Folks, there *IS* a difference between being a progressive and liberal. Don't confuse the two!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

One can be a progressive or forward-thinking person, but have a very different philosophical approach to governance. Progressivism is a social disposition. Liberalism is a political philosophy that refers to views on what the role of the government ought to be. The Clintons and Barack Obama are progressives. Neither are liberals.

[IndianaJones]

1. and thank goodness neither are liberals. nt.

[CreekDog]

2. says you

that's a more narrow view of liberals and of Obama than most of us subscribe to.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

3. Well, please do tell. What is your definition? And feel free to take issue with what I've stated

about liberalism? Is that not an accurate characterization of the concept? Liberals DO tend to favor more intervention of government in the economic domain. They DO want tend to favor more government protections of civil liberties and civil rights. They tend to favor a strong social welfare state and more government assistance for the disadvantaged.

I see nothing wrong with being a liberal at all.

[CreekDog]

7. and Obama certainly is a liberal by that definition

supporting government intervention to provide universal health care (or near universal), supporting government intervention in the energy markets for environmental protection, favoring greater civil liberties than any Democratic president has done in office.

he's a liberal. that's that.

i also question your credibility when discussing him since you exclude him from a liberal definition that his record clearly indicates he fits.

you either don't know his record, are lying about his record or some combination.

do you argue that Kucinich has always been a liberal? he voted against abortion rights for years. he's still a liberal. if you come up with a couple of issues where Obama doesn't seem liberal, that doesn't make him not liberal.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. Yes, he may be more liberal on those issues, but not entirely.

He did push for welfare reform in the IL Senate, for example. I think he is more center-left on a host of issues (gun control, union protections, etc.) and center-right on others. Generally speaking, I think he is a moderate, not a liberal.

Sure, Kucinich was pro-life for years, but based on his voting record alone, he is consistently liberal across a long list of issues, both economic and social. I would assert that he is the consumate liberal.

[tblue]

4. Where did these definitions come from?

I agree that Obama and Clinton are not liberals and I guess I have to agree that they are progressives. But I'm not sure why and where these delineations come from. Obama may unveil a more liberal side as time goes on, but I'm not holding my breath. Truth is, he may well be liberal in his heart of hearts, but he knows you can't win a general election as an outspoken liberal, and he does seem quite attached to that consensus thing.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. I believe he's center-left on some issues and center-right on others.

But I don't believe--and never did--that he is the liberal that many people think he is. His IL and U.S. Senate record demonstrated that clearly. I don't understand why people are shocked. Is he more liberal than the Clintons? Sure.

[tblue]

12. Well, it's good then to set expectations or there's gonna be a lotta

unhappy campers here on DU and elsewhere. But, I keep in mind, any step in the right direction is SO MUCH BETTER than the bad road we've been going down. Obama's gonna do us proud even if he doesn't fulfill all our dreams (which he probably could if he really wanted to).

[Skidmore]

6. Frankly, it is damned hard to be one without being the other.

[mmonk]

8. Definitions

progressive
–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.



liberal
adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

[tigereye]

53. they certainly don't seem to be mutually exclusive...

[Romulox]

9. "progressives" tend to be phonies--"Socially liberal but economically conservative"

as if this wasn't paradoxical. :silly:

[QC]

15. Where on earth did you get that one? n/t

[Romulox]

17. From the OP: "Progressivism is a social disposition. Liberalism is a political philosophy..."

[QC]

18. Well, the OP's own personal definition is pretty bizarre.

Progressivism and liberalism each have their own long histories. They are not the same thing, and progressive is not, as people here often say, simply a synonym for liberal chosen by those who are ashamed of the word because of what Rush says about it.

As many of us understand it, progressive = Howard Zinn, Studs Terkel, etc.-- people who want to make fundamental change in the interests of the common people, while Liberal = John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc. -- people who have no real problem with the established order but would like to file off some of its sharper edges.

[Romulox]

24. His is the common usage.

Both terms may well be divorced from their historic roots (which is one of the reasons why we call old-school liberals "neoliberals" in this country.)

[QC]

26. True, but the common usage is pretty useless. Even George W. believes

that he is all about making progress and looking forward, etc.

I guess I'm just a little jaded--this topic comes up pretty regularly and always goes pretty much the same way: Progressives are liberals who are afraid to own up to it. Well, some of us call ourselves progressives because we want to distinguish ourselves from bourgeois liberals who have no real problem with rich people owning the whole world, so long as those rich people toss the rest of us a crust now and then.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. So, if being a progressive is the same as liberal and there is no distinction,

would you characterize Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton as liberals? How about Harold Ford, Jr., the head of the DLC who routinely castigates anything liberal? Ken Salazar? Bill Nelson?

I'm curious...

By the way, Peter Beinart has written much on this subject:

Liberal vs. Progressive: Peter Beinart Draws The Distinction

George Will writes on Peter Beinart’s much-discussed new book today; in doing so, he has propelled the book (The Good Fight) near the top of my to-read list. Beinart’s premise is one dear to my heart: the rescue of the Democratic Party from the ‘progressive’ Nutroots®.

Peter Beinart is an advocate of liberal — not “progressive” — nostalgia. He wants to turn the clock back to 1947 at Washington’s Willard Hotel.

Beinart, who was born in 1971, is editor at large of the liberal New Republic magazine and disdains the label “progressive” as a rejection of liberalism’s useable past of anti-totalitarianism. An intellectual archaeologist, he excavates that vanished intellectual tradition and sends it into battle in his new book, “The Good Fight: Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.” It expresses Beinart’s understanding of liberalism in 1948, 1968 and, he hopes, 2008.

His project of curing liberalism’s amnesia begins by revisiting Jan. 4, 1947, when liberal anti-totalitarians convened at the Willard to found Americans for Democratic Action. It became their instrument for rescuing the Democratic Party from Henry Wallace and his fellow-traveling followers who, locating the cause of the Cold War in American faults, were precursors of Michael Moore and his ilk among today’s “progressives.”

…Reading liberals who seem to think they “have no enemies more threatening, or more illiberal, than George W. Bush,” Beinart worries that Deaniac liberals are taking over the Democratic Party much as McGovernite liberals did after 1968. He discerns the “patronizing quality” of many liberals’ support for John Kerry in 2004: They weren’t supporting Kerry because he had served in Vietnam. They were supporting him because they believed other, more hawkish, voters would support him because he had served in Vietnam.”

Beinart worries that “the elections of 2006 and 2008 could resemble the elections of 1974 and 1976, when foreign policy exhaustion, and Republican scandal, propelled Democrats to big gains.” If so, those gains will be “a false dawn.” The country will eventually turn right because, “whatever its failings, the right at least knows that America’s enemies need to be fought.”

----

Read more on his book, the Good Fight, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060841613/sr=8-1/qid=1148249069/ref=pd_bbs_1?%5Fencoding=UTF8

[QC]

28. I would call all of those people corporate centrists.

And The New Republic is liberal? Give me a break! Beinart is about as liberal as my Aunt Esther.

[ecstatic]

38. Economically centrist and certainly not phony

Some of us just have a different view on the best way to decrease poverty and increase the middle class.

I think lawmakers should take into account economic and long term psychological factors when deciding on fiscal policies.

I can think of at least one "liberal" economic policy that has been way more hurtful than helpful, even though the motivation behind it was pure.

[WildEyedLiberal]

45. Yep, I've noticed that too

I immediately distrust anyone who insists on identifying as a "progressive" rather than a liberal.

[QC]

46. Yeah, that Paul Wellstone was notorious for his fiscal conservatism. n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

47. Paul Wellstone didn't run away from the "liberal" label

Most self-identified "progressives" insist haughtily that they are NOT liberal, but rather "progressive."

[QC]

48. Most of us think that the liberals don't go far enough.

They are pretty contented with the system but would like to cushion a few of its rougher edges.

Some people want more fundamental change, and they are not comfortable being placed in the same category as, say, John Kerry and Robert Rubin.

[WildEyedLiberal]

49. This is the kind of crap that I'm talking about, the navel-gazing "oh I'm a PROGRESSIVE"

"... and therefore I'm much more leftier than thou."

Frankly, I'm quite happy being in the company of John Kerry, who has more integrity than most of the rest of Washington put together. "Progressives" tend to bask in their own self-absorption and talk about how they are the TRUE radicals who will completely overhaul "the system," and who do little more than circle-jerk on Daily Kos or go to Move On barbeques and anti-war marches. Most "progressives" don't give two goddamns about labor rights or the working man, and fixate on social progressivism, environmentalism, and peace activism - in other words, the safe stuff that doesn't impact their little sheltered lives, because they can afford to buy a Prius (and judge those poor stupid rubes who can't) and shop at Whole Foods every day. "Progressives" are the left's version of judgmental culture warriors.

[QC]

50. Interesting, because that's how I think of liberals--

affluent, ineffectual people who think that buying fair trade certified coffee will solve all the world's problems.

As for circle jerking, I have made a career of teaching disadvantaged and low-income students. I'll gladly put that up against whatever it is that you think you are doing for the cause.

[WildEyedLiberal]

52. "Affluent, ineffectual people who buy fair trade coffee" almost ALWAYS identify as "progressive"

This is such a joke. I KNOW these people, I go to college with them. Well-to-do urbanites and suburbanites who preach about environmentalism and tut-tut the people who actually have to drive every day, don't want to dirty themselves by associating with the filthy unwashed "flyover state" people, who think that they're being radical by posting on Daily Kos and mouthing trite aphorisms about "changing the system" and "people power" and wearing their Howard Dean buttons on their hemp backpacks. They couldn't care less about the working class because they ARE the urban elite, who fancy themselves so different from the GOP because they support gay marriage and clean energy. Every single goddamn person I've ever met in real life who insisted on identifying as a "progressive" fit this mold to a T. None of my actual friends and family call themselves "progressive," but then again, we're rural pro-labor Democrats, so the "progressives" couldn't give a fuck about our concerns, or the fact that I'm going to have a hard time finding health care when I get kicked off my dad's plan.

Oh, and I'm a college student, who probably won't be able to find a job after graduation. Not that the wealthy "progressives" in their hybrids give a shit, because they have more important things to do, like "changing the system."

[QC]

62. Sounds like we both dislike the same people--poseurs--

but call them different things.

There is apparently no place in modern American political discourse for the old-fashioned labor left.

[WildEyedLiberal]

74. Agreed - peace, sorry if I offended you

In my personal experience, the too-hip-for-thou trendy latte lefties call themselves "progressives." The ones you know must call themselves "liberals." Either way, they don't really understand or care about the bread and butter concerns of the vast majority of poor and working class Americans, because that doesn't fit in well with their posh lifestyle. As awful as the economic crisis is, I really hope it opens more people's eyes and makes them realize that we are long past time for a new New Deal in this country.

[QC]

75. And peace to you!

If there is any good to come from the impending economic crisis, it might be that people who have been far too comfortable for far too long will get some sense of what life can be like for the working class.

At least I hope so.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

65. i agree with your gripes.

But, when you say well-do-to urbanites who look down on fly-over states, I think "liberal". When I hear pro-labor, I think "progressive".

[...of J.Temperance]

71. Social liberal and economic conservative = Centrist, like me

Centrists and Progressives are different....Progressives as termed by the Left Left, are not economic conservatives.

Progressives as termed by the Left Left, are straight Left ie. social liberal and economic liberal, also known as Populists.

A social liberal and an economic conservatives is a Centrist.

[truedelphi]

10. WTF??

I ghave never ever used that expression on this board before, but it is the only response I can think of.

Liberals are to me anyway, the people who let their kids run wild because they cannot hurt the childd's "developing ego"

Liberals are the ones who, should you call them to ask for real help, like a loan before your payday, and they tell you you shouldn't have had that birthday party four years ago, but saved instead.

Liberals are fond of things like including the corporations inside of policy decisions, not because they are on the take but because they want to be "inclusive"

But Progressives -

Progressives fight for peace, going to jail rather than war.

Progressives fought for an end to child labor laws, and the suffragettes were beaten and raped in jail for the right to vote.

And progressives were in the street being hosed down, bitten by dogs and clubbed with batons for their civil rights.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. I think the issue for me is that liberals have failed to define who we are.

And it gets muddied because when we do, the center has a fit. Centrists have such a disdain for liberals because they don't want to be labeled one. I believe that the fault lies with us. We need to embrace liberalism and make sure we define who we are BEFORE the centrists and conservatives have a chance to. And yes, I believe that this is a center-left nation.

As always, Tom Frank says it best:

Thomas Frank
November 19, 2008

It's Time to Give Voters the Liberalism They Want

It is possible, I suppose, that the pundits are right and the public didn't really mean it when it elected a liberal Democrat president and gave Democrats even larger majorities in both houses of Congress. Maybe America really wants the same nice, reassuring, centrist thing as always.

