advocate overturning existing laws, or to promote policies that would restrict access to abortion, especially on an economic basis like the Stupid Amendment to the House (so-called) "health care" bill, is completely regressive thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueCollar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
115. no...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
117. How about this...
A progressive views people as generally good and therefore, deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Conservatives view people as generally bad and therefore must never be trusted and always controlled (except for them, of course.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Call Me Wesley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
119. No, to answer your question in the OP. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
128. Aw man, not this shit again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
131. It sounds like you are a progressive
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 07:17 PM by noamnety
when it comes to the concerns of white male middle class citizens. And it sounds a little like you couldn't care less about the very real concerns that affect other people's lives - people who were born into different circumstances that you can't quite comprehend.

I tend to think of those sorts of people as "colorblind" (with scare quotes) libertarians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #131
133. That sums it up very nicely. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
134. >gay marriage (that's their choice)< Just as an aside, WHAT is their choice?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
136. No, a person cannot be a progressive and be against gay marriage.
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 11:17 PM by TexasObserver
No exceptions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
138. You need a few more right wing frames in your OP. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1awake Donating Member (852 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
139. I find you very progressive,
Though many.. as you've noticed will argue that based on specific issues. One person (don't remember who) said something in their post like "progressives believe in the good of man kind".. well.. that rules out 90% of DU on most days.

A lot of people claim the name progressive and try and wear it like a medal. Others use it in disgusting ways.. usually by removing the "title" from anyone they are currently arguing with in an attempt to wound or sway thread opinion by belittling someone. In any case.. does it really matter what others consider you.. especially on the internet? Sounds like you have fought the good fight.. keep up the good work.


~LK~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
140. I think "progressive" is relative to time and place
Fifty years ago, very few people - even self-identified progressives would have supported gay marriage or would have been pro-choice by current standards of the definition of pro-choice. But equally, fifty years ago almost all progressives would have supported a fully socialized health care system as well as numerous other aggressive direct government initiatives of direct assistance.

The tension that exist that makes forming a fully long-term sustainable progressive majority is the tension between those who would support progressive intervention of the government in the economy, what Europeans would call social-democracy - yet may hold many socially conservative views. There is no denying that a lot of ordinary people would support such social-democratic policies but might otherwise practically be bigots. Conversely there are those who might be utterly libertine on social issues, yet are completely committed to "free market capitalism".

We also find this divide occurring at times on environmental issues. Unions want jobs for their workers. But what happens when new developments may be environmentally unsound. But the same development projects creates lots of well paying jobs for unionized workers. Or perhaps their might be a new factory producing goods for military use and providing lots of high paying union jobs. But that same new factory is fueling the military industrial complex with weapons for unjust wars.

It is inevitable that contradictions in progressive values do occur.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElmoBlatz Donating Member (149 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-18-10 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
142. No
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC