The difference between LIBERAL and PROGRESSIVE

[nashville_brook]

There's a fracture running down the middle, center-middle, left and center-left here at DU. We dismiss this phenomena as typical primary season posturing. Some say it's leftover bile from 2000 when Naderites were blamed for Gore's defeat. In case we haven't noticed, there's no third-party threat on the left this time around. So, lets dismiss the notion that "progressives" are angling for a third-party defection. The theocrats have that to deal with this time around. Yea.

There's a concrete definition standing between "liberals" and "progressives" that has nothing to do with third party candidates and it's my sense that we can all agree that we'd be better off if our Dems employed more "progressive" policy than "liberal" policy.

So, dig what these terms mean or else you're going to be swatting at imaginary flies for the next 13 months.

Here's a good start:

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

David Sirota

What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive?

"...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."

This is where this issue of having a "spine" comes in. Sirota shows that "progressivism" is a stronger stance than "liberalism." Progressivism uses a stick; liberalism uses a carrot. It's more difficult (impossible?) for politicians to use the stick against corporations they take money from. So, we get lots of weak "suggestions" for corporations to play nice.

The lefty-left, or progressive approach, recognizes that corporations are beasts with no conscience and that it's our *responsibility* to make them play nice. It's our responsibility to make rules and enforce rules to protect people from the rapacious behavior of non-human corporations.

If you're a Thom Hartmann listener you're probably familiar with this line of thinking. Corporations are not people. Our politicians treat them as people because they deal with them as nice people bearing big checks.

Does anyone here have a problem with re-regulating corporations? Does anyone here have a problem with reeling in healthcare costs with a stick rather than giving MORE MONEY to HCA et al in the hopes of buying their favor? Does anyone here have a problem with re-instating an independent FDA that actually tells China "NO" you can't sell us poisoned toys, lipstick or dog food? Does anyone here disagree that war shouldn't be privatized? That voting software shouldn't be "proprietary"?

It's MAGICAL THINKING that corporations will play nice once they have all our carrots, and I don't think anyone here can disagree with that. It's magical thinking that the FREE MARKET will regulate itself, which is only a small turn away from liberal carrot offerings. We've tried that and we got the subprime meltdown, 19,000 deaths a year from lack of healthcare, and killer spinach.

It's time to stop pointing fingers at each other and point them toward the spoiled children who have turned the United States into a living illustration of Lord of the Flies. Liberalism isn't enough -- and worse, it shirks our responsibility as "parents." No more time-outs.

It's time for a massive spanking.

[nashville_brook]

1. history of "progressivism"

Progressivism is a term that refers to a broad school of international social and political philosophies. The term progressive was first widely used in late 19th century America, in reference to a general branch of political thought which arose as a response to the vast changes brought by industrialization, and as an alternative both to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more or less radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties such as the American Progressive Party organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Progressivism historically advocates the advancement of workers' rights and social justice. The progressives were early proponents of anti-trust laws and the regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.

[aquart]

2. Well, thanks for the belittling definition of "liberal."

I knew progressives were full of themselves but I could never get anyone to define why they thought they were such hot shit.

I assume the "massive spanking" is for us "liberals" now that the "progressives" have defined our inferior beliefs?

What flaming brass balls.

[nashville_brook]

5. i didn't "make up" these definitions and there's no intention to "belittle"

[cali]

37. You didn't make them up?

Except for the quote from Sirota, those seem to be all your own words.
And you presented no definitions, simply your opinion and Sirota's, nothing in the way of links or references or history.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Well, what's your preference?

Being spanked by progressives, or being owned by fascists?

[nashville_brook]

17. i like it -- but it's my bad for not being clear enough -- i don't mean to spank

anyone willing to join forces. i would like to spank the corporations and the corporate enablers.

and, i just love the word, "spank." :evilgrin:

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

44. Wow!

I didn't get that from the article at all. I think he meant spanking Congress and the corporations.
Everyone is so freakin' sensitive. If we don't pull together the right is going to flush the whole world done the shitter. As it is we're all sitting on the toilet bowl rim right now.
Let's focus on being united in our opposition to any more irresponsible, destructive, wastrel spending Republican's being put into positions of leadership.............

[nashville_brook]

46. you got it, exactly. thanks for the reality check.

[nashville_brook]

3. Progressivism and regulation of corporations and monopolies...

Regulation of large corporations and monopolies

Many progressives hoped that by regulating large corporations they could liberate human energies from the restrictions imposed by industrial capitalism. Yet the progressive movement was split over which of the following four solutions should be used to regulate corporations:

Trust-busting
Some progressives argued that industrial monopolies were unnatural economic institutions which suppressed the competition which was necessary for progress and improvement. The federal government should intervene by breaking up monopolies into smaller companies, thereby restoring competition. The government should then withdraw and allow marketplace forces once again to regulate the economy. President Woodrow Wilson supported this idea.

Regulation
Some progressives argued that in a modern economy, large corporations and even monopolies were both inevitable and desirable. With their massive resources and economies of scale, large corporations offered the U.S. advantages which smaller companies could not offer. Yet, these large corporations might abuse their great power. The federal government should allow these companies to exist but regulate them for the public interest. President Theodore Roosevelt generally supported this idea.