But it is also possible that, for once, the public weighed the big issues and gave a clear verdict on the great economic questions of the last few decades. It is likely that we really do want universal health care and some measure of wealth-spreading, and even would like to see it become easier to organize a union in the workplace, however misguided such ideas may seem to the nation's institutions of higher carping.

That was the sense I got when I met last week with officers of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Their mood was optimistic -- as well it should be, since labor unions spent some $450 million during the 2008 races, orchestrated massive voter outreach, and saw their candidates triumph.

What is coming, they believe, is not triangulation redux. This was, SEIU President Andy Stern told me, "a clear election not on small things." Mr. Obama "talked about what people wanted to hear about," as opposed to the culture wars. "We've redefined the center," Mr. Stern said. "Universal health care is now centrist."

Near the top of labor's agenda is the Employee Free Choice Act, a.k.a. "card check," the legislation that will make it easier for workers to form a union by signing cards instead of by secret ballot in the workplace. Mr. Obama was a co-sponsor of last year's version of the card-check bill and has vowed to sign it when it is finally passed by the incoming Congress.

Business interests, on the other hand, spent many millions in 2008 trying to make card check a liability for Democratic senate candidates. The strategy failed, and now they are gearing up in Washington for the coming confrontation, which one Chamber of Commerce official has already dubbed "Armageddon."

During the campaign, you will recall, the debate over card check was supposed to be about principle, about democracy, about the sacredness of the secret ballot. However, as I pointed out a few months ago, union-certification elections often don't meet the most basic democratic requirements. Supervisors routinely hold captive-audience meetings with workers in preparation for elections; management commonly threatens to close up shop if the union wins; antiunion employees are frequently rewarded and pro-union employees are sometimes fired.

So it may not surprise you to learn that democracy isn't really the main concern of card-check's opponents. It's unions themselves. Changing the rules will make it easier to organize them.

And more unions, in turn, means higher wages, better benefits, more say for workers in business decisions, and all that other awful stuff. If Wal-Mart employees get a union, it's a pretty fair bet they won't have to work after they've punched out.

Card check is about power. Management has it, workers don't, and business doesn't want that to change. Consider the remarks made by Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott at an analyst meeting on Oct. 28, when he was asked about the possible coming of card check: "We like driving the car and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us."

And hear the lamentations of the billionaires. "This is the demise of a civilization," moaned Bernie Marcus, cofounder and former CEO of The Home Depot, during an Oct. 17 conference call about card check. "This is how a civilization disappears. I'm sitting here as an elder statesman, and I'm watching this happen, and I don't believe it."

More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-frank/its-time-to-give-voters-t_b_145045.html

[political_Dem]

73. I agree with Thomas Frank.

However, I also believe that we, as leftists, allowed the GOP to define who we are. Reagan started the intense scrutiny and dislike against "liberals". Talk Radio ran with the hatred of all things liberal. Conservative politicians and pundits have gotten away with taking such a negative view of liberalism and redefining it as something to be ashamed of. And with the Democrats rolling over and playing dead in Congress, who is going to think differently?

That's why "progressivism" sounds more like a word of compromise than something people can be truly proud of owning.

It's time we take back the word liberal and demonstrate its virtues instead of having the centrists and the GOP try demolish it with their own brand of semantics.

It sickens me how people are so easily letting the centrists and the right define everything in this country without even letting people on the left truly have their say.

Again, why is centrism and conservatism better? Because they say it is better. Actual results don't count.

[Marrah_G]

36. ..................

:wtf:

[Shakespeare]

42. What a disgusting post.

:thumbsdown:

[tigereye]

54. is it me, or am I hearing that folks on DU don't like "liberals," either?

That is very ironic, I think, based on how much "liberal-bashing" we have seen since Reagan.

I guess I don't think of liberals as being that different from progressives. Most of the liberals I know want the same things that you describe in your section about progressives....




I still think of myself as a liberal left of center Democrat and feminist. When I think of the epitome of progressive I think of Pete Seeger, I suppose and the old guard left, which is not a bad place to be, either. I guess one difference would be the grassroots nature of the old, AND the new left, as opposed to those who populate Washington and the Congress. So at the base of this concern, is it that we don't really like our government? ;)


Food for thought, I suppose.

