This 'progressive' fad is starting to really irk me

[sampsonblk]

I got the fan mail from DFA today. 'Contribute $15.00 for a progressive victory today!' That doesn't sound like a call to arms, it sounds like a huge retreat from the fight. In fact it reminds me of the scene in the Five Heartbeats where the black singing group gets to see their new album cover, and its a bunch of white people having fun on a beach. Their own faces do not appear anywhere on the album. The record company exec implores them to try to 'see the big picture.' No.

So, it appears we have taken on a new name. But I don't feel any different. In fact, I don't believe one thing today that I didn't believe 10 year ago when I was a liberal. So why do I get a new name? Is this a grass roots phenomenon, or did a group of political consultants decide that we'd be better off calling ourselves something new? Is it just me, or does this seem like the New Coke?

Its a way to clean the slate and redefine ourselves sans the Code Pinks, Jesse Jacksons and PETAs of the world. IMHO, its a bad business.

[Stargazer99]

1. liberal? progressive?

I find it disconcerting also, but who gives a damn we need to get these conservative Republicans out of power and anyway to get it done is fine with me.

[Buzz Clik]

2. I like to refer to myself as an Informed Voter.

Beats the other labels quite handily.

[sampsonblk]

3. I am with you on that

[Richardo]

4. Far from being new, it's been in use since the late 19th century

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

I like it - I think it recalls the roots of the reform movement and invokes an intelligent, forward-looking platform.

[sampsonblk]

22. Fine, let me ask you this

When the GE debates arrive, will our candidate openly oppose liberals and liberalism? If so, that's not going back to any roots, its something quite different.

[jmp]

5. Why not just "socialist" ...

If you really want to lose?

The American public holds the "liberal" brand in low esteem. If you can get them to buy the policies under the "progressive" brand ... why not do it? What is more important, the policies or the labels?

[sampsonblk]

6. You missed the boat

We as a party have shown the willingness to abandon the policies, views, labels and anything else the GOP seeks to marginalize. This new name is just another of a long list of examples.

The public holds the liberal brand in low esteem because we have not fought for it. How long before we have to abandon 'progressive' and call ourselves something new?

[jmp]

12. "The public holds the liberal brand in low esteem because" ...

The last Democratic presidential candidate to top 50.1% was LBJ ... before him it was FDR.

The political center is NOT where many on DU would like to believe. You've got to win people over a little at a time.

[Greyhound]

13. Personally, if they'd start fighting for the policies, I'm more than willing to give up any label.

It is the policies that matter, after all.

[CTyankee]

41. A good reason to like the term "progressive".

And that is, what is the word's opposite? "REgressive," right? By contrast, the word "conservative", the opposite of "liberal," can be construed positively (as in "conservation"). But there is NO way that "regressive" can be viewed positively. Most people think of "regressing" in psychological terms, like when you think your kid is potty trained but he "regressed" (I've been their with my son, I know!). People don't have to know what regressive taxes as opposed to progressive taxes mean to know there is something "not right" about going back to an earlier, immature or less enlightend time.

[sampsonblk]

44. I don't dispute the cleverness of it

I posted a poll earlier that shows its having a positive effect. But the poll does not note the long-term effects of switching labels to get votes. I definitely see where you are coming from though.

[CTyankee]

46. Well, what I DON'T see is the RW using the switch of terms against us.

And I think they would if they thought they COULD. IMHO, there is no point in fighting the last war for the term of "liberal." That was a war we lost. We should frame "progressive" as "not a cave man."

[sampsonblk]

52. That was not a war we lost, it was one we didn't fight

Now we have a replacement name to presumably clear the slate. But you can't clear the slate and publicly advocate the same policies. Somebody's gotta get put in the closet till after the election, so we can look as new as our new name. What victory is that?

We shall see.

[progdonkey]

10. maybe this is a stupid example, but...

I think the fact that there's ads for Progressive Auto Insurance on the TV all the time (and that there's a major company called that in the first place) does a lot to help the "progressive" label. I mean, a company wouldn't use a bad word to describe itself, right? So if a huge insurance company names itself "progressive", it must be a good thing to be.

I refer to myself as a liberal, but there are definitely so many connotations that that word carries that a word like "progressive" just doesn't have. Even a phrase like "making liberal use of something" puts it into peoples' minds that liberal=indiscriminate, all over the place, more than is needed, etc. I do think that politicians shouldn't shy away from identifying themselves as "liberals", since doing so only reinforces the idea that it's not something to be proud of--say you're a liberal and then define for the listeners what that means--but when discussing policies, I agree it would be best to use a word like progressive, since it doesn't have the baggage and prejudice that "liberal" has.

[Armstead]

7. "Progressive" today is defined in two opposite ways, unfortunately

One form of "progressive" is in the liberal mold, a la Wellstone, Kucinich and the "left." Until recent years, it was used primarily as a more-liberal version of liberalism. More oriented to fundamental reform than liberalism, while still driven by the same basic goal of social and economic justice.