Socialism
Some progressives believed that privately owned companies could never be made to serve the public interest. Therefore, the federal government should acquire ownership of large corporations and operate them for the public interest.

Laissez-Faire
Some progressives argued that marketplace forces were the best regulators. A company which paid low wages or maintained an unsafe work environment would be forced to change its policies by the loss of workers. A company which made an unsafe product would eventually lose customers and go bankrupt. In the long run, a free market would best protect the public interest.

The laissez-faire and socialist approaches were less popular among American progressives than the trust-busting and regulatory approaches.

[aquart]

4. "laissez faire progressives"?

Well, ain't that interesting.

[nashville_brook]

6. there's always going to be those who claim to desire the results w/o doing the work

[stimbox]

7. I think they call themselves Libertarians.

:rofl:

[nashville_brook]

13. totally -- back to the *magical thinking* of The Free Market

[LWolf]

8. Any label can be corrupted.

I believe both "liberal" and "progressive" to have been spun to corruption by political forces from all sides. Sirota points out one facet, but leaves out others.

To be "progressive" means to make progress; to move forward. Anyone can claim to be "progressive" under that definition. The political agenda doesn't matter, as long as you are working to advance it.

Hence the DLC think tank: "Progressive Policy Institute."

I would say that I am a leftist progressive myself, if I had to apply a label. Or a leftist libertarian.

[nashville_brook]

10. in economic terms, libertarianism would be at odds with progressivism

but, as term-corruption goes, "libertarian" is prolly the worst victim.

[LWolf]

25. Economics: just one facet. n/t

[JackRiddler]

27. Liberal is by far the more corrupted term.

For starters, most self-identified liberals (using the term as commonly understood in the 20th century) do not support what they themselves might refer to as liberal economics (using the term as originally defined in the 19th).

That's a big indicator right there that the term is beyond salvation.

Among the policy elites, many call themselves or are by common convention called liberal although they support war or unrestricted "free trade." This is untrue of the majority of self-identifying liberals in the general population.

I would never use the term except with the qualifier: "If liberal is taken to mean X, then I am/am not liberal" (depending entirely on the X).

In right-wing parlance since the Reagan years liberals are the enemy, idiots, "moonbats," hippies, drug-users, radicals, foreigners and those infected with foreign ideas, French, Germans, communists, America-haters, Bush-haters, limousine-riding elites who hate average people, Hollywood stars, advocates of high marginal tax rates for average people to pay lavish welfare to deadbeats, perverts, homosexuals, baby-killers, college professors, etc. And this has stuck far beyond the right wing!

[nashville_brook]

29. maybe this is why "prog" has emerged as an alternative -- or, at least

a less slippery toe-hold.

what you say here is key:

Among the policy elites, many call themselves or are by common convention called liberal although they support war or unrestricted "free trade." This is untrue of the majority of self-identifying liberals in the general population.

i was shocked to learn that the term "liberal" could actually encompass a "free trade-ers." but, it makes sense in the historical/economic context. wow. my bubble burst. words actually mean things.

[LWolf]

36. Exactly.

There is no clearcut, universal meaning for the political label "liberal."

I don't think there is for "progressive," either.

[JackRiddler]

40. Progressive is not nearly as conflicted or confused

It refers more or less to the same thing, even when used negatively.

[LWolf]

42. I don't find the "progressive" of the Progressive Policy Institute

to be at all similar to the progressive of the "I used to be a liberal, but now progressive is the more pc term" progressive.

I find the DLC to be the antithesis of "progressive," if we mean the early 20th Century groups that supported workers' rights and social justice, anti-trust laws, and regulation of corporations. Yet their think tank is the "Progressive Policy Institute."

[JackRiddler]

45. Okay, so they're trying to appropriate "progressive."

Nevertheless, at this time this term especially when referring to people (as opposed to policy) usually refers to the same thing regardless of how it is used. More so than liberal, which is why the DLC tries to appropriate it.

[nashville_brook]

49. there's a reason why they'd want to appropriate it -- hmmmm

i wasn't going there when i wrote this...but it seems that 'progressive' has some power that non-progressives would like to either castrate or own for themselves. always a good sign.

[knight_of_the_star]

9. Ad Verecundiam

How is David Sirota THE authority on what is a liberal vs. what is a progressive?

And what is the source you have for the definitions of the government philosophies in a later post in this thread? Just pulling out of your ass or "common knowledge" doesn't quite cut it.

[nashville_brook]

12. Sirota employs the historical definition -- American progressivism comes from American "pragmatism"

and was first written about by Charles Pierce, William James and John Dewey. The basic idea in philosophical pragmatism is that "practice has primacy" as opposed to theory.

applied politically, "the free market" is nothing but a theory.

[nashville_brook]

19. this "argument" doesn't rest on Sirota -- and it's really not an argument

it's a plea to better understand the weapons we have pointed at each other. "progressive" isn't a smear. "progressive" isn't