[truedelphi]

69. I am liking the last paragrapgh you posted very much

And this topic here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7909482
says a great deal too.

Reading people's replies to me, I thought that I had gotten my notions of progressive vs liberal mixed up, but the Nation uses it the same way I do. They don't see the Clintons as progressives, but as centrist "liberals"

[Jennicut]

11. I don't know, I think I am liberal. What the hell is a progressive anyways?

I thought they were the same thing? I am a moderate liberal, does that even make sense?

[DCBob]

13. What's a progressive liberal or a liberal progressive?

Is there a difference?

[meow mix]

16. too bad common perception doesnt match your technical definitions -nt

[Two Americas]

19. not defined very well

Progressive does not mean anything, since different people use it so many different ways.

I agree with what you that "progressive" has come to mean a certain set of positions on the cultural war issues, while liberal means pro-Labor in opposition to the right wing.

Mostly the use of the word progressive is a branding and marketing thing though - fluff that has little or no meaning.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. He pushed for governmental reforms.

But was he a liberal? Did he believe that government should insert itself in economic affairs? He was a progressive because he wanted change and reform. But is was not a liberal. Liberals are progressives. Progressives aren't necessarily liberals.

[Two Americas]

33. yes

Different time, different meaning for the word.

We certainly would never claim that the word "Republican" means the same thing today that it did in the 1850's.

[scarletwoman]

32. I see your point, but I also look to history -- like "Fightin' Bob Follette" for a useful definition

of "Progressive".

I don't know. I've come to consider being called a "liberal" an insult -- not because of the right wing distortion of the term, but because of the actions of so-called "liberals" themselves.

I had kind of hoped that the term "progressive" would come to define those of us who want to go in a much more radical (as in "root") direction than the namby-pamby "liberals" who only want to tweak the status quo enough to make more people content with their alloted position in the social heirarchy.

sw

[Two Americas]

34. right you are

The word once had a distinct meaning.

I just cut to the chase and tell people I am a socialist lol. Or whatever - I don't think one's politics are a matter of "being" anything, but rather one's thoughts and ideas should stand on their own merits. It was what we think, say and do that matters, not which club we belong to or which team we identify with. People obsess too much over their personal identification. Politics is about being concerned for others, not obsessing over oneself. I "am" whatever helps others.

Nice to see you scarletwoman. ({((hugs)))

[scarletwoman]

55. Good food for thought as always. You're spot on about the "labeling" thing.

Truth is, it's only here on DU where the labeling issue ever comes up for me. In my real life I'm just me -- thinking the way I think, doing the things I do -- and if anybody asks, I tell 'em I'm a "radical leftist". :D

However, I must confess to having had a long infatuation with the term "progressive", because I wanted a term that -- in my own mind, at least -- represented a distinctly different, and decidedly LEFTier concept than "liberal". Alas, over the past several years the term "progressive" has been even MORE abused than the term "liberal" ever was.

So, I've given up on the word -- it's of absolutely no use when everyone feels free to define it in whatever way serves to make whatever point they want to make. The OP is a perfect illustration of this phenomenon. (Like, WTH does "social disposition" mean?)

In any case, your larger point about demonstrating concern for others over concern with self-labeling is THE most important and valuable point of all.

Many thanks for the lovely teaching, as always -- and ((((hugs)))) back to you,
sw

[salguine]

21. When I read "The Clintons are progressives", I blew my tea out of my nose. The Clintons

aren't progressives. That's laughable. The Clintons are solid corporatists.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. The Clintons ARE progressives! They are NOT liberal. They are DLC

[scarletwoman]

57. The DLC is corporatist -- it has absolutely NOTHING to do with "progressive".

On the other hand, since everyone and their sister apparently all have their very own, often wildly contradictory, definitions of "progressive", it's become an utterly useless term.

If someone can call the DLC "progressive" with a straight face, then it's obvious that the word "progressive" means absolutely nothing.

sw

[...of J.Temperance]

72. The DLC is Centrist actually n/t

[Bucky]

23. These are both vague terms that mean different things to different people

But in most conversations they're pretty much interchangeable.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. David Sorota writes on the distinction as well...