The other form of "progressive" is the opposite. It's the Clinton, DLC form of centrist corporate conservatism. It's a cop-out, a namby-pamby way to have cake and eat it too. Trying to co-opt real progressives, while simultaneously pandering to the so-called "center" by claiming "Don;t worry. we really aren't liberals."

The result is much confusion around the word.

For me, I stand firmly in the Wellstone "progressive" camp, while the Clinton/DLC "progressives" make me want to puke.

[sampsonblk]

11. Can't argue that. Good points.

[Greyhound]

14. Ditto.

I want that word back too.
:kick:

[goodhue]

8. It is not a fad

The grass roots progressive movement is not going anywhere. And it is not simply liberalism rebranded. The progressive movement is international and has a social justice focus.

[sampsonblk]

9. I think you just got co-opted

by the 'don't worry, I'm not really a liberal' crowd.

You sound like a real progressive. Nothing wrong with that. Do you think these candidates are using that term because they agree with you? Or because they don't want to be called liberals?

[goodhue]

15. I've consciously self-identified as a progressive since at least May 2003

That is when I picked up a pamphlet entitled The Progressive Vision by Dennis J. Kucinich.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x10913#10978

Liberalism and progressivism are not the same although obviously there is a lot of congruence.
These days I would place progressivism to the political left of liberalism, although the progressive movement in the early 20th century really got started by republicans like Teddy Roosevelt and Bob LaFollete.
The present Congressional Progressive Caucus was founded in 1991 by then Congressman Bernie Sanders.

[MGKrebs]

16. We can (and should) take back the word 'liberal' but

there is no doubt that the word has been tarnished by the RW in recent years. We have lost that battle for the moment. Just face it. But while we are working to win the name back, there are candidates who want to win RIGHT NOW, and they don't necessarily need to be fighting a semantic labeling battle on top of everything else, especially when there is a perfectly suitable alternate available. Call it "liberal" or "progressive", it's still about health care, jobs, education, and justice.

[sampsonblk]

23. Wanting to win RIGHT NOW is why we lost the name

But that's another issue.

[MGKrebs]

26. I disagree.

There are separate processes at work. We can't expect national candidates, who have to appeal to a broad cross-section of people, to fight these distracting and less-than-urgent semantic battles while they are running a campaign. There are many issues groups and local, state, and national parties and other affiliated groups who can and should (and do) take up this banner. We keep expecting candidates to ride in and win every fight and lead us in every battle and do all the heavy lifting. It just isn't going to work like that. WE have to win these issues by writing letters and talking to our friends and supporting groups who do work we like and volunteering for the party etc. It is OUR job to build a constituency so that we get candidates we like and who can implement what we want.

[sampsonblk]

28. I don't entirely disagree with you.

I get where you are coming from. But what is this new 'progressive' push except a distracting, less-than-urgent semantic battle? Another issue is that the GOP is smarter. They have consistently fought this semantic battle, while we did not. Its a smart long term strategy, and it has won the day. In fact, they don't have to keep fighting the battle during every cycle. Once its won, apparently, it stays won.

And you can be assured that they will keep fighting this battle in the general election.

[MGKrebs]

30. It's been a pet peeve of mine...

Here in Georgia, and elsewhere I believe, and to some extent nationally, the 'party' seems to have been unwilling to take strong positions on things for fear of alienating candidates or potential candidates. The end result is that the candidates not only control the agenda, but they have to rebuild the message every campaign. Voters are left being unsure what, if anything, the Party stands for, which of course leaves room for the Repubs to define us.

We have to have a set of clearly articulated principles that people KNOW is what Dems stand for, and we can judge our candidates by how close (or not) they come to those ideals. To me, this is the job of the Party. It's not up to each Governor to define the Party principles for their state. If that's going to continue to be the case, we are screwn. Howard Dean tried to deal with this last summer with the "6 point plan" or whatever it was called. But that effort was seriously flawed because there were actually 7 points; they combined two point in one for some reason, which just made it confusing and diluted the impact. Here it is, see for yourself:
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

Why is "economic prosperity" and "educational excellence" the same item? While they are certainly connected, they are very different and each very big issues on their own. And it just makes it harder to remember and use the words, which is important.

So WE have to take responsibility for defining ourselves. I don't want to put the responsibility on anyone else. There is no "Democratic Party" other than us. We are it. If we don't like the way the Party is being led, then we only have to look to ourselves for the solution. And the only way the Repubs were able to redefine "liberal" was because we (or our predecessors) chose to avoid a strong message and affiliation with the word. Only we can fix it, and it might take a while.

