Define "progressive."

[Robb]

I've been reading on DU lately that about everyone in the Democratic Party isn't a "progressive," and that all "progressives" are getting the shaft from the Obama administration, in the press, on DU, etc. etc.

This doesn't ring true to me. But perhaps it's simply because we don't define the word the same way.

...How do you define it? Who out there in office is "progressive?" Who isn't? And are you one?

[scheming daemons]

1. The universal definition seems to be

"I'm a progressive. Those other douchebags over there who disagree with me are giving progressivism a bad name."


And before anyone bashes... I'm including myself in the group of those that use this definition.

[Demit]

4. Amazing.

You apparently are incapable of serious discussion. Even on someone else's thread. The OP asked a sincere question, and you respond with this.

[stray cat]

7. This appears to be a serious answer by DU standards - and accurate

[vaberella]

115. Interesting you should say what you did.

You have yet to do what accuse him of not doing but targeted the poster. Hypocrisy is a wonderful thing, is it not?!

[Demit]

144. Not hypocritical at all.

I was coming fresh from his thread where he was castigating people who identify as progressives and yet still criticize the President. We're not supposed to continue our threads on someone else's. It's against DU rules.

The OP was asking a serious question about definition. If I had answered the OP with the kind of snark that the poster I actually replied to did, then turned around and accused him of doing it, that would be hypocrisy. But I didn't. I was looking forward to reading other people's takes on the question, but this guy was johnny-on-the-spot with the same generalized crap he filled his own thread with. It irked me.

[billh58]

184. The label "Progressive"

became more PC during the Atwater/Gingrich/Raygun period when the neoconservatives managed to frame "Liberal" as a bad word, with the help of the MSM. Many Liberal Democrats ran away from the "L" word, and began to call themselves either "Progressives," or "Centrists."

Labels don't really mean much, and it's deeds and results that count. A DLC "Blue Dog" Democrat with neoconservative leanings, and who votes with Republicans, is politically neoconservative. A "Progressive" Democrat with Socialist leanings is politically a Socialist. Traditional FDR American Liberal Democrats (as opposed to European Liberals) are extremely hard to find these days.

[LaurenG]

2. Dennis Kucinich is progressive

I consider myself progressive but I have a long tolerance and am very forgiving so maybe other "more progressive" people wouldn't think so.

[stray cat]

8. However, is he the only progressive - does it have to be a clone of Dennis?

[PassingFair]

18. Here's a list of the members of the Progressive Caucus in Congress:

It is the MAJORITY CAUCUS in the House, and it's members chair
half of the committees.

I stand with these House members:




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

House members


All members are members of the Democratic Party or caucus with the Democratic Party. There are currently 82 total declared Progressives including 79 voting Representatives, 2 non-voting Delegates, and 3 Senators.
Arizona

* Ed Pastor (AZ-4, Phoenix)
* Raúl Grijalva (AZ-7, Tucson) - Co-Chair

California

* Lynn Woolsey (CA-6, Santa Rosa) - Co-Chair
* George Miller (CA-7, Richmond) - Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee
* Barbara Lee (CA-9, Oakland) - Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus
* Pete Stark (CA-13, Fremont)
* Michael Honda (CA-15, San Jose)
* Sam Farr (CA-17, Monterey)
* Henry Waxman (CA-30, Los Angeles) - Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee
* Xavier Becerra (CA-31, Los Angeles)
* Judy Chu (CA-32, El Monte)
* Diane Watson (CA-33, Los Angeles)
* Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34, Los Angeles)
* Maxine Waters (CA-35, Inglewood)
* Laura Richardson (CA-37, Long Beach)
* Linda Sánchez (CA-39, Lakewood)
* Bob Filner (CA-51, San Diego) - Chairman, House Veterans Affairs Committee

Colorado

* Jared Polis (CO-02, Boulder)

Connecticut

* Rosa DeLauro (CT-3, New Haven)

Florida

* Corrine Brown (FL-3, Jacksonville)
* Alan Grayson (FL-8, Orlando)
* Alcee Hastings (FL-23, Fort Lauderdale)

Georgia

* Hank Johnson (GA-4, Lithonia)
* John Lewis (GA-5, Atlanta)

Hawaii

* Mazie Hirono (HI-2, Honolulu)

Illinois

* Bobby Rush (IL-1, Chicago)
* Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2, Chicago Heights)
* Luis Gutierrez (IL-4, Chicago)
* Danny Davis (IL-7, Chicago)
* Jan Schakowsky (IL-9, Chicago)
* Phil Hare (IL-17, Rock Island)

Indiana

* André Carson (IN-7, Indianapolis)

Iowa

* Dave Loebsack (IA-2, Cedar Rapids)

Maine

* Chellie Pingree (ME-1, North Haven)

Maryland

* Donna Edwards (MD-4, Fort Washington)
* Elijah Cummings (MD-7, Baltimore)

Massachusetts

* John Olver (MA-1, Amherst)
* Jim McGovern (MA-3, Worcester)
* Barney Frank (MA-4, Newton) - Chairman, House Financial Services Committee
* John Tierney (MA-6, Salem)
* Ed Markey (MA-7, Malden)
* Mike Capuano (MA-8, Boston)

Michigan

* Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (MI-13, Detroit)
* John Conyers (MI-14, Detroit) - Chairman, House Judiciary Committee

Minnesota

* Keith Ellison (MN-5, Minneapolis)

Mississippi

* Bennie Thompson (MS-2, Bolton) - Chairman, House Homeland Security Committee

Missouri

* William Lacy Clay, Jr. (MO-1, St. Louis)
* Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5, Kansas City)

New Jersey

* Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
* Donald Payne (NJ-10, Newark)

New Mexico

* Ben R. Luján (NM-3, Santa Fe)

New York

* Jerry Nadler (NY-8, Manhattan)
* Yvette Clarke (NY-11, Brooklyn)
* Nydia Velázquez (NY-12, Brooklyn) - Chairwoman, House Small Business Committee
* Carolyn Maloney (NY-14, Manhattan)
* Charles Rangel (NY-15, Harlem) - Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee
* José Serrano (NY-16, Bronx)
* John Hall (NY-19, Dover Plains)
* Maurice Hinchey (NY-22, Saugerties)
* Louise Slaughter (NY-28, Rochester) - Chairwoman, House Rules Committee

North Carolina

* Mel Watt (NC-12, Charlotte)

Ohio

* Marcy Kaptur (OH-9, Toledo)
* Dennis Kucinich (OH-10, Cleveland)
* Marcia Fudge (OH-11, Warrensville Heights)

Oregon

* Earl Blumenauer (OR-3, Portland)
* Peter DeFazio (OR-4, Eugene)

Pennsylvania

* Bob Brady (PA-1, Philadelphia) - Chairman, House Administration Committee
* Chaka Fattah (PA-2, Philadelphia)

Tennessee

* Steve Cohen (TN-9, Memphis)

Texas

* Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18, Houston)
* Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30, Dallas)

Virginia

* Jim Moran (VA-8, Alexandria)

Vermont

* Peter Welch (VT-At Large)

Washington

* Jim McDermott (WA-7, Seattle)

Wisconsin

* Tammy Baldwin (WI-2, Madison)
* Gwen Moore (WI-4, Milwaukee)

Non-voting

* Donna M. Christensen (Virgin Islands)
* Eleanor Holmes Norton (District of Columbia)

Senate members

* Bernie Sanders (Vermont)
* Tom Udall (New Mexico)<2>
* Roland Burris (Illinois)

Former members

* Sherrod Brown (OH-13) - Elected to Senate
* Julia Carson (IN-07) - Died in December 2007
* Lane Evans (IL-17) - Retired from Congress
* Eric Massa (NY-29) - Resigned in March 2010
* Cynthia McKinney (GA-4) - Lost Congressional seat to current caucus member Hank Johnson
* Major Owens (NY-11) - Retired from Congress
* Nancy Pelosi (CA-8) - Left Caucus when Elected House Minority Leader
* Hilda Solis (CA-32) - Became Secretary of Labor in 2009
* Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11) - Died in 2008
* Paul Wellstone (MN Senate) - Died in plane crash in 2002
* Robert Wexler (FL-19) - Resigned in January 2010 to become President of the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation

[harun]

40. Knowing whether or not Politicians will be joining this caucus if

elected is a big deal. Although most won't commit to it. Like my Rep is a Blue Dog. People need to know who their elected representatives are going to align with.

