What's a "progressive?"

[Bobby Digital]

I hear that word thrown around a lot and I'd like people's perceptions of what it means. Obviously it has something to do with progress, but what sort of progress?

[Cannikin]

1. Progressive

www.dictionary.com

n.

1. A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.

2. Progressive A member or supporter of a Progressive Party.

3. Grammar. A progressive verb form.

adj.

Moving forward; advancing.

Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.

Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.

Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.

Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.

Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.

Pathology. Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis.

Grammar. Designating a verb form that expresses an action or condition in progress.

[theoceansnerves]

2. common dreams

read commondreams.org daily and you'll get a pretty good idea of what a progressive is :thumbsup:

[DemExpat]

3. I think that there are many interpretations of it, visible here at DU...

But mine would be the idea of progress towards a more equal world - at least in access to services and opportunities, resources.

Progressive to me would also entail equality and sharing of responsibility towards sustaining the world and its resources.

My idea of Progressive also views adaptation to changes in society as being of utmost importance.....not trying to hold on desperately to to old traditions and ways to the detrimiment of the interests and cares of other-minded people.

That's about all I can think of at the moment, but I'm sure there are many other aspects of perceptions of "progressive"...

DemEx

[librechik]

4. it's about people using technology to improve the human condition

that's why it's wrong to label progressives anti- business or anti corporations--these are portals which could just as easily be used to offer garment stitchers in California a living wage and health benefits as they can be allowed to build sweatshops and pollute.

Progressives want to use their power as shareholders in our democracy to achieve more humane conditions for everybody, not just the elite. Our strategy is to use a combination of government regulation, grassroots community action, and global politics (think Bono) to persuade businesses and states to treat their employees as valuable assets to be cherished rather than guinea pigs or slaves.

Those who cannot work also deserve basic humane conditions and it's the responsibility of each community (using it's shareholder power in government and business) to care for those who can't care for themselves. We are a family, we earthdwellers, and it's our charge to care for all the family and the planet we share.

That's about it. The opposite of Progressive is "Cheap Labor Conservative" (the most powerful sect of the GOP right now) think the weak ought to be left on an iceflow, and if the worker won't work for slave weages, then he is useless and needs to go die in the desert, if that is his desire. They have what they need (usually acquired as an inheritance or accrued by more or less criminal means, or by taking advantage of peculiar historic trends, like the tech bubble or the GI bill) and anyone who can't survive in the climate they favor
(high rent, low wages, zero social safety net)is weak and headed for the iceflow.

[cryofan]

10. "Cheap Labor Conservative" also most powerful sect of the Dems right now

Unfortunately.....

For example, Howard Dean is a Cheap Labor Conservative (see www.mylinuxisp.com/~cryofan/dean.html for proof). Also, Lieberman would be one, and well as Edwards. Maybe Kerry?

[prolesunited]

5. Think of what your views and beliefs are

then think of what the opposite of them are. That's a progressive. :hi:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

6. LOC

[Bobby Digital]

7. come on

It may surprise you but many of the things listed here as "progressive" I fundamentally agree with, at least in terms of the ends that are sought. I often have a different conception of the best means for achieving those ends, and herein I think lies a problem with the concept itself. "Progressive" is defined in terms of ends, but it sells itself in terms of means, and thus claims a monopoly on being the sole seeker of the ends themselves.

[LeahMira]

18. Not all paths lead to the goal...

Well, Bobby, you aren't going to reach peace, which is one goal we probably share, by means of wars. Some things are just obvious here. Peace is not only the enforced silence of the conquered, trampled and disenfranchised. It is a positive concept that involves caring, trust, and mutual assistance... among other things.

I think that all of society's institutions and "means" should be judged according to a new bottom line. They must work to create real benefit to all the individuals within the society. That would mean, for example, that corporations would exist to create jobs and not merely wealth. Governments would exist to ensure equally humane and respectful treatment for all citizens and not merely defense of territory and consolidation of power. And so on and so on. I don't know if you or anyone else would consider that progressive, but it's how I believe.

[blondeatlast]

12. My thoughts exactly!

Good one, prolesunited!

[greatauntoftriplets]

29. You have a way with words!!!

:)

[democracyindanger]

8. A liberal

who thinks all the other liberals aren't liberal enough.

[Darranar]

9. A progressive is a liberal...

who is a little more left-wing.

[SanchoPanza]

11. A simple comparison.

A progressive is someone who believes that the purpose of human institutions is to strengthen and uplift humanity.