[ChiciB1]

17. What It Is... Is BUSINESS Period!! Selling The "Product" Is All That Matters! n/t

[PatSeg]

18. Well the flip side is Conservative

is now becoming a dirty word as well. In their literal sense, both words are positive but political operatives have succeeded in changing the meanings to scare people. Sadly, people buy into this crap instead of rejecting the cheap, meaningless slogans.

[zulchzulu]

19. Being a "progressive" is a fad for some candidates

It's a fad now and then we go back to the "we need to be in the center" politics, which is basically Goldwater Republicanism with a little "feel your pain" speeches on the side.

[themaguffin]

20. Progressive is NOT new

[sampsonblk]

21. The use of the term by modern Democrats is new

As someone else said, its re-branding.

[Cha]

24. Yeah, let's not make any

Progress.

[sampsonblk]

25. ?

[DeepModem Mom]

27. K&R! Proud liberal here. nt

[ShortnFiery]

29. Same here. I don't judge "progressives" but I refuse to use it - I'm a dyed in the wool - LIBERAL

I wish more people would choose to describe themselves as such. :shrug:

[sampsonblk]

31. Same here-nt

[sampsonblk]

32. Interesting polling results on the subject (Rasmussen)

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Labels Matter: Progressive Better than Liberal, Reagan-Like Better than Conservative

During last Monday’s Democratic Presidential debate, Senator Hillary Clinton indicated that she preferred to be called “progressive” rather than “liberal.” The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that is probably a good move--Americans are more receptive to the term progressive...

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/labels_matter_progressive_better_than_liberal_reagan_like_better_than_conservative

[WCGreen]

33. That's why we should take every step to call

the reoublicans Ultra Conservative...

[sampsonblk]

35. I'm all for that. That's called fighting back.

[Moochy]

34. That headline could be an onion story.

Which man on the street are you?

[TankLV]

36. I still consider myself a "moderate" - the country has moved on to "right wing wacko' beyond me...

I've remained the same...

[Skittles]

37. proud liberal here

:thumbsup:

[w4rma]

38. I use the term 'progressive' because it is more accurate on a global sense.

'Liberal' economics means more 'free' trade and less regulations on big businesses.

I do not support 'liberalized' economics. I support 'progressive' economics.

[JVS]

39. I want a Libertine victory

[Maribelle]

40. Is progressive a term being used adding value to liberal political philosophy?

Perhaps someone could define the actual differences between the two?

My impression, which could be totally wrong, is that progressives attempt to infuse a deep sense of personal responsibility and objectivity into the basic idiological foundation of liberalism.

[sampsonblk]

45. Just my opinion, Maribelle

You are thinking too deep. Progressive is not being used to alter liberalism, its being used to hide from liberalism. And you can be sure the GOP will bring this up repeatedly during this election cycle.

[w4rma]

48. Everywhere else in the world 'liberal' economics means something different from inside the U.S.

That is why folks should use the term 'progressive': To avoid confusion with the 'free' trader 'liberals'.

[sampsonblk]

54. That makes sense to me

[ShortnFiery]

51. Many times, it detracts from LIBERAL political philosophy - which stands on it's own very well. nt

[ClassWarrior]

42. Yeah, it's sort of like that "telephone" fad that undermined the...

...perfectly legitimate carrier pigeon system of communication.

:eyes:

NGU.

[sampsonblk]

43. Here's the response your post deserves

[ClassWarrior]

47. Maybe a better analogy is when my dad used to call my phonograph...

...a "Victrola." He wasn't wrong, bless his heart, but he sure sounded old fashioned and out-of-touch.

NGU.

[sampsonblk]

49. All name changes are not equal

Did someone change the name of your victrola just to make it sell better? If so, then you'd be onto something. If there was a meaningful change to the product that suggested the name change, that's different.

[ClassWarrior]

56. Are you saying "liberal" philosophy hasn't evolved?

The core concept is the same: Victrola, phonograph, iPod. Audio delivery devices. The difference between them is that they've evolved with the times.

NGU.

[sampsonblk]

57. NO, I am saying that ain't the reason for the name change-nt

[ShortnFiery]

50. self delete

[Steve_in_California]

53. So long as people persist in defining what lay ahead as a "fight"

there will be no mandate coming from the American people. And a clear mandate is what is needed now more than ever. No more narrow victories or squeeker loses: Democrats will carry 40 states if we nominate the right candidate.

I'm putting my money on Joe Biden.

[OHdem10]

55. Many Democrats put their tails between their legs like a beaten

puppy and changed to call themselves Progressives because those
bad GOPers were "sliming the word Liberal". As usual they really
showed spine(sarcasm). It is easier to change than fight==typica;
Democrat.

What is new???

[Norrin Radd]

58. Hey!

I thought the term made my user name clever.

[Norrin Radd]

59. It's good, because they normally can say that "conservative"

is counter to "liberal," but the counter to "progressive" is "regressive."