David Sirota
What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive?
Posted October 19, 2005 | 10:54 AM (EST)

-------------------

I often get asked what the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive" is. The questions from the media on this subject are always something like, "Isn't 'progressive' just another name for 'liberal' that people want to use because 'liberal' has become a bad word?"

The answer, in my opinion, is no - there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.

To put it in more concrete terms - a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). A more "progressive" solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry's profiteering and market manipulation tactics. A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor; A progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America (much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money).

Let's be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class.

We can see a good example of this hestitation from Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in his "health care to hybrids" proposal. As the Detroit News reports, Obama is calling "for using government money to relieve Detroit automakers of some of their staggering health care obligations if they commit to improving fuel economy by 3 percent a year for 15 years."

Here's the thing - we all want to see autoworkers' health care preserved, and we all want to see better fuel efficiency standards for cars. But is this really the road we want to go down as a society? I'd say no. The fact is, the auto industry should be forced to produce more fuel efficient cars through higher government fuel efficiency mandates, without taxpayers having to bail out the industry. It's not like those mandates would be asking the industry to do something that doesn't make good business sense - demand for higher fuel-efficiency cars is skyrocketing.

Paying off corporations to do what they already should be doing sets a dangerous precedent - it sends a message to Big Business that they can leverage their irresponsible behavior into government handouts. In this case, the auto industry would be leveraging its refusal to produce more fuel efficient cars and preserve its workers' health care into a giant taxpayer-funded subsidy.

To be sure, Obama has solid motives in pushing his proposal, and it is a creative cross of issues (health care and energy/environment). But the general unwillingness of Democrats to consistently push for more sharp-edged progressive solutions is a big problem right now. The "free market" conservatives have so dominated the political debate over the last two decades that our side seems only comfortable proposing to pay off different economic players, instead of forcing those players to behave themselves. It's time for that to change. The government has a job to play in protecting Americans from being ripped off, and that doesn't mean just handing the economic bullies a bribe. It means pushing back - hard.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-bet_b_9140.html

[Radical Activist]

30. Odd argument.

Obama proposes a workable way to get healthcare to more workers and reduce global warming emissions and Sirota still finds a way to say it isn't progressive enough. Sirota lost a lot of credibility with me during the primary because of his far-fetched spinning against Obama. It wasn't easy to make someone with Edwards' record seem more liberal than someone with Obama's record.

Historically "progressive" was a broader term for the left that could include liberals, marxists, populists, anarchists and so on. I don't think it has any established meaning today other than being another word for liberal.

[scarletwoman]

31. Wow! Talk about bassackwards!

Sorry, your totally made-up definition of "progressive" is utterly ridiculous.

Obama and the Clintons are most certainly a species of Liberal -- and most certainly are NOT Progressives.

Generally speaking, those who identify themselves as "Progressives" tend to be much more radical than "Liberals".

Liberalism, as commonly practiced in the current U.S. political culture, is all about tweaking the System to bring about certain desired outcomes.

Progressivism is much more nebulous, but generally involves much more outright questioning of the Status Quo than Liberalism is willing to do.

I'll let Phil Ochs take it from here:

Love Me, I'm a Liberal

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

sw

[QC]

35. Great post! n/t

[scarletwoman]

56. Thanks! I've read your other posts on this thread, it's obvious that you & I think the same way

about what "progressive" means.

I've given up on using it, though. Everyone seems to have their own definition -- definitions which go all over the map.

As I posted to Two Americas above, if anyone asks, I'm just going to say I'm a "radical leftist" -- in the hope that at least THAT will distinguish me from "liberals". :D

sw

[QC]

60. Yes, it's hard to come up with the right vocabulary to discuss the issue,

particularly lately on DU, where it seems there are not very many acceptable ways to discuss much of anything anymore.

[Marrah_G]

37. I predict a semantics war !

:popcorn:

[robertpaulsen]

51. I'll avoid all that and just call myself a leftist.

Anyone have a problem with that?

:hide:

[scarletwoman]

58. I have an arsenal of nouns, verbs, and predicate phrases -- and I'm not afraid to use them! (nt)

[harun]

39. And what exactly makes you think you get to pull this out of your butt

and make it true?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. That wasn't very necessary. Some of you DUers are so rude and obnoxious.

You don't want to discuss, just spew ad hominem attacks and be mean-spirited. It's totally unnecessary and reminds me of wingnuts.