The only good stuff we got in the health care bill was because of the Progressive Caucus. People want more Progressive legislation they need to show more love to the politicians on this list. Because they are the only ones even remotely on our side.

[PassingFair]

45. It boggles the mind that people thing "Progressive Democrats" is an undefined term.

These Progressives fight day in and day out for
people-friendly legislation, and they are being
THWARTED by members of the Blue Dog Coalition
and however many New Dems it takes to kill
populist legislation.

When fingers start pointing, the New Dems
blame it on the Blue Dogs.

I used to think the Civil War ended at Appomattox,
but we are fighting it ideologically still today,
and we have many too McClellans rolling over in the
north.

[dmallind]

52. Hmmm... 79 thwarted by 55........ NT

[PassingFair]

56. 59 "New Dems" PLUS 54 Blue Dogs...

against 79-82 Progressives...

are you math challenged?

[harun]

175. +1

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. How are 80 members a majority?

[PassingFair]

64. I should have said largest. n/t

[cascadiance]

81. I think Anthony Weiner also belongs here...

I wonder why he isn't in the caucus.

[Robb]

83. That's a good addition, and a good question.

...And I very nearly typed "I likes me some Weiner," but thought better of it at the last minute. :D

[LaurenG]

22. Oh no, I just put down the first person who came to mind.

I didn't even answer all the questions.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

3. People who think message control is bs. nt

[Laelth]

67. +1 n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Greyhound]

148. +10

[YOY]

5. Anti-War/MIC, Pro-middle class, Pro-infrastructure, pro-human rights, pro-choice

Pro-environmentalism, pro-social justice, pro-democracy, pro-seperation of church and state, pro-trust busting...to name a few.

There are a few here that defy nearly every last one of them and claim to be "taking back the liberal flag".

I'll not kick on everyone disagrees with me but if one does not uphold the majority of those beliefs...sorry...I will not be painted as an extremist.

Redefining the center is not cute. Pardon the Godwins Law, but it's a play straight from Goebel's tactic book.

[stray cat]

12. All war? Is there ever a time to defend oneself or act to protect others

Were the only progressives in 1776 the ones who sided with not pissing off England?

[YOY]

15. Don't be a smart ass. Self defense (true self defense) is always justifiable.

Not the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" BS that just covers up imperialistic goals.

The "not supporting the defense budget" line assumes that our defense budget is used for actual defense instead of offense...which it is.

[NJmaverick]

31. Considering many consider Communism the extreme end of the liberal spectrum

how do you explain their belief that war/revolution is justified to overthrow corrupt and oppressive governments? How does your anti-war philosophy deal with the fact that our nation was created through war?

[YOY]

46. Take back that flag you champion of liberalism!

Keep up the purposeful misinterpretation!

And don't forget to use the "roll eyes" emoticon!

[NJmaverick]

48. That doesn't answer my question, unfortunately

if you make a sweeping statement, it should be able to hold up to simple tests (such as the ones I provided). A failure of those tests would indicate a flawed positions. One that is in need of adjustment.

[YOY]

50. Because your question is a deliberate misinterpretation...

Taking it back! Woo!!! Taking it back!

[NJmaverick]

54. Anti-war is a pretty clear statement that doesn't allow for misinterpretation

Although it's possible you meant something else. Would you care to rephrase the statement to better reflect what you mean?

[YOY]

68. Sure it is... Sure it is... Any you would never "misinterpret" deliberately!

Taking it back! We're taking it back!

[NJmaverick]

70. It sounds like you are at a loss for better wording

which logically speaking would indicate that I didn't misinterpret what you said. Rather you made a statement of convenience that could hold up to critical examination.

[YOY]

71. No... Not really.

Just keep on "taking it back" you icon of liberal standards, you!

[NJmaverick]

73. "we"? I am pretty sure your are a single person posting

still, if you couldn't answer my question, you should have simply said so, instead of attacking me on a personal level.

[YOY]

74. Just post another "taking it back" OP! You'll see the "we"!

Taking it back! Woo! Taking it back!

[tekisui]

117. lol.

Well done YOY.

[YOY]

120. I need to find that Wondershowzen clip. "Taking it back".

It fits the motivation...

[kenfrequed]

53. Uhm

Maybe because the question was "how do you define progressivism" and not "how do you defend communism"

Progressives don't have a dialectical requirement to spread a worldwide socialist revolution. I'm not certain I'm comfortable with the half stated implication or association created here.

Considering our history regarding war and how many of them ended up being based on deception, and/or the economic interests of the few, I really don't buy the legitimacy of your question. Being antiwar in most cases is a completely defensible position.

[tekisui]

133. I thought this thread was about progressivism,

not Communism?:shrug:

[Go2Peace]

153. They have been effectively "attached" by "Framing" constructs

The Republicans have done a great job, the construct appears even within our own Party. They have managed to take a "branching" relationship, and turned it into a "linear" one. Communism is not "further left" from liberalism or "progressivism". It "branches" off at some point in the spectrum.

Imagine how effective it is to "Frame" the word communism to equate to the end result of far liberalism? Then people become "afraid" that liberal ideas will lead to communism, and they fight liberal ideas. When instead, communism is *not* a linear to the left of liberalism, it is a branch off on a different tangent.

But the frame itself is extremely effective.

[phleshdef]

79. Wrong. Progressivism is not defined by ideological stances.

And I agree with everyone of those positions. But progressivism is not a set of platforms, its a governing philosophy that favors accomplishing as much reform as possible and perpetually continuing that effort.

[YOY]

109. Quite right. My mistake. One of those progressivism versus liberalism overlaps.

n.t.

[phleshdef]

111. There are liberals who are progressive and then there are just liberals.

My personal take has been that liberalistic ideas are the ones that foster progress the best when it comes to most issues. But if you have to compromise a liberal position in order to get progress in other areas (ie, give some slack to conservative democrats in order to pass a large bill that also progresses many liberal ideas that are progressive in and of themselves), then thats a true progressive approach. The opposite would be allowing a bill that contains valuable reforms to completely die because parts of it did not satiate liberal demands in all aspects.

[Go2Peace]

126. Progressives are anti-Machievelli while at the same time supra-populist......

The "end" does not justify any "means", and governing society must fully exist for the benefit of all.

[tekisui]

130. I agree. It is more about direction than the ultimate end.

[cleveramerican]

6. unintentional duplicate

[dgibby]

9. This works for me:

Progressivism
The PDA is an offshoot of traditional progressivism. In the United States, progressivism came out of a desire to protect the citizen. Some of the largest issues progressives were concerned with in the early 20th century were unionization, public health, environmental protection and reduction of corruption in politics. The issues have since expanded to include civil rights concerns such as women and gay rights. Progressives support a range of other issues including abolition of the death penalty, Social Security reform and development of renewable energy.


Read more: What Is a Progressive Democrat? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5179714_progressive-democrat_.html#ixzz0rCzwqX4T

[Deep13]

10. That which tends to improve the human condition. nt

[zipplewrath]

11. No hard and fast definition

It is a collection of positions. There are some old definitions from the early 1900's that are kind of hard to make work in the 21st century.

