How does one define the term "progressive candidate"?

[guillaumeb]

Last edited Sun Sep 10, 2017, 04:00 PM - Edit history (2)

In my view:

If it includes an emphasis on corporate centered and corporate friendly trade agreements, it is not progressive.

If it does not include much higher taxes on the very highest earned and unearned incomes, it is not progressive.


If it does not include a single payer healthcare system, it is not progressive.

If it does not include large cuts to the US war budget to free up money for social spending, it is not progressive.

If it does not include massive spending on renewable energy sources and elimination of subsidies for oil and nuclear, it is not progressive.

If it does not include free college for students, it is not progressive.

Edited to add:
This is the actual ending.

More could be added, but to me this represents the minimum position.

Note that it indicates that this list is not complete. Many other points could have been added. Any responses that accuse me of ignoring social issues represent a misreading of the post.

[leftstreet]

1. It's like that old definition of porn. People know it when they see it

DURec Excellent description

[MineralMan]

2. Well, I tend to focus more on social issues than economic ones.

My view of what is progressive is based on that. To each his or her own definition, I suppose.

[leftstreet]

3. Why can't people do both?

That's probably rhetorical, I just don't understand how the two got separated

[MineralMan]

4. Indeed. I responded that way because the OP addressed economic issues

almost exclusively. While they're often related, one does not necessarily have a direct effect on the other.

Human dignity, environmental concerns, quality of life, ending prejudice and inequality based on almost everything.

Those are my issues, and the things that define for me what is progressive and what is not. If those are not mentioned, I'm not listening when someone speaks of progressivism. I didn't see any of those in the OP, so I objected.

[rogue emissary]

6. +1

[guillaumeb]

12. Mine was a partial list.

Many more things should be added.

[bettyellen]

82. You said they were minimum requirements- and left out plenty that are minimum requirements for

The majority of progressives. If it wasn't deliberately framing some issues as lesser, then you screwed up big time.

[guillaumeb]

84. My list was a short post, not a hundred thousand word platform.

[bettyellen]

111. "To me this represents the minimum". You clearly drew a line right there.

[guillaumeb]

116. I gave a personal opinion.

But I did not say that I am willing to accept only that minimum.

[bettyellen]

119. LOL- literally that's what a minimum is. You made the list, you own it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Great list- a few of my own requirements:

Emphasis on ending the extreme income inequality of the past 40 years;

Dismantling the Prison Industrial Complex;

Reinstating Glass-Steagall (or something even stricter);

Signing the Paris/Kyoto accords on climate;

Reversing Citizens United;

Card Check for union membership ;

Codifying in law a woman's right to choose;

Dismantling the surveillance state and unitary executive, including repeal of the Patriot Act and Military Commissions act of 2006, which gives the president final authority to designate who is a terrorist and may be detained indefinitely without due process;

Any politician opposing these policies is not, IMO, progressive. They may be Liberal in some sense, more likely Neoliberal moderates.

There's more, but these are some of the most important. If these (and the items on your OP) were implemented, I'd seriously consider moving back to the US from Canada.

[guillaumeb]

13. Excellent additions.

What province do you live in?

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. BC nt

[MineralMan]

7. This is why Donald Trump is now President, frankly.

The Democratic Party divided over whether progressivism was about economics or social justice. Those who focused primarily on economic issues connected with progressivism were disappointed by the eventual nominee and many of them simply stayed home on Election Day or voted in a stupid way.

It is a great pity that we cannot agree that neither economic or social issues are the sole defining factors in progressivism. They are related, of course, but do not necessarily depend on each other. Those who neglect social justice issues or who treat them as secondary issued dependent on economics are not really progressives, in my opinion.

We need to do both and treat both as equal in priority. We need to give real service, rather than lip service, to both things. If we do not do that, we will continue to lose through alienation of one group or another.

[guillaumeb]

14. Trump is President because of voter suppresssion, and gerrymandering,

and the corporate media normalizing Trump by refusing to cover actual issues.

And, as I stated in my post, the list was not intended to be a complete list of positions or issues.

[MineralMan]

17. You will believe what you believe.

So be it.

[lapucelle]

86. Those who are confused or uncertain

should take a look at the platform that the Democratic Party adopted in July/August 2016. It's an excellent guide.

[Eliot Rosewater]

101. Many ignored the very progressive platform our candidate ran on

[lapucelle]

102. Nothing was ever going to be good enough. N/T

[MineralMan]

128. Yes. I provided a handy link to it downthread.

However, I'm betting that few bother to go and read it. It's longer than a DU post.

[BigmanPigman]

8. Works for me...always did!

[MrsCoffee]

9. If it does not include pro-choice, equality and civil rights, it is not progressive.

[MineralMan]

10. +100. I hope we have learned that lesson.

However, I doubt it.

[guillaumeb]

15. My ending:

More could be added, but to me this represents the minimum position.

[MineralMan]

20. And the choices you make for that minimum position

tell the story, I think. I would have made different choices altogether, perhaps mentioning economics in one of them. You have provided your list of priorities.

We all make choices, and when we tell them, we tell much.

You said that labels are meaningless, yet define a label in your original post. Was your post meaningless? I doubt that was your intention.

[guillaumeb]

22. And my ending was intended to illustrate that the list was not comprehensive.

[MineralMan]

24. It certainly was not, in that it left out almost all social justice issues

that are important to progressivism, in favor of focusing on economic issues almost exclusively. Apparently, you believe that those economic issues have a much higher priority, or you would have included social justice issues in your list.

It's your list. You are welcome to hold that opinion, as far as I'm concerned. But, your list does not match my list of what makes up progressivism. It leaves out far too much. But, it's your list.

[guillaumeb]

33. Given what I ended with,

is your argument that I should have written a much longer post?

Okay, if that is your criticism, I understand.

[MineralMan]

46. My argument is with the economic focus and the omission of

social justice issues. We made that mistake in 2016, and are suffering gravely for that now. I believe you made the same mistake that many people made last year. The focus is skewed and your essential points are far too limited. You can't just say, "there could be more, but I can't be bothered with those issues," which is tantamount to what you said at the end.

You listed the points you thought were most important. You forgot at least an equal number of points that should have just as high a priority as the ones you thought of when composing your post.

Again, if you want to see a more complete list, go here:

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

[guillaumeb]

51. You are incorrect in your analysis and framing.

I did not present a comprehensive list, but you appear to have misread it as being a comprehensive list. And judging by many of the subsequent comments, many followed your lead.

So there was no forgetting on my part, just a misreading on your part. Why do you continue to ignore the ending of the post?

[MineralMan]

59. No, I am not incorrect.

You identified your list as the "minimum standard." That means that you'd accept a candidate who agreed with your list, regardless of all the things you left off your list of "minimum standards." I want a much broader standard, you see.

I have addressed the weak ending of your post, where you shuffled off everything not on your list to "also ran" status. I've addressed that throughout my arguments in this thread.

You have addressed it not at all, except to excuse your limited economics-based list as your "minimum standard." My standards are higher than that, if you don't mind.

[guillaumeb]

63. It was not a weak ending. It was an indication that the list was not intended to be complete.

So yes, you are incorrect in your reading and your implication of motivation. But you have the right to your opinion even if it is not based on what I wrote.

[MineralMan]

71. I see that you have now edited the ending to expand it and to

argue de novo, as though the original ending no longer exists. It does, and can be read by anyone.

[guillaumeb]

72. I edited it because so many apparently missed or misread it.

And indicated explicitly that it was edited. Did you notice that indication?

[VermontKevin]

27. Not comprehensive in that it left out the liberty rights of half the population? Yes.

[guillaumeb]

35. IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE A COMPREHENSIVE LIST.

As the ending should make clear.

[VermontKevin]

41. Well, then what the fuck was the point?

[MrsCoffee]

117. Then why did you specifically state that to you those were the minimum?

Words mean something.

You keep accusing people here of misreading your post. You posted specifically what your minimum definition of progressive was without even thinking of including social issues and civil rights. You may be offended because you think people misread your post. Just think how offended those affected by the issues you didn't think to jot down off the top of your head are.

Instead of being offended, perhaps check your privilege.

[guillaumeb]

120. I am not willing to accept the minimum.

[MrsCoffee]

121. It's not the fucking minimum.

You set that line. Not progressives. Not Democrats. Not DUers.

[Progressive dog]

53. How those progressive foundations

could be ignored by anyone claiming to be a progressive is beyond my understanding.

[romana]

68. x1000000 /nt

[LWolf]

11. I have multiple answers,

depending on which version of the term "progressive" is used. All language evolves and all terms can be "spun" to suit a political point of view. Plenty of words have multiple definitions and connotations.

So "progressive candidate" can be a neo-liberal produced by the neo-liberal think tank, the "Progressive Policy Institute", or PPI. The PPI thrives on using terms like "progressive" and "liberal" to describe themselves.

Or "progressive" can refer to the era transitioning from the 19th century into the 20th, trying to solve problems brought by industrialization and government and corporate corruption.

Or "progressive" can be a term relatively synonymous with "liberal," used in an attempt to distance a political pov from the tarnished "liberal" label.

Or "progressive" can simply mean wanting to make progress, regardless of what KIND of progress or the pov behind it.

Frankly, it doesn't matter which you pick, some other group will use it for their own purposes, muddying the political waters beyond help.

All of that said, no matter what label is used: progressive, liberal, leftist, socialist, commie, or other, I stand where I've always stood. I look for candidates, "progressive" or not, that:

Are active, staunch defenders of social AND economic justice, not playing one against the other; walk their talk; put people and issues before partisan propaganda and jockeying; and, have a consistent record of doing so.

[guillaumeb]

16. Agreed. Especially the final summary.

Labels mean nothing. What is considered liberal in 2017 would have been center right in 1967.

[MineralMan]

18. Then why do you offer the definition of a label?

If they mean nothing, why make a list that attempts to define a label? That's very confusing, you see...

[guillaumeb]

21. Because we will see many people described or self-described as progressive.

And with no clear definition, or no agreed upon objectives in the progressive list, people will be confused.

We see from the various posts about pro-choice versus anti-choice Democrats that there are divisions among Democrats. We can see the same divisions on other issues, from Israel, to labor issues, to tax issues.

So what, in the opinion of people responding, are the core positions that we should be working toward?

[MineralMan]

23. So, then, labels ARE important?

But, you just said they weren't.

You just stated: "Labels mean nothing."

You have listed the objectives you think are most important in your attempt to define the label, "progressive." What you included appear to be your highest priorities. I have said that I think you left out what should actually be the highest priorities. So, is your list or mine more correct as a definition of "progressive?"

If you want a more complete list, I suggest you have another look at the Democratic Party Platform, as adopted at the 2016 National Convention. I think you'll find points there that you failed to mention, but that are equally important to many.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

I support that platform, at this time. I would, in the future, modify some of the planks to be even more progressive, but that platform is an excellent start, as have been previous Democratic Party platforms. It is that platform that our nominee ran on in 2016. That she did not prevail is a great, great pity, and one we will regret for a very long time to come, I am afraid.

[guillaumeb]

31. Slogans without achievement are meaningless.

As are labels.

And I did explicitly state that my list was not intended to be complete.

[MineralMan]

49. Your list was not just incomplete.

You don't see that, apparently. It was top-loaded with the issues you think are most important, with the rest left as an afterthought.

Sorry, but I could not help but point that out. And you're still arguing for your list. Oh, well...

[bettyellen]

25. Your "minimum position" unfortunately leaves most of the Dem voters left behind.

Same mistakes, again and again. Like watching a train wreck, really.

[MineralMan]

28. It does, however, protect and serve

votes of privilege. Those without privilege, however, are not well-served by the offered list, I think.

I prefer the list in the 2016 Democratic Party Platform, frankly:

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

That was the list Hillary Clinton was using.

[Hortensis]

107. Oh, thanks for saying it. Nothing is more progressive than the Democratic Party platform.

And I mean that literally, because those who just claim to be The Only True Progressives (no matter how sincere) without doing their best to actually make these advances happen aren't the ones accomplishing progress.

I'm not a Democrat because I love corporate greed -- a lie so ridiculous people should be ashamed to be linked to it even by fake names -- It's because the Democrat Party is by far the largest and most effective progressive political group in the nation. Indeed, we've been the only effective one for many decades now.

In the end, we are not our labels but the results of our actions.

[NurseJackie]

32. You're correct. It's a laundry list of mistakes. It's short-sighted.

But there's are certain segment of vain and egotistical voters (and "non-voters'') that will be enamored by such a naive shopping-list of requirements. Even at the expense of losing, those voters can still pat themselves on the back and indulge themselves with the self-satisfaction that comes with their belief of how much better they are than everyone else. It's all very Sarandonesque and Stein-like. Some take great pride in standing still (or even moving backward) because they can boast to the world that they didn't compromise. ¡Viva la Revolución!, eh?

[guillaumeb]

37. No, it does not. Unless you define minimum differently than do I.

Did you read my ending?

[bettyellen]

55. You mean "more could be added"? Why was this "more" left out? If you're not supporting women...

And you're not fightibg discrimiation against POC - To the extent you can say it loudly proudly- I have a huge problem with that. That's not progressive.

[guillaumeb]

58. I did not want to write a 5000 word post.

But some here, judging by the comments, insist that the shorter post is evidence of something.

[bettyellen]

65. You showed us your priorities, and I'm some footnote that "could" be added but not important enough.

That says everything. It really does. The arrogance in assuming you can label others and lesser than you is just icing on this shit cake. Just no, you're not speaking for progressives by any stretch of the imagination.

[guillaumeb]

69. And you showed your position, and your judgement,

based on what you infer must be my motives.

Arrogance? Arrogance is assuming that one can assign motives to others based on a misreading of a post.

[bettyellen]

75. No one misread your post- your priorities are different and that's fine for you. But you don't get

To label other life long progressives as somehow lesser than you- which is exactly what you're doing.

For most of us your list is seriously lacking, and that's why you've gotten push back.

[guillaumeb]

78. More framing.

The Democratic platform is hundreds of thousands of words. My post is not.

[marylandblue]

100. Fallacy of excluded middle

You could have a made longer "minimum" without making a 5,000 word essay.

[guillaumeb]

103. And if I left one thing out, someone would have noticed it.

The Democratic Party platform is probably hundreds of thousands of words. I concentrated on what I felt was the minimum requirement for a progressive platform. I could have done one devoted exclusively to social justice issues but O chose to focus on economic issues that also impact everyone.

[marylandblue]

112. The minimum progressive platform isn't just

economic issues that affect everyone. It's a winning coalition that includes enough votes to win, and for progessives that will include some social justice issues that only affect some. It's certainly likely that in forming a coalition, you will piss off somebody that can't join, but if you leave out too many issues, you will leave out too many people and lose.

[guillaumeb]

118. Social justice is an essential part of any progressive platform. eom

[MineralMan]

130. No. It is exactly 26,809 words long. You have not looked at it,

have you? Despite a link in this very thread.

[MineralMan]

129. The complete 2016 Democratic Platform contains ONLY 26,809 words.

Exactly. I copied it, pasted into Microsoft Word and checked the number of words

It does NOT contain hundreds of thousands of words. Apparently, you have not even gone to look at it, or you'd know that. Novels contain hundreds of thousands of words. The 2016 Democratic Party Platform is the length of a short story.

An average reader could read the entire thing in less than an hour. Have you read it? Have you even opened it?

Here's what you wrote: "The Democratic platform is hundreds of thousands of words. My post is not."

You are incorrect.

[VermontKevin]

26. One who releases their taxes for all to see. I'd call that a bare minimum to run as a candidate,

let alone as a progressive.

[NurseJackie]

34. It's as simple as that. What a GREAT start! Frankly...

... in my opinion, it's the SURE SIGN of a dishonest candidate who CANNOT BE TRUSTED... or a candidate who has SOMETHING TO HIDE... or a candidate who ISN'T ALL THAT HE (or she) IS CLAIMING TO BE.

[VermontKevin]

38. After Trump, can any candidate claim non-release is innocent?

[NurseJackie]

48. Candidates who don't (or didn't) release their returns have something bad to hide...

... it's as simple as that. There's no two ways about it it. Candidates who do not (or did not) release their tax returns cannot be trusted.

38. After Trump, can any candidate claim non-release is innocent?

Nope. He proves the point.

[VermontKevin]

70. After Trump, the conversation ought to start with "who is fit to run" and nevermind what Party or

office.

[NurseJackie]

73. Yes. If we lower our standards, then we normalize incompetence...

... and we give a free pass to shifty and dishonest candidates (regardless of the party.) Our party can't afford to be lax in that regard. This should be our minimum standard.

[Squinch]

29. I guess my desire to own my own body is not that important, then.

Strangely, I thought it was.

[guillaumeb]

39. You are arguing against a position that I did not make.

And you have that right.

[Squinch]

42. Well, it isn't included in the minimum progressive efforts, according to your opinion.

[ProudLib72]

30. This is the same semantics trickery used by the Bernie Bros

MM picked up on your omission of social justice criteria immediately. That became the talking point, and the entire discussion got derailed. We've now gone from at litmus test for being a Democrat to a litmus test for being a "progressive" Democrat, and I see that as pandering to the Bernie crowd, which I refuse to do.

[NurseJackie]

36. Indeed. He wasn't the only one. (That gives me hope.)

I share your frustration and anger.

[guillaumeb]

45. See number 43.

Frustration is writing that a post is not meant to be a comprehensive list and having numerous posters ignore the clear language of the post to argue a non-existent issue.

[NurseJackie]

52. Irrelevant. That something so obvious is omitted reveals more...

... than one probably realizes. It needs to be called-out, and I'm glad that someone did.

[guillaumeb]

57. Good luck in your quest to find a secret hidden meaning here.

What is revealing is how one poster can apparently misread the ending and then many others accept the misreading as the actual ending when the post can be read by anyone here.

[NurseJackie]

62. No, the meaning is clear. Not hidden at all. (Nice try though.)

I saw the ending. Time to check your pride. It was a lame disclaimer that tried to make an excuse for a "random" (?) cut-off point. The "minimums" that made it the top of your list... the ones worthy of mentioning or including at all do tell me much (and I'm sorry to say that what it tells me not very flattering.)

[guillaumeb]

66. Your attempt at analysis is noted.

[NurseJackie]

74. As is yours at denial.

[guillaumeb]

43. No, MM missed, or ignored, the ending of the post to argue

that a list that was explicitly not intended to be comprehensive missed something.

And I feel that many here accepted MM's omission as the actual post.

[ProudLib72]

87. Oh, I get what you were trying to do

My criticism of your OP had nothing to do with your list. I don't care that you did not include any social justice requirements. My point is that, in making any kind of list like this, you open yourself up to criticism from someone who doesn't like that you've omitted something or doesn't like your word choice. It's almost impossible to actually pin down a label that everyone will be satisfied using. Instead of finding an answer, you are more likely to incite a thread riot. So my criticism was that you wanted to define the term "progressive". This is the main thing I see as causing division in the party: taking politicians' statements out of context and trying to locate everyone in the party along some subjective scale of "progressiveness".

[guillaumeb]

90. I understand your point.

The division in the Party is well reflected in the endless blame posts here that attack the other candidate in an attempt to assign blame.

[hack89]

40. The one with the most purity tests? Nt

[GulfCoast66]

44. The whole free college thing is a huge gift the mainly white middle and upper middle class

And is no way progressive.

There is no way in the world that someone with, say my income, should not pay for their own kids college.

A truly progressive model would be a return to the system we were trying to build in the 60's. People like me pay their own. Then we have generous grants for all eligible Americans who do not have the resources to go. It is not rocket science. Like we do the tax system. You know, or progressive tax system where the more you make the more you pay.

And if you want to see tuition skyrocket, then disconnect the cost of tuition with the ability of students to attend a school. Market forces do exist.

Nothing torques me more than seeing a auditorium of white kids currently in college cheering on free college. Generally, they are the group of Americans least in need of government help...but they vote.

Have a nice day.

[guillaumeb]

47. Free college is a gfit to the majority of Americans.

If you have a relatively high income you are not in the majority.

Nice try.

[MineralMan]

56. Oh, my. The "majority of Americans."

What of the "minority of Americans?" What of them? Are they to wait for the economic benefits to trickle down to them? What of poor schools in inner cities and areas where people of color are the majority? What about that. How will they benefit from free college, when they don't even get a free basic education, while other areas have outstanding schools available to them?

No, thanks.

[guillaumeb]

60. Another misreading.

The majority refers to the bottom 90% or so, those for whom college tuition is a burden.

Please.

[MineralMan]

61. No, I don't please.

Sorry.

Majority has a very specific meaning, and it is not 90%. Not at all. Words mean stuff.

[guillaumeb]

64. No, your argument was totally off base.

[MineralMan]

67. Well, you appear to think so...

I'll leave it at that.

[GulfCoast66]

85. Giving government funding to people in the top 1/3 of the income demographic

Is not progressive

Nice try.

[guillaumeb]

89. The top third of income?

Most families find college costs to be a huge burden. But there could be an income cutoff for the top 1% or so.

[GulfCoast66]

96. You are just incorrect with your numbers

My wife and I are in the top 20% of the income bracket and we would have no problem paying for college. Ivy League? No, but if my kid gets into Harvard he or she will have a huge earning potential and would be expect to take loans since they will have a lifetime of earning potential way above what I have had.

The upper 1/3 of the income distribution is the group who already gets the most government aid thru bad tax policy such as mortgage interest deduction and low marginal rates. They also send their kids to the best schools and on average have more stable households. Their kids are healthier and are given support both in and out the classroom their entire lives. They are way, way more likely to actually be accepted to premier colleges and universities which can be as difficult as paying for them. Oh, and they are overwhelmingly white.

Now you want to pay for their college as well? If that is your idea of progressivism you can keep it. I prefer to use the power of the federal government to raise up the underclass, underpaid and historically oppressed. Not give more goodies to the class that does not need the aid.

I generally agree with much of the rest of your list, but I believe you and too many progressives have not thought the whole free college thing out. Sounds great in front of a auditorium of white folks in college, but that does not make it progressive. All it will do is further entrench the upper parts of the demographics.

Have a nice evening.

[JHan]

113. Yes, it will end up being precisely what Gulf described if there are no conditions attached...

Clinton's specificity in her college plans was the smart approach , still the idea of "free college" as a fix-all glosses over complexities.

Generally, the neediest of society, those who are functionally illiterate and didn't finish high school, will not be eligible to receive "free college" . The beneficiaries will be young people who hope to make more than median wage on their first day at the job.

The catch is most degrees will not net you more than the median wage on the first day. How many degrees are worth taking yourself out of the workforce for 4 years when you could have gained experience had you started work right out of high school? Take Germany for example: grossly simplistic comparisons are made between the the U.S. and Germany - but there's a difference, in germany there are jobs you can get without a university degree, jobs that require a degree in the U.S, and there's a focus on vocational training. Treating free college as a fixall puts pressure on administrative university costs, especially if you're taking a degree which isn't terribly productive - ergo a degree society isn't lining up for and demanding.

And let's say someone takes up a degree that society IS lining up for, why can't that person cover the costs of their tuition? There are already state taxes aimed at keeping state colleges affordable, federal research grants, land grants, scholarship aid etc, it's not that society doesn't pay anything at the moment.

And as for unproductive degrees, "free college" encourages students to pursue these degrees when they might be better off pursuing a trade career for example or pursue a productive degree instead. EDIT: And I am not arguing that Students shouldn't pursue degrees that aren't high in demand, personal education is valuable regardless, but it's a valid consideration. I also believe the humanities shouldn't be dismissed or ignored, and I won't mind a change in the way we value and assess certain degrees, but is this some magical fix? No it isn't.

What free college does is give funds to literate high school graduates who only have to choose a sensible major and they're set for life.

Which is why I favor greater emphasis on k-12. Greater emphasis on infancy health and nutrition plans for vulnerable mothers, particularly if those mothers are homeless, barely literate and live in communities with decrepit infrastructure. I want less talk about "free college" and more talk about literacy and numeracy rates in the United States and how to address the effects of poverty on access to education.

And you know what would make a real progressive platform? Universal basic income, but no one's ready for that yet. There are basic things progressives should be on board with relating to social justice issues, and ideas we should aim to implement to solve the economic predicament many Americans are in - Do my concerns make me less of a progressive? Maybe, according to some, but I don't mind, because frankly the term has become a weapon to bash people with, so I'll stick to calling myself liberal.

[Expecting Rain]

50. If it appeals to the worst populist impulses of mankind to find scapegoats to blame...

for all of the society's ills, it isn't progressive.

If it is all empty rage with no concrete plans behind the hot-air and the anger and division actively sets back progress, it isn't progressive.

If nothing at all of a positive nature is accomplished in concrete terms it isn't progressive.

There is a yawning gap between being progressive and simply sloganeering.

[NurseJackie]

54. You see it too, eh? (It's a fucking trainwreck!)

Last edited Sun Sep 10, 2017, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)

[guillaumeb]

79. I suggest you reread the post that you are supporting..

[NurseJackie]

92. Whoosh.

[Expecting Rain]

122. We can all read just fine.

[Progressive dog]

76. I'll go for the dictionary definition of progressive

rather than a fixed ideology.

[George II]

77. Seems like the definition of "progressive" is a moving target. Or....

...is in the eye of the beholder.

[guillaumeb]

80. DO any words have meaning?

Define a Democrat for me. Define what Democrats stand for. Also moving targets.

[George II]

81. start here:

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

[guillaumeb]

83. I asked for a definition, not a trillion word statement.

[George II]

88. You asked "Define what Democrats stand for." I did.

[NurseJackie]

91. Obviously it needs to fit on a bumper sticker.

[George II]

93. To be honest, I was also asked to define a Democrat, which I neglected to do...

A Democrat is one who belongs to the Democratic Party and works to change it, if its not acceptable to him/her, by working from within the Party and working WITH other Democrats to make it better.

No matter how you slice it or rationalize it, if you're not a member of the Democratic Party you've decided that you're not a Democrat.

[NurseJackie]

94. That goes right to the heart of the matter.

Well done, you.

[George II]

95. .....

[MineralMan]

131. The Democratic Party Platform contains only 26,809 words.

Not a trillion. Please go look at it. It's fairly obvious that you have not done so.

[sheshe2]

98. Agreed, George.

Thank you.

[Skidmore]

97. I know of no Democrat

who does not embrace progressive values which, btw, are written down in the Party platform developed by Democrats with Sanders' supporters. I do know several "progressives" who neglect the Party“s progressive platform and forget their participation from precinct level to national convention. Now we either work as a coalition or not. I will not support purity tests or start having people sign promise notes like Teabaggers insist on. Shredding the party rather finding common cause weakens us. Unless, of course, that is what you are seeking.

[guillaumeb]

104. Is your last sentence an accusation?

Anyone following the discussions at DU cannot miss the large number of posts that are continuing the primary debates.

So the issue of what does the Democratic Party stand for is a continuing and crucial one.

Even more crucial is trying to educate voters about the Democratic Party platform in the face of media resistance.

[Skidmore]

110. It seems to me that the accusation underlying the demand

for litmus tests is that Democrats are not progressive, something I categorically disagree with. There will never be a person "progressive" or deserving enough per the demands of some of these people. I mistrust their credentials and motives after the last election.

I don't consider Stein or her supporters to be progressive anything. They are agent provocateurs. The same can be said of some of those who identified as Bernie Bros and engaged in incredibly misogynistic verbal assaults against women in social media. What we saw later was some were trolls paid by Putin and others joined them or the ride. We witnessed racist assaults on minority groups by people claiming similar affiliations, which were let stand and not immediately denounced. We saw this occur on these forums. Now we see a new "progressive" group headed by Turner which seeks to paint Democrats and Republicans with the same broad brush.

I consider the Democratic Party to be liberal and progressive in its values. I also think it has been much maligned. To me, the onus is on progressives to let us know their values. I still hear subtle echoes of some of the disturbing social justice statements and/or absence of positions that drove me away months ago. If attentive enough, you will find that Democrats have always shared the same values. A good candidate will be able to get the votes of both.

[guillaumeb]

115. Stein is, in my view, an opportunist.

And I feel that some few "Bernie bros" were bots.

[OnDoutside]

99. I have serious misgivings about the use of the word Progressive.

I see it as an invisibility cloak by the hard left, after decades of being discredited. Whoever came up with it, a hat tip to them, as it has fooled an awfu lot of people. Is it a coincidence that this has happened at the same time as the Fascists have rebranded to Alt Right ?

Being a Democrat or Democratic Party supporter is something to be proud of, and should be the core value.

[guillaumeb]

105. And that could be another topic.

The "hard left" of which you speak.

What does hard left, or centrist Democrat, or corporate Democrat mean?

[OnDoutside]

106. Absolutely, it should be, but no one is talking about it.

Hard left to me are the likes of the Trotskyists and left of even them. I've seen the Progressive moniker being used by far left groups in Europe too, its almost coordinated. It's actually quite clever where they lump all sorts of stuff in, and if you don't agree, then you're not progressive.

[guillaumeb]

108. I agree with you on all points.

The hard left in the US is essentially non-existent in terms of influence.

[OnDoutside]

109. They had been without influence, but have used

The Progressivism and general disenchantment with US politics to make an opening for themselves.

[guillaumeb]

114. So it is up to the major parties to reject or incorporate their ideas.

The GOP of course has normalized all of the far right fringe as its norm.

[lapucelle]

123. Interesting edit.

"Any responses that accuse me of ignoring social issues represent a misreading of the post."

Now the word "misreading" is being defined idiosyncratically as well.

"More could be added..."

could
modal verb: could (past of can)
1. used to indicate possibility.

possibility
noun
1. a thing that may happen or be the case

[guillaumeb]

124. No, just pointing out what should be obvious.

Given that I did originally point out that this represented the minimum.

[Trumpocalypse]

125. If it is drawing a line in the sand

and proclaiming 'My way or the highway', it is not progressive.

[stonecutter357]

126. The democratic party rejected that way of thinking last year .

[beachbum bob]

127. I have ONE requirment, make voting for all citizens as easy, simple and safe as possible

if all people can vote easier....no doubt we will take a progressive track again in america