[ogneopasno]

40. I tell ya, no one has ever pissed me off more than self-described progressives. I can't stand them.

[Doityourself]

43. I'm a progressive thinker and a liberal voter with moderate intentions..lol all in all...

I'm confused..lol

[Shakespeare]

44. No, "progressive" as it's currently used is generally a euphemism for "liberal."

And it's used by those who have (wrongly) become shamed into dropping the descriptor "liberal" by the likes of Gingrich.

I'm a liberal. I've always been a liberal. I'll always proudly BE a liberal.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

63. Well,

Not to me. Long before Gingrich was in power, I always thought of "liberals" as white, affluent, organic food buying, classical music loving, Democrats who thought it would be good of the system to dole out some more crumbs to the poor and working classes. I think of progressive to mean more of a changer of the status quo, more socialist, I guess.

[Shakespeare]

68. Seeing a word through a prism of your personal prejudices doesn't inherently alter its meaning.

As for your bone-headed misconceptions of what defines a liberal? Sad. Just sad.

And Salon has a timely piece today on the subject:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/11/21/liberals/

Is it OK to be liberal again, instead of progressive?
Come out of the closet, liberals. Stop using the fashionable euphemism "progressive" and relaunch the old, tarnished L-word.

Edited to add: JFK's definition and defense of liberalism is eloquent and timeless. You should give it some thought:

Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

70. I understand each word and its origins.

I'm not saying that the word "liberal" is necessarily bad, it's just that *some* (including me) have the image I described above. As other people on this thread point out, others see the word "progressive" in the same way. Either way, it's all semantics and I think we can all agree that liberal or progressive is certainly better than conservative.

(By the way, I buy organic and listen to classical music, lol)

[Liberal Progressive]

59. What you are saying is absolutely false and you should be ashamed of yourself.

You are spreading disinformation.

"Liberal" and "Progressive" are, in fact, synonyms.

I don't care whether you like it or not, but you are not authorized to change the meaning of words in the English language. Your pay grade is not high enough.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/liberal

If you get to change what words mean, then so do I. I'm changing "Peacenik" to mean "Neoconservative." It is every bit as silly as what you are trying to do here.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

61. Disinformation? Pay grade? Look, you can disagree with me, but you don't know me.

Thank God! ;)

The self-righteousness of some DUers never ceases to amaze me!

[apnu]

64. Neither are liberals?

Obama clearly states that he identifies himself as an old school, FDR type, liberal in the preface of his book The Audacity of Hope

Therefore, he's a liberal. He also says, in a round about way, that he identifies himself as a progressive. And though he's picked a few DC veterans, he has also shown some very progressive tenancies in his transition, including a policy of equally considering and hiring of openly gay applicants to positions. If that ain't progressive, then I guess I have no idea what "progressive" means.

[kenny blankenship]

66. A Progressive is a Liberal who's been mugged, gaybashed, red-baited,witchhunted,called soft on crime

been soft-on-communismed, been race-baited, been tax-and-spended, tree-hugged, gun-grabbed, America-hated, flag-burned, and called a mortal enemy of God and the nuclear family by fascist thugs so often and for so long that he now jumps in terror at his own shadow and has a low sperm count.
(Or if female, has stopped ovulating before the natural onset of menopause).

[olegramps]

67. Liberalism is not a political philosophy as much as a personal view

Liberalism encompasses the INDIVIDUAL'S commitment to progressive concepts of personal freedom and freedom from arbitrary authority. People committed to this concept are not bound by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes or dogmas ss are those who are closed minded. Such people favor reform, and are open to new ideas for progress.

This is in stark contrast to conservatives who are intolerant of the new ideas and the behavior of others.

This is the personal philosophy that brought about the development of a democratic form of government in which all men are created equal and have the right to strive for their betterment.

Republicanism, as it is today, is the exact opposite in that it is staunchly status quo in every aspect of life. It little different than the aristocracy that the founding father rejected in that it has become an aristocrat of the wealthy. That is why I reject every Republican as being unworthy of guiding any aspect of our Republic and I look forward to its absolute destruction since it tramples on people's basic inalienable rights. It has and continues in its determination to oppress those beneath them to maintain the superior economic position. Given their way they would readily deny the working class any means to improve themselves and become independent.

[AtomicKitten]

76. I'm dying to see how Obama governs.

It could be very different from how we perceive him now. I hope that's good news.