Generally speaking they advocate the use of government for compensating for the weaknesses of the freemarkets. They don't "trust" markets to work to the advantage of the common good. It places the needs and interests of the working class above the moneyed classes. Taxes should be "progressive", i.e. the larger portion paid by the richest. They aren't "socialists" technically, but they don't mind too much if a particular function or area of vastly wide intersest is handled by the government directly, i.e. roads, utilities, education,transportation in general, large scale capital projects like dams.

They tend to be quite liberal "socially". They believe in protecting individuals, especially the "least" amongst us. They believe in equality, and don't necessarily trust either free markets, or governmental institutions to protect it without a requirement that they do, and an enforcement mechanism to make them do it.

They tend to prefer democracy over any sort of authortarian structure, although they get confused her occassionally. They tend to oppose war, especially intervensionist wars.

They can have a bit of a "libertarian" streak when it comes to psuedo social issues such as drugs, homosexuality, and the whole "family values" schtick.

Oh, and Obama says he ain't one.

[patrice]

13. Progressives proactively drive processes forward toward real solutions, rather than ideology

The word "real" in that statement implies inclusion of all honest stakeholders and that inclusion means that their differences are honestly and constructively respected by integration into solution driven processes. Because Progressives progress, Process is essential to Progressives and because process is fundamental, their solutions always grow toward whatever is next, un-defined and amorphous as that may be, progress lives, so it's always directed toward what is NEW or at least as yet un-developed potential (usually being ignored by stasis amongst the different givens, i.e. the status quo stakeholders).

[patrice]

17. In short, Progressives are problem solvers first and ideological second.

[cleveramerican]

14. did you ever notice when your on the highway....

everyone going faster than you is a maniac.
everyone going slower than you is an idiot
and any one going the same speed as you is suspect.

progressives are just like that.

[patrice]

19. No, I never noticed that.

[patrice]

20. BTW, it's "you're".

[cleveramerican]

21. the grammar police are an annoying bunch

even when you are correct.

too bad you could just actually say whats bothering you about my response.
becoming the grammar police is a signal to me that you agree and hate yourself for it.
thats a shame.

[patrice]

26. If you don't understand the logic of the language, what else don't you understand and why, therefore

, is your opinion credible, oh clever one?

[cleveramerican]

28. you seem angry

anything I can do?

[patrice]

32. classic diversion, very typical of a certain regressive group & No, I don't think you are capable.

[cleveramerican]

33. good luck with all of that

here is where it comes in handy for me to not care what you think.
your attempt at insults define you more than anything I might say.

[patrice]

35. Try responding to the issues raised next time and maybe then you won't get insults, from me anyway.

on edit: punctuation

[cleveramerican]

37. you should take your own advice

and stop your lame attempts at bullying me.

[patrice]

39. I will if you will.

[cleveramerican]

42. the irony is we are on the same side

and yet turn on each other so easily, both so on the lookout for some slight,
in a thread looking to define progressives.
I think we both just did.

[patrice]

49. It's called reality testing and "we" can't live without it. Competence IS essential. Blowing off

the "small" stuff (grammar + syntax = communication) is dysfunctional.

I was probing to see just how progressive I think you are and, from where I am, you went into defensive mode rather than showing me how I am wrong about you. That's all part of the process I was referring to in an earlier post in this thread.

Personally, I want the folks who can't take the REAL heat out of "the kitchen" and I have very real world reasons for that.

[cleveramerican]

76. I am certain I am not "progressive" enough

for some
and far too progressive for others.
and from my point of view
it doesn't matter, which of these groups
you fall into.

which was my metaphorical point.

[Go2Peace]

142. It demonstrates that you are not understand what a progressive is

It is not simply a set of positions. It includes the means to get there.

The war on terror is a perfect example. Progressives believe that *the way* we are executing it is destructive to our own society, as it is to the world. And that we are actually causing more terrorism, not resolving the issue. Most who think of themselves as "left of center", that think this war is a "necessary evil" and that we are "winning something", would not be using "progressive" values/logic.

Someone who does not understand what a "progressive is" might think that being for or against the war is simply a "policy" difference on a "spectrum" of leftward values. And that progressivism is simply a "choice" of more "leftward" values, but it isn't. Some people might have quite leftward values, but yet not have as much in common with a "progressive".

I hope you will read this and try to digest it. We would all fight a little less if we tried to understand this concept.

For a "progressive thinker", every policy choice is balanced against a variety of factors. And they way that one get's there is a very integral component.

[cleveramerican]

145. you and I each get to define it for ourselves.

if you let others define it for you, it means nothing.

your definition is a good one
but by no means the only one

[patrice]

30. SP, is that you?

[Dark]

173. So we're a bunch of paranoid stoned drivers?

:P

[NJmaverick]

16. Progressives are people that share a set of values

the foundation of these values are a sense of justice for all and compassion for their fellow beings.

From those two core values positions are built on a wide variety of issues. I guess at the next level those core values create beliefs like:

Ensure the rights of the minorities: (sense of justice)

This lead to leadership on civil rights issues, woman's rights issues and GLBT's issues. (comes from the sense of justice)

This leads to a desire to see that rich or poor everyone born should have a right to have the ability to achieve success (the sense of justice and compassion)

It leads to a desire to protect our environment and all the earth's creatures (the sense of compassion)

It leads to a belief that taxation should be based on a means (the sense of justice and compassion)


Those are just a few, but you take those two core values an positions are built (with some variations) from there.


I think the bigger variation lies not in the values or positions, but rather the means to achieve the ends.

[vi5]

23. Well said....

I know you have issues with me as a poster on here, but credit where it is due. I couldn't have articulated it better if I gave it all my effort and it sums up what drives me as a voter and as a person.

Unfortunately that last sentence seems to sum up what seems to set us all apart and divide so many of us on here, but I suspect that's just the result of the continual scraping of wounds that occur with each days political events and the different ways in which we all feel and/or internalize that pain.

[NJmaverick]

29. Thank you

To be honest I don't remember you. With nearly 27,000 posts I don't remember everyone I have talked to.

Still I appreciate your sentiments and I think you raise a good point. Those that have suffered more, tend to have more pain and will often react differently as a result. I guess if you are not the one directly paying the price for an injustice or indifference, it's easier to practice patience.

[vi5]

60. No problem.....

You've made a few pointed comments in my direction, indicating there was some notice of and issue taken with my overall posting history. I guess I was wrong about that assumption and you were probably commenting in the heat of whatever thread was going on at the time and not lobbing a larger barb. And that's more than fine in this instance since I have enjoyed some of your posts. And you're (presumably) a House fan who lives in NJ to boot.

[Go2Peace]

122. "I think the bigger variation lies not in the values.. but rather the means to achieve the ends "

That, I would absolutely agree with. I think if more people understood that and kept it forward in their mind they might get along a little better here on DU.

Some progressives believe the "means" are as important as the "ends". The tactics used can often obstruct, or can lead to uninteded alternative consequences that are against the better endpoint.

Take the "war on Terror" for example. The way we are executing it is only leading to more terror and misory for millions of civilions. So is executing the "war on Terror", as we currently are, a progressive policy?

[NJmaverick]

159. That's a challenging question

You know when I took an ethics class the take away message was that the world is a complex place and we often have situations where you have conflicting ethical issues and values and there is no way to solve them all.

I think that can best describe the situation with terror and our nation. Our core value of compassion demands we do all we can to protect our nation's citizens from harm. However the very nature of the conflict often suggest the best means can infringe upon the rights or well being of others (against our values of justice and compassion). So the challenge is to strike a fine balance that tries to provide maximum protection of our own citizens while at the same time minimizing any infringement on the rights and well being of others.


Now because there is a balance being struck and because effectiveness of strategy is often open to debate, I think you can have people who all share the same progressive values coming to different solutions as to what is the best way to deal with terrorism.

[cleveramerican]

24. I've got it

tea baggers want to take the country back.
progressives want to take it forward

[VMI Dem]

25. I know that a guy that believes marriage is the holy union of a man and a woman only is not one.

[lillypaddle]

27. It's the same way

that Christians have hijacked Jesus. Some of the people here believe that if you disagree with them on certain issues, you are not a true Christian - um, I mean progressive. I consider myself a progressive. I'm sure many here think I am not.

[noamnety]

34. I call myself a progressive on DU and in polls as shorthand

for "holding lefty positions."

But in longer discussions about the word, I understand why those on the left privately do no use that term to describe themselves. One of my friends puts it sometimes in terms of medicine, and I am badly going to paraphrase him here: Progress is blind faith in or the idolization of medical and social breakthroughs - a sense of moving forward. In medical terms, a person could have a wound with some decaying flesh. A progressive believes that we should dump billions into medical research, find a high tech solution to this which might involve a patented antibiotic produced at great cost (and conveniently at great profit to a corporation), and then, as a progressive, they would want to pass health care reform that gives everyone access to that top of the line cure.

Someone who isn't a progressive might look at that and say you know, maggots actually eat decaying flesh, they are nearly free, and after all this time it remains the most effective cure, and when we go that low tech route we don't end up polluting the water table with watered down antibiotics that affect the food chain. Liberals, progressives, and the right wing tend to avoid those very practical solutions because of an "ick factor" combined with the sense that it's a third world solution - not moving toward Progress.

Corporate profits and the sense of entitlement to high tech material goods, moving UP in the class structure instead of meeting basic needs for all in a way that best benefits the earth and humanity, are sometime mashed up in progressive goals.

[harun]

36. Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson.

[HughMoran]

38. Progressive:

1. a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform.

2. A term that has been cleverly manipulated by some to pit people on the left against each other. For instance, a right-winger could call themselves "progressive" and have a long and prosperous career posting on the internet attacking "liberals" while proudly wearing the "progressive" moniker.

[treestar]

44. +1

On DU now it seems to mean one who will never be satisfied with anything the Democratic party does and who will forever hold its feet to the fire for not doing enough as apparently the only motivation that will ever work - like an old fashioned army sergeant, only insults and saying a person is no good motivates people.

[Go2Peace]

129. Definitely here at DU +100 observation

[WeDidIt]

41. It's sorta like how Free Republic defines "Conservative"

It's like they hold up Reagan as this paragon of Conservative values and yet he'd fail every one of their litmus tests for what constitutes a true conservative.

Sorta like how Carter is held up as a paragon of progressive values yet his presidency would never pass the litmus test for what is and is not "progrssive". In fact, Carter's presidency would be decried as a DLC corporatist presidency by the same who make that cry about Obama.

[Go2Peace]

138. This understanding is not accurate

and it is simplistic and will lead you to argue rather than understand "progressives". There are plenty of fairly good definitions in this topic if you are interested.

[doc03]

43. It's the new Liberal since the GOP has demonized the

word so successfully nobody dares claim it.

[HughMoran]

47. that was true for a while

Most have proudly started using the word liberal again though.

[doc03]

51. What politician claims Liberal other than maybe Kucinich

and Grayson?

[HughMoran]

58. Politicians are still cowards

I really wasn't thinking of them when I said that.

[lamp_shade]

55. Good question. There are many here at DU who claim to be "progressive" and yet

obviously... have no idea what that means. Lots of "me too's" here. I just laugh.

[muffin1]

57. Wow. Just wow.

:eyes:

[HughMoran]

59. yep

filled with animosity

:eyes: is right

[HughMoran]

61. I meant to say 'seething'

that more appropriately describes those who obsess over 'owning and defending' a term which has a different meaning to each person who uses it, even those who use it as a club to beat people with.

[Phx_Dem]

62. Far left. n/t

[xchrom]

65. ...

pro·gres·sive    Show IPA
–adjective
1.
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.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4.
( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5.
going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
6.
noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.
7.
of or pertaining to progressive education: progressive schools.
8.
Grammar . noting a verb aspect or other verb category that indicates action or state going on at a temporal point of reference.
9.
Medicine/Medical . continuously increasing in extent or severity, as a disease.
–noun
10.
a person who is progressive or who favors progress or reform, esp. in political matters.
11.
( initial capital letter ) a member of a Progressive party.
12.
Grammar .
a.
the progressive aspect.
b.
a verb form or construction in the progressive, as are thinking in They are thinking about it.
Origin:
1600–10; progress + -ive

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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Social progressivism and counterculture
Social progressivism is another common feature of the modern Left, particularly in the United States, where social progressives played an important role in the abolition of slavery,<30> women's suffrage,<31> civil rights, and multiculturalism. Progressives have both advocated prohibition legislation and worked towards its repeal. Current positions associated with social progressivism in the West include opposition to the death penalty, and support for legal recognition of same-sex marriage, distribution of contraceptives, public funding of embryonic stem-cell research, and the right of women to choose abortion. Public education is a subject of great interest to social progressives, who support comprehensive sex education, and making condoms available to high school students.
Various counterculture movements in the 1960s and 1970s were associated with the "New Left". Unlike the earlier leftist focus on union activism, the "New Left" instead adopted a broader definition of political activism commonly called social activism. U.S. "New Left" is associated with the Hippie movement, college campus mass protest movements and a broadening of focus from protesting class-based oppression to include issues such as gender, race, and sexual orientation. The British "New Left" was an intellectually driven movement which attempted to correct the perceived errors of "Old Left".
The New Left opposed prevailing authority structures in society, which it termed "The Establishment", and became known as "anti-Establishment." The New Left did not seek to recruit industrial workers, but rather concentrated on a social activist approach to organization, convinced that they could be the source for a better kind of social revolution. This view has been criticised by some Marxists (especially Trotskyists) who characterized this approach as 'substitutionism'- or what they saw as the misguided and apparently non-Marxist belief that other groups in society could 'substitute' for the revolutionary agency of the working class.<32><33>
Many early feminists and advocates of women's rights were considered left-wing by their contemporaries.<34> Feminist pioneer Mary Wollstonecraft was influenced by the radical thinker Thomas Paine. Many notable leftists have been strong supporters of sexual equality, such as: the Marxists Rosa Luxemburg, Clara Zetkin and Alexandra Kollontai, the anarchist Emma Goldman, and the socialists Helen Keller and Annie Besant.<35><36> Marxists such as Clara Zetkin<37><38> and Alexandra Kollontai <39><40> however, though supporters of radical social equality for women, opposed feminism on the grounds that it was a bourgeois ideology. Marxists were responsible for organizing the first International Womens Day events. <41>
In more recent times the women's liberation movement is closely connected to the New Left and other new social movements that challenged the orthodoxies of the Old Left. Socialist feminism (e.g.Freedom Socialist Party, Radical Women) and Marxist feminism (e.g. Selma James) saw themselves as a part of the left that challenged what they perceive to be male-dominated and sexist structures within the left. Liberal feminism is closely connected with left-liberalism, and the left-wing of mainstream American politics. (e.g. the National Organization for Women).



just some things here to think about.

[Laelth]

66. Define dingbat. See how that works? n/t

;)

:toast:

:dem:

-Laelth

[Bluenorthwest]

69. How do you define it, Robb?

As a member of the Democratic Party, I know that our largest House caucus is the Progressive caucus, and the term is not new to me, nor does it seem undefined. Words have actual accepted definitions, Robb, so 'we don't define it the same way' is a crock. If you do not know a word's meaning, look it up.
Here is a hint: those who oppose equal rights for certain minorities based on their own religious dogmas are not Progressives. That goes double for those who once supported equality, then regressed into bigoted positions.
So, how do you define the word, as you do not share the dictionary or Democratic Party standard definition? What is your improvisational meaning for the word? That is the actual point of this passive aggressive OP. Say what you want to say. Why cower, why bob and weave so poorly? Just say it.

[NJmaverick]

78. I have to disagree with your claim that words can simply be defined

That simply is not the case. There are many words and terms that simply don't have clear cut definitions or identical meanings to all people.

consider the term terrorist and terrorism. Those terms and their definitions are hotly debated. Torture is another word who's meaning is hotly debated. The list goes on and on, but I think I made my point.


Progressive is not a term that can simply be defined by going to a dictionary.

[Robb]

82. Well, there are actual political definitions for "progressive," though.

We're not talking about progressive bingo or progressive degenerative myopia. ;)

I'm more interested in, and several posts above discuss quite well I think, the notion of how self-identifying as a "progressive" can be used as a method of exclusion -- or inclusion.

When a large group of people self-identify as something, you've got a big tent by default -- "middle class" being a fantastic example. Whether you use that big tent to bring people together or divide them is the question.

[donco6]

86. The only folks who debate those terms are conservatives.

Which is interesting.

[Robb]

88. There appear to be, by your definition, a lot of conservatives upthread.

...And on DU. Or are you refining "conservative" to mean "everyone who is not in total agreement with me"?

Good grief, "conservative" is another great example of a group a lot of people self-identify as. But there's still a spectrum of belief there.

Again, the question is whether you want to take the power of widely-used terms that a lot of people identify with, and use them to bring people together ("Hey, come on, we're all progressives here and want the same things") or drive them apart ("A real progressive wouldn't accept this!).

[donco6]

89. People who debate the definition of torture are progressive?

When did that happen?

[Robb]

91. That's not what that said, and you know it.

People debate the definition of torture. We may not, but people do.

People debate the definition of progressive, as well. To say that suggesting this implies an acceptance of torture is absurd.

[donco6]

96. It's a logical implication.

NJMav: I have to disagree with your claim that words can simply be defined. That simply is not the case. There are many words and terms that simply don't have clear cut definitions or identical meanings to all people. Consider the term terrorist and terrorism. Those terms and their definitions are hotly debated. Torture is another word who's meaning is hotly debated. The list goes on and on, but I think I made my point.

Just to refresh people's memory.

The only time the meaning of torture is debated is when conservatives assail the clear definition provided by progressives. There is no "debate" about torture.

[NJmaverick]

98. I have repeatedly and effectively pointed out the errors in your interpretations and assumptions

Progressives were on the forefront of the debate on torture. They fought tooth and nail against the definitions proposed by George Bush

[donco6]

103. And you called into question the clarity of the definition.

NJMav: I have to disagree with your claim that words can simply be defined. That simply is not the case. There are many words and terms that simply don't have clear cut definitions or identical meanings to all people.

Consider the term terrorist and terrorism. Those terms and their definitions are hotly debated. Torture is another word who's meaning is hotly debated. The list goes on and on, but I think I made my point.

Just so you remember.

[NJmaverick]

107. Yes I called in the clarity. If torture had a clear definition, there never would have been a

debate. However there was a debate, which meant the definition was no where near as clear as you claim. You may personally feel you know exactly what a word or term means, but if the overwhelming majority of people don't share that same view, then by definition it's not a clearly defined term.

[donco6]

110. Ah, I see.

That explains a lot.

[tekisui]

119. Wow! You accept the bush frame that the definition of torture is debatable!

:wow:

[NJmaverick]

139. Should I just give you my user name and password?

Wouldn't that be easier the changing what I say to the point that my words are no longer recognizable?

[tekisui]

147. No, you've said it yourself half a dozen times in this thread.

You believe the bushies had a right to debate the definition of torture. You said it yourself. The liberals, progressives, Democrats, the UN and the International community have a clear definition.

The bushies tried to re-define it with the torture memos, and you are saying they had the right to do that.

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

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

[Robb]

102. Therefore the only people who debate the meaning of "progressive" are conservatives?

You can't possibly be serious. These are words that have different meanings for different people. Look upthread: why is Weiner part of the Prog Caucus? Because it means something different to him. Is he a conservative for thinking differently now? Is everyone who questions your definition of progressive a conservative?

[donco6]

105. "Torture" dear. n/t

[Robb]

112. OK, honey.

...But why the aversion to people talking about how they define "progressive?" Do you not want this discussion to take place?

[NJmaverick]

93. As a matter of fact progressives have been heavily involved in the torture debate

as they were unwilling to accept the definition put forth by the Bush administration.

[donco6]

99. That's obviously not debating the definition.

Progressives were not willing to change the definition. Conservatives paint the definition as "fuzzy". Just as you did.

[NJmaverick]

101. debating the definition is not debating the definition?

:shrug:

[donco6]

108. They were not debating the definition, as I already said.

They were sticking with a definition that had already been established. There was not debate on what constituted torture among progressives. The attack on that definition was coming from conservatives. The meaning of torture is and has been clear for some time. Unlike you're position in which the definition of torture is open to debate:

NJMav: I have to disagree with your claim that words can simply be defined. That simply is not the case. There are many words and terms that simply don't have clear cut definitions or identical meanings to all people.

consider the term terrorist and terrorism. Those terms and their definitions are hotly debated. Torture is another word who's meaning is hotly debated. The list goes on and on, but I think I made my point.

[tekisui]

125. What is your definition of torture?

[Tailormyst]

94. November '08

[NJmaverick]

90. You know it's been my experience in life that painting people with labels doesn't

aid in one's understanding of issues. In fact just the opposite happens, the use of labels, especially the labeling of others, block the mind from thinking and critically examining issues. It lead to defective positions. I can think of no better example than George Bush Jr who was the master of labeling others, rather than thinking or debating.

[donco6]

92. In my experience, people who are unclear on what constitutes torture are not progressive.

Just sayin'

[NJmaverick]

95. Engaging in the national debate as to what is torture is a moral responsiblity

and in no way shape of form indicates that the progressive actively debated and fought Bush's definitions were "unclear on what constitutes torture".

[donco6]

97. Defending the clear, already present definition of torture is a moral imperative.

Debating the definition itself is foolish.

[NJmaverick]

113. If there was a present and fully accepted definition there would have been nothing to defend

That's the point I am trying to make. In this world there are many terms that don't have clearly defined and universally accepted definitions.


Some things are easy. The term round is defined and universally accepted and is not debated, for example.

[tekisui]

127. Torture is universally understood as well, except to those

who want to support it. They attempt to muddy the waters, but the waters remain clear.

[Demit]

128. I think the debate centered around "When we do it, it's not torture" and "Oh yes it is."

It was a sickening "debate". Torture used to be considered a taboo by civilized societies. Of which we used to consider ourselves one.

When I began hearing and reading, after Abu Ghraib, people bring up American exceptionalism—as in, it's okay when WE do it—I knew we had crossed a line in this country. I don't know if we'll ever get back.

[tekisui]

162. Did the bush administration torture?

Using your personal definition?

Do you believe the US tortured?

[tekisui]

118. The definition of torture is only debated by those that torture. It is

clear to the rest of the world. Only the neo-cons debate torture. And, they are simply wrong.

[Robb]

123. Not true.

Everyone debates the definition of torture.

Only the neocons debate whether what took place at Gitmo was torture.

Do you see the distinction? And the false conclusion that is drawn without seeing the distinction??

[tekisui]

124. I don't see the distinction.

Only the necons debate whether what took place at Gitmo (and other places) was torture. That means they are debated what is or is not torture--the definition.

The neocons attempted to re-define what is torture. The definition is not up for debate, except to them.

[Robb]

134. It's big enough to drive a truck through.

Look, even the UN Convention Against Torture includes loopholes -- it's not torture if the person doing it isn't sanctioned by the government, it's not torture if it's the result of sanctions, etc. etc. etc.

We can all think of, and indeed have witnessed in the news of later, situations where the above exclusions apply yet we, at least here on DU, still know it's torture. To accuse the authors of convention of being neocons doesn't make any sense.

[tekisui]

136. I see where we are diverting.

In reference to the Convention, you are correct. It has to be government-sanctioned to qualify as torture for asylum/refugee status.

That does not mean that an act isn't torture if it is carried out by a private individual or organization. It just isn't recognized as torture for the convention purposes. The debate isn't over the act, but over the interpretation for the application of the convention.

[Robb]

154. Any application must rest on a definition.

If the application is being debated, the definition is, to pardon the repetition, by definition up for debate.

Everyone, everyone draws the line at a different spot. We all know playing Kenny G at a reasonable volume is not torture. And we know pulling fingernails out with pliers, is. Why deny there is debate?

Except as a vehicle, as seen elsewhere in this thread, to deny there is a debate about the meaning of "progressive" and silence those who might want to with "OMG YOU SUPPORT TORTURE?!?!!11! there's no point.

[NJmaverick]

140. "Distinction", it's something that often overlooked.

[NJmaverick]

141. That's not true, it's debate by those that wish to stop torture just as much

[tekisui]

143. Those who wish to stop it, are trying to enforce the definition.

The definition is not up for the debate. The application of the law is where the debate centered.

[NJmaverick]

146. Would you say the accepted definition of torture has changed any in the past 100 years?

would what was done acts performed say in WW 1 or WW 2 still be acceptable today?

[tekisui]

150. Torture always has and always will be torture.

That doesn't change.

What changes over time is whether people are charged with committing torture. Whether and when the law applies. Torture, and its definition is not up for debate, unless one is wanting to get away with or defend torture.

[NJmaverick]

155. You didn't answer my question. That would be because the idea of what is and isn't torture

has changed significantly over the past 100 years (a reflection of our changing society and values). That fact that it can be subject to change, shows it's not a concrete definition as you suggest.

[tekisui]

157. Do you believe we tortured in Gitmo and elsewhere under bush?

[tekisui]

160. It doesn't change:

torture

–noun
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

[NJmaverick]

165. The problem with your definition is that "excruciating pain" and "sheer cruelty" are both subjective

to make matter worse it doesn't even discuss if the pain is mental or physical or both.

[tekisui]

166. Do you believe the bush administration tortured?

[NJmaverick]

167. Yes I do

but at this point I fear I am operating more on the old Supreme Court's comments about "knowing porn when I see it" rather than operating off a solid and fool proof definition.

[Go2Peace]

137. The words you mention are shifting because they are being manipulated

There is a science behind what (primarily) the Republican party has been doing to our language. It is extremely effective. If you can control language you can control the mind to a great extent. It is as simple as that. Words like "progressive", "liberal", "communist", "socialist", "terror", "terrorist", "freedom", "patriotism", and many others are so contentious and confuses is because they have been purposely manipulated.

Some of the resulting confusion is that different people have encorporated that manipulation to different degrees. Science has proven, that if you can change the ideas associated with language constructs, you can also change the mind's ability to conceptualize and accept ideas. This is the science you sometimes heard called "Framing", and it is extremely powerful and manipulative. It has been artfully used by Republicans so long that it has actually confused what were once fairly anchored ideas in our party and in our society.

[NJmaverick]

151. I agree there is deliberate manipulation involved. However one can only manipulate terms

that can not be easily or precisely defined. There are many words and terms that are immune to manipulation.

[YvonneCa]

169. Great post. This is important to remember...

...as terms are debated.

[Bluenorthwest]

72. Allow me to define 'coward'

One who calls the dance, then sits down, that is a coward.

[Robb]

75. God forbid we have a rational discussion without you resorting to this kind of thing. nt

[Greyhound]

152. Where are your similar replies to the disruptors from the other camp? n/t

[Robb]

156. "Other camp?"

...Is there another "camp" replying to me with invective rather than discussion?

[Greyhound]

158. Apparently not in your view.

:hi:

[Robb]

161. Nor yours either.

If you see a disruptor, perhaps you should hit "alert." :hi:

[phleshdef]

77. Progressive simply means that you favor perpetual reform.

Some try to pigeon hole it into an anti-war stance or a pro-tax the rich stance and many other stances that, although are good stances to have, do NOT define progressivism in an of themselves.

This is why President Obama is in fact a progressive in the purest sense of the word because he seems to favor actions that lead to reforms, even if the reforms that can be legislatively passed are only incremental in nature. If you really want to get reform passed instead of just talking about how you want to get reform passed, then you take the path of the possible and not the path of the ideal. In other words, if including "medicare for all" or a "public option" in a healthcare bill disables the ability for that bill to pass and thus killing all the other reforms included in the bill, then that is not progressive because at the end of the day, all you have is a dead bill and ZERO progress of reform accomplished.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[havocmom]

84. My basic definition: expanding rights, not pruning them

I see less and less progressives no matter where I look in politics. Yet I see more and more when I look at America. So the political animals work very hard to control the dialog so we don't notice that the control freaks are NOT the majority

edited for typo in subject line

[xchrom]

85. here's a link to the progressive caucus

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/

[laughingliberal]

87. I see it as a term which came into use after the word 'liberal' had been demonized beyond rehab

Not sure I see it as representative of much. I formed my view of liberalism from JFK's excellent statement on it and prefer to call myself a liberal based on that. I do, sometimes, fall into using progressive interchangeably as I find even on Democratic sites the word 'liberal' can evoke a lot of vitriol I'd prefer to avoid.

[Go2Peace]

131. We should "take back" the language

In fact linguists believe that is essential to getting back a more flexible society. Words are necessary to form ideas. When we lose them or they are manipulated to mean something else, then we lose some ability to think toward what they represented while at the same time ideas are subtly manipulated. It is very powerful.

Unfortunately it is one of the few areas that Republicans are actually more intellectual and competent than Democrats. If we understood that we would be indeed taking back that language. But ironically, in our ignorance (our party, not you), we end up reinforcing their word constructs almost daily.

[YvonneCa]

170. Which is one of my reasons for...

...often using the term 'patriot' or 'patriotism'. I refuse to allow the GOP to own or define those words.

[KittyWampus]

100. "Me." n/t

[xchrom]

104. and a link to PDA

http://www.pdamerica.org/

[rocktivity]

106. A progressive is a liberal

who does things.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[xchrom]

114. the progressive promise from PDA

The Congressional Progressive Caucus offers the Progressive Promise for all. We believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Our fairness plan is rooted in our core principles. It also embodies national priorities that are consistent with the values, needs, and hopes of all our people, not just the powerful and the privileged. We pledge our unwavering commitment to these legislative priorities and we will not rest until they become law.

1. Fighting for Economic Justice and Security in the U.S. and Global Economies
» To uphold the right to universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare for all.

» To preserve guaranteed Social Security benefits for all Americans, protect private pensions, and require corporate accountability.

» To invest in America and create new jobs in the U.S. by building more affordable housing, re-building America’s schools and physical infrastructure, cleaning up our environment, and improving homeland security.

» To export more American products and not more American jobs and demand fair trade.

» To reaffirm freedom of association and enforce the right to organize.

» To ensure working families can live above the poverty line and with dignity by raising and indexing the minimum wage.

2. Protecting and Preserving Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
» To sunset expiring provisions of the Patriot Act and bring remaining provisions into line with the U. S. Constitution.

» To protect the personal privacy of all Americans from unbridled police powers and unchecked government intrusion.

» To extend the Voting Rights Act and reform our electoral processes.

» To fight corporate consolidation of the media and ensure opportunity for all voices to be heard.

» To ensure enforcement of all legal rights in the workplace.

» To eliminate all forms of discrimination based upon color, race, religion, gender, creed, disability, or sexual orientation.

3. Promoting Global Peace and Security
» To honor and help our overburdened international public servants – both military and civilian.

» To bring U. S. troops home from Iraq as soon as possible.

» To re-build U.S. alliances around the world, restore international respect for American power and influence, and reaffirm our nation’s constructive engagement in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations.

» To enhance international cooperation to reduce the threats posed by nuclear proliferation and weapons of mass destruction.

» To increase efforts to combat hunger and the scourge of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other infectious diseases.

» To encourage debt relief for poor countries and support efforts to reach the UN’s Millennium Goals for Developing Countries.

4. Advancing Environmental Protection & Energy Independence
» To free ourselves and our economy from dependence upon imported oil and shift to growing reliance upon renewable energy supplies and technologies, thus creating at least three million new jobs, cleansing our environment, and enhancing our nation’s security.

» To promote environmental justice in affirmation that all people have an inherent right to a healthy environment, clean air, and clean water wherever we live, work, and relax.

» To change incentives in federal tax, procurement, and appropriation policies to:

(A) Speed commercialization of solar, biomass, and wind power generation, while encouraging state and local policy innovation to link clean energy and job creation;

(B) Convert domestic assembly lines to manufacture highly efficient vehicles, enhance global competitiveness of U.S. auto industry, and expand consumer choice;

(C) Increase investment in construction of “green buildings” and more energy-efficient homes and workplaces;

(D) Link higher energy efficiency standards in appliances to consumer and manufacturing incentives that increase demand for new durable goods and increase investment in U.S. factories;

» To eliminate environmental threat posed by global warming and ensuring that America does our part to advance an effective global problem-solving approach.

» To expand energy-efficient transportation choices by increasing investment in synthesized networks, including bicycle, local bus and rail transit, regional high-speed rail and magnetic levitation rail projects.

» To preserve prudent public interest regulations that encourage sustainable growth and investment, ensure energy diversity and system reliability, protect workers and the environment, reward consumer conservation, and support an expanding marketplace that rewards the commercialization of energy-efficient technologies.

Progressive Promise
Progressive Promise, October 2005

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?SectionID=5&ParentID=0&SectionTypeID=2&SectionTree=5

[tekisui]

132. That is pretty much how I defined it downthread.

You post ends the thread. Thanks for the link.

[xchrom]

135. you're welcome -- PDA is one of my favs. nt

[vaberella]

116. Well for me..

A person who pushes for social equality, civil rights, and equal access to avenues of economic stability and growth. And pushing Government to establish a humane nation through legislation.

[tekisui]

121. Working for expansion of rights for all.

Working for social justice.
Working for protection and expansion of civil liberties.
Working against corporate exploitation of people and the environment, through government regulations.
For the workers.
Against unnecessary wars.
Increased social safety nets.

[Mithreal]

149. .

[YvonneCa]

163. This is a good thread and good...

...discussion. Like many terms, progressive Or conservative for that matter) needs context. On can be progressive (or conservative) on social issues...or economic issues...etc.

Most people I know vary. It's possible for one to be progressive (or conservative) on ALL issues. A progressive on ALL issues would be truly 'progressive', IMHO.

[NJmaverick]

164. You raise and interesting and certainly valid point

one that certainly makes the issue even more complex and less clear cut

[YvonneCa]

168. Yes, it does. And I apologize about the typos...

...the coffee has yet to kick in. :7

[Chisox08]

171. To me this is what a "progressive" sounds like

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9yoZHs6PsU">One of the last great Progressives

"For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace‹business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me‹and I welcome their hatred." President Franklin D. Roosevelt (The best President in US history)

[Dark]

172. In the broadest sense: People who think that the government generally should regulate the economy

strongly and that the gov't shouldn't regulate individuals' lives more than absolutely necessary.


On edit:

Or, perhaps a better way to phrase it: Concerning the economy, safety trumps freedom. Concerning individuals' personal lives, freedom trumps safety.

[alcibiades_mystery]

174. A leftist without the decency and courage to call him/herself a leftist

[PassingFair]

176. Which members of the Progressive Caucus are you referring to?

Which particular Progressives are leftists without the decency and courage to call themselves that?

[alcibiades_mystery]

177. Anybody who calls him or herself a "progressive"

Is a coward, pure and simple. We should own our leftism.

[PassingFair]

178. All of these people are cowards?

* Ed Pastor (AZ-4, Phoenix)
* Raúl Grijalva (AZ-7, Tucson) - Co-Chair

California

* Lynn Woolsey (CA-6, Santa Rosa) - Co-Chair
* George Miller (CA-7, Richmond) - Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee
* Barbara Lee (CA-9, Oakland) - Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus
* Pete Stark (CA-13, Fremont)
* Michael Honda (CA-15, San Jose)
* Sam Farr (CA-17, Monterey)
* Henry Waxman (CA-30, Los Angeles) - Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee
* Xavier Becerra (CA-31, Los Angeles)
* Judy Chu (CA-32, El Monte)
* Diane Watson (CA-33, Los Angeles)
* Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34, Los Angeles)
* Maxine Waters (CA-35, Inglewood)
* Laura Richardson (CA-37, Long Beach)
* Linda Sánchez (CA-39, Lakewood)
* Bob Filner (CA-51, San Diego) - Chairman, House Veterans Affairs Committee

Colorado

* Jared Polis (CO-02, Boulder)

Connecticut

* Rosa DeLauro (CT-3, New Haven)

Florida

* Corrine Brown (FL-3, Jacksonville)
* Alan Grayson (FL-8, Orlando)
* Alcee Hastings (FL-23, Fort Lauderdale)

Georgia

* Hank Johnson (GA-4, Lithonia)
* John Lewis (GA-5, Atlanta)

Hawaii

* Mazie Hirono (HI-2, Honolulu)

Illinois

* Bobby Rush (IL-1, Chicago)
* Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2, Chicago Heights)
* Luis Gutierrez (IL-4, Chicago)
* Danny Davis (IL-7, Chicago)
* Jan Schakowsky (IL-9, Chicago)
* Phil Hare (IL-17, Rock Island)

Indiana

* André Carson (IN-7, Indianapolis)

Iowa

* Dave Loebsack (IA-2, Cedar Rapids)

Maine

* Chellie Pingree (ME-1, North Haven)

Maryland

* Donna Edwards (MD-4, Fort Washington)
* Elijah Cummings (MD-7, Baltimore)

Massachusetts

* John Olver (MA-1, Amherst)
* Jim McGovern (MA-3, Worcester)
* Barney Frank (MA-4, Newton) - Chairman, House Financial Services Committee
* John Tierney (MA-6, Salem)
* Ed Markey (MA-7, Malden)
* Mike Capuano (MA-8, Boston)

Michigan

* Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (MI-13, Detroit)
* John Conyers (MI-14, Detroit) - Chairman, House Judiciary Committee

Minnesota

* Keith Ellison (MN-5, Minneapolis)

Mississippi

* Bennie Thompson (MS-2, Bolton) - Chairman, House Homeland Security Committee

Missouri

* William Lacy Clay, Jr. (MO-1, St. Louis)
* Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5, Kansas City)

New Jersey

* Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
* Donald Payne (NJ-10, Newark)

New Mexico

* Ben R. Luján (NM-3, Santa Fe)

New York

* Jerry Nadler (NY-8, Manhattan)
* Yvette Clarke (NY-11, Brooklyn)
* Nydia Velázquez (NY-12, Brooklyn) - Chairwoman, House Small Business Committee
* Carolyn Maloney (NY-14, Manhattan)
* Charles Rangel (NY-15, Harlem) - Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee
* José Serrano (NY-16, Bronx)
* John Hall (NY-19, Dover Plains)
* Maurice Hinchey (NY-22, Saugerties)
* Louise Slaughter (NY-28, Rochester) - Chairwoman, House Rules Committee

North Carolina

* Mel Watt (NC-12, Charlotte)

Ohio

* Marcy Kaptur (OH-9, Toledo)
* Dennis Kucinich (OH-10, Cleveland)
* Marcia Fudge (OH-11, Warrensville Heights)

Oregon

* Earl Blumenauer (OR-3, Portland)
* Peter DeFazio (OR-4, Eugene)

Pennsylvania

* Bob Brady (PA-1, Philadelphia) - Chairman, House Administration Committee
* Chaka Fattah (PA-2, Philadelphia)

Tennessee

* Steve Cohen (TN-9, Memphis)

Texas

* Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18, Houston)
* Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30, Dallas)

Virginia

* Jim Moran (VA-8, Alexandria)

Vermont

* Peter Welch (VT-At Large)

Washington

* Jim McDermott (WA-7, Seattle)

Wisconsin

* Tammy Baldwin (WI-2, Madison)
* Gwen Moore (WI-4, Milwaukee)

Non-voting

* Donna M. Christensen (Virgin Islands)
* Eleanor Holmes Norton (District of Columbia)

Senate members

* Bernie Sanders (Vermont)
* Tom Udall (New Mexico)<2>
* Roland Burris (Illinois)

Former members

* Sherrod Brown (OH-13) - Elected to Senate
* Julia Carson (IN-07) - Died in December 2007
* Lane Evans (IL-17) - Retired from Congress
* Eric Massa (NY-29) - Resigned in March 2010
* Cynthia McKinney (GA-4) - Lost Congressional seat to current caucus member Hank Johnson
* Major Owens (NY-11) - Retired from Congress
* Nancy Pelosi (CA-8) - Left Caucus when Elected House Minority Leader
* Hilda Solis (CA-32) - Became Secretary of Labor in 2009
* Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11) - Died in 2008
* Paul Wellstone (MN Senate) - Died in plane crash in 2002
* Robert Wexler (FL-19) - Resigned in January 2010 to become President of the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation

[alcibiades_mystery]

180. Politically, yes

"progressive" is a bullshit word meant to hide that you're a leftist. I prefer to be a leftist. Less bullshit.

Cheers.

[LWolf]

179. Someone who supports actively moving their issues the direction they want to go.

No matter what the issue, or the direction, is.

[Mithreal]

181. It should be defined loosely enough to include the entire membership.

[Prism]

183. It isn't the definition that's the problem. It's the application.

The definition is fairly set. There is a bit of vagueness about the edges, but I surmise a vast majority of people here would largely agree on the definition of progressive.

Where things get tricky is when people claim the mantle of belief in opposition to their acts.

Take LGBT rights, for example. Anyone can say they support equality. Many people here do. However, what does that mean if you mouth the words but then pivot and support politicians without fail in their consistent explanations that now is never the time? Are you being progressive? What does it mean when a claim is made in support of equal rights, but the material support and acts are never forthcoming?

Is progressiveness simply a cheap statement of belief or an actionable philosophy that ought to be worked toward? I think there are many Democrats who think of themselves as progressives in theory, but in practice they don't bother to put their money where their mouths are.

They're bumper sticker progressives. But more importantly, they're party loyalists. The endless sneering at liberals and progressives, the purity accusations, the deification of Pragmatism as a good unto itself are all little signals that the stated progressive belief is fairly shallow and will dry up when there is power in the offing.

It's common in the Democratic party, damaging, and it enables the persistent drift of this country to the right.

[Robb]

185. You wandered off a bit there at the end, but the first few paragraphs were excellent.

Sort of like making a big show of recycling your cardboard, but buying a new SUV every year.

[Prism]

186. Exactly. Then apply that on a macro level.

For example, being anti-war. It was very, very easy for progressives to hold anti-war sentiments with a Republican in office. Now that a Democrat is waging those wars, some self-described progressives have gone a bit squish in their anti-war attitudes. When it is your guy waging the war, it becomes materially more difficult to hold the same anti-war view. It costs you something if the political well being of the President is important to you.

That's what I mean with the party loyalty remark. When a progressive belief is tested in such a way that you find yourself in the position of either having to draw a line in the sand on the issue or remaining loyal to the party's policy, then the depth and sincerity of the belief can be revealed. Sometimes, it turns out that belief wasn't as strong as once thought before it was put to that test.

I think that's from where a lot of the internecine tension emanates. How strong is this belief in the face of our side now wielding power?

I base that on the notion that I honestly do think many of the same people defending the President's approach in Afghanistan would be just as happy if the troops were brought home tomorrow. I believe many of the people who have pushed against the LGBT community's pressure on the administration would be just as happy if DOMA were repealed next week. I think many of the people who feel the health insurance bill was an historic victory would be just as pleased had we gotten single-payer.

I think conservative/centrist vs. liberal is the wrong frame in these debates. I think many people who are falling closer to the side of the party vs. vigorous liberal criticism do think of themselves as liberals and hold liberal beliefs. It's the strength of them that differs and how willing people are to go to the mat in defense and promotion of them. Some people opt for "pragmatism" through compromise and incrementalism. Others are scorched earth, no relent until total victory. With all the shades of gray in between.

I think that's where all the fighting over the definition of progressive is really coming from.

[tekisui]

187. That was well written and well thought out.

It is the Democratic divide, as I have seen it. Party vs. Policy. When the two are aligned, it is no problem. When they diverge, which does the individual follow. Some say party, I say policy-try to to pull the party with us.

[Robb]

188. Sensible enough. But think about my weak little recycling analogy

...in that context. How did recycling become second nature and broadly supported? Legislation that made it easy and attractive to everyone, party affiliations aside. It was also brought in slowly.

The biggest boom in recycling came after some states mandated deposits, and some municipalities started offering curbside pickup. Sure, people were bringing in cardboard and bottles and cans before, but nothing like this. On the one hand you had financial incentive, and on the other convenience. People get to feel good when they save a little dough, if that's what motivates them, and others get to feel good that they're "saving the planet" -- without working real hard at it.

I think you'd find an overwhelming majority of Republicans would be "just as happy" if the troops came home tomorrow, too, for example. They know it would save the country some dough if the troops were stateside, and contrary to a lot of belief expressed here, no one really likes war. It's fun to say they do, but they don't, really.**

Health care reform, DADT, DOMA, most of these issues resonate the same way. There will always be loud outliers -- everyone knows somebody who proudly says "fuck it" to recycling -- but sensible, honorable and just policies are sensible, honorable and just, and as such can always "play in Peoria" eventually if they're sold correctly to the voters -- especially if you believe that they're not a bunch of idiots, as I do. And that means incrementalism.

20 years ago, the notion of recycling would've died on the vine if we'd gone straight into mandatory recycling -- fines, say, if you put aluminum cans into the trash. In today's climate, some municipalities could probably get away with it, because optional, attractive recycling has been around for so long.

Yes, it's a weak analogy, and there are tons of places to break it down -- but hopefully it makes my point. It's not always a matter of "going to the mat" in defense of a deeply-held belief. Sometimes it's a matter of inching closer to the goal, and not getting pissed off if it is measured in inches sometimes.








** Maybe some politicians and defense contractors do, as a matter of self-interest and pocket-lining. But not "people people." Not the Republican who lives down the block, you understand.

[Odin2005]

189. Opposing explotation by the Investor Class Parasites.

There is no such thing as a "Centrist", you either support the Corporate elites or you don't.

[DCBob]

190. Define why you and most on this board think being "progressive" is always correct..

When I think of politics I think more in terms of what is good for the whole of society and the for the future of the planet which is not always simply being lock-step progressive or liberal. Life is more complicated than that.