A conservative is someone who believes that humanity exists to strengthen and uplift human institutions. I.E. Laissez-Faire Capitalism, religion, republicanism, and etc. are all worthwhile ends unto themself, whether or not they actual improve the human condition.

If you talk to a conservative libertarian, especially, you get the feeling that they don't really care if their political and economic agenda, if enacted, were to reap unimaginable harm upon the people of the world (and it would). Libertarianism is, to them, self-justifying.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[blondeatlast]

15. Read his site--besides, no topic hijacking allowed.

[SanchoPanza]

21. That was the idea behind Bolshevism...

Which was responsible for the utter repression of the people of the USSR. Bolshevism put the Marxist ideal of state ownership of entire nations above all other concerns, whereas Libertarianism puts the ideal of private ownership of entire nations above all other concerns.

I really don't want a thread hijack to happen, but you should really read up on the intricacies of libertarian philosophy and political thought. No reasonable person would take the position that junking the FDA would promote public health. Rather the argument goes something like: "No meat inspections! That's against the will of the Invisble Hand and the Natural Laws of Supply and Demand!"

Mad Cow, anyone?

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[SanchoPanza]

27. Come around to what?

Corporate Feudalism? The Gilded Age Redux? How about the days of Upton Sinclaire's "The Jungle"? To be honest, I think going back to the days when corporations had their own privaye armies of strike-breakers, that were solely responsible for the most violent labor struggles since the days of serfs and fiefdoms, would be of little benefit to anyone besides the equally greedy and unscrupulous.

The "individual liberty" mantra is at best a delusion and at worst pro-business propaganda of the most nefarious sort. If you want to discuss Libertarianism, please start a new thread so this one doesn't get side-tracked (a simple request, and not a statist fiat I assure you).

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[SanchoPanza]

30. In the words of Jon Stewart:

"Whaaaaaa?"

So the people who fought and died, LITERALLY, for labor laws and the right to organize were lazy do-nothings who wanted others to work for them? Abolitionists, runaway slaves, and later freedom riders and disenfranchised blacks who were intimidated by an openly racist police and lynched by a psychotic, hate-filled segment of the citizenry din't want to "do for themselves", as you put it? What about whistleblowers in various industries who sounded the clarion call for the creation of inspection agencies, including the FDA and the EPA, saving untold millions of lives? I guess they just didn't have that "get up and get it done" kind of attitude. Or they were just weak-minded.

[blondeatlast]

14. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

Your site is HILARIOUS! Five of a factoid beats a full argument.


Great work, my friend!

[SanchoPanza]

20. I Only Wish

I am not, much to my regret, Mike Huben. :( :)

[Turkw]

16. This question is really just the start of what we need to ask

If you look up liberalism in the dictionary you will find that a belief in progress is part of the definition. So being liberal should mean that you believe in progress. Some Democrats describe themselves as being progressive, instead of being liberal. My question is not one of semantics, but of substance, what exactly are our progressive positions? Racial, gender, etc. equality? Workers rights? Environmental Concerns? Right to Choose? I could go on, but you can easily add to the list yourself. Are these issues important? Certainly, in some cases critically. But they do not answer my question, in fact they highlight it. What are our progressive positions?

Many of these causes have had immense setbacks under the current administration. Democrats desperately want to stop any further damage and restore the protections that have been striped away. This is terribly important, I agree. But this is a strategy based on defending what the party has already accomplished. It is not enough. Being against, or angry at Bush and what he has done is important, but it is not enough. What are our progressive positions?

How many of the positions and issues that the Democratic party champion been brought to the forefront in the last five years? Ten years? Twenty? If we have to go twenty years or more to find anything NEW, then we have a problem.
WE HAVE A PROBLEM! What are our progressive positions?

What do we reach for beyond a specific interest? What is larger that we are reaching for? If the best we can reach for is pay back, promote a well established cause, or nominate the guy with the best chance to win, then we have a problem.
WE HAVE A PROBLEM! What are our progressive positions?

We have to go beyond winning an election, no matter how important the election. I know our anger is justified. We have to go further than just anger. I know our causes are important. We have to do more than defend. We have to aspire.

We have to reach for something more. How do we do that? We have to talk, to debate, to clash. To evaluate what we have done, what we are doing and how we are doing it. We need to set new goals, re-evaluate old goals. We have to look again at the very things we take for granted. And we might have to tear them down.

Shake them apart, knock them loose, clear it away. Radical? Crazy? Stupid?

Is it stupid for a black man to sit in the front of the buss?
Is it stupid for corporations to have to be responsible for the toxic waste they create?
Is it stupid for employees to take time off to recover from illness or injury and still have a job to come back to?
Is it stupid for a woman to vote, run for office, or be an executive in a corporation?

At one time or another a lot of people, most people even, would have said yes to these last four questions.
But some one, then some few, then some many stood up and broke apart what was and something better was built in its place.

Progress. Not easy. Painful, sweat, and often blood, soaked progress.

What are our progressive positions? To what do we aspire? What needs to be broken down, shaken up, torn apart, so that something better can be built? What do we take for granted or ignore that needs to be reevaluated?

Some say that the Democratic party is out of touch with the main stream. It is controlled by narrow ultra liberal special interest groups that are primarily interested in their agendas, more concerned with checking off lists of demands than with the party as a whole. Some say that the Republican party has been high jacked by the religious right and corporate interests that are more interested in their own power than with the health of the party, and worse, the country. There is too much truth to both of these beliefs. But here is our opportunity to renew the Democratic party and reach out to those set apart from us.

There are many Independents and Republicans who don't like what is going on. We, the Democratic party, need to offer more than a common enemy. The politics of personal destruction has to end, for the sake of all of us. There needs to be a vision, a hope that we can offer, not just for the party, for the country. It cannot be a sterile list of objectives, like the Republican contract with America. It has to be organic, hard to define, something that grows as the more we think about it and the more we pursue it.

The country needs a fundamental change and the Democratic party could lead the way, as we have in the past. We need to seek a different way to interact with the government and with each other. The disenfranchised and disengaged have to have real encouragement to take part in the political process. We must look beyond our traditional supporters and find common ground with those currently dissatisfied with both parties. So, then, what are our progressive positions? To what do we aspire? What needs to be moved aside? What is our hope and vision?

[maha]

19. The distinction between "liberal" and "progressive"

There IS a difference, although they overlap a lot. Most liberals are progressive, but not all progressives are liberal.

How can this be? First off, let's define liberal. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, liberalism is a

philosophy or movement that has as its aim the development of individual freedom. Because the concepts of liberty or freedom change in different historical periods the specific programs of liberalism also change. The final aim of liberalism, however, remains fixed, as does its characteristic belief not only in essential human goodness but also in human rationality. Liberalism assumes that people, having a rational intellect, have the ability to recognize problems and solve them and thus can achieve systematic improvement in the human condition.

My argument is that although the policies and political goals of liberal movements differ over time, the foundation of liberalism remains the belief that freedom is a primary political good.

Progress and improvement in the human condition flow naturally from political liberty, the theory goes, because a free people will choose policies beneficial to the people. Thus liberalism is thought to be progressive. But a free people may choose to maintain conservative or traditional institutions.

When are progressives not liberal? By definition, liberalism cannot be authoritarian. A person with liberal values would prefer an unprogressive government whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, as long as individual civil liberties are respected, over a "progressive" but authoritarian government.

Individual civil liberties are critical, however, and it is a legitimate use of government power to protect them -- for example, President Eisenhower's deployment of National Guard to Little Rock in 1957. ("Libertarians" would disagree, I suspect.)

[shawn703]

31. I always thought the difference between "liberal" and "progressive"

Was that the former term had been demonized by the right-wing media so much that people decided they'd rather call themselves progressive instead of liberal.

Thanks for the informative post!

[Skittles]

17. people who want America to PROGRESS

not like idiot conservatives who would like us to REGRESS TO THE '50's

[arewethereyet]

22. in general use

it refers to someone who is liberal but leaning socialist a la the social democrats overseas.

[zeemike]

25. To me a progressive is

Someone that can see that we now have the technology to change the world and secure the future for our society.

He or she is not attached to any ideology or ism but is not afraid of borrowing the good ideas that any one might have if it works.
A progressive could borrow from the past any thing that worked just as well as from the future.
A progressive wants a revolution because he knows that if we don’t have one we will be driving internal combustion vehicles for the next 100 years.

[Don_G]

26. As Defined By Rush Or The DLC?

Things have to change and soon...!

Let "us" define our own terms on "who's on first" and in our own way rather than let the PNAC "Abbot And Costello" shape the next seletction and graft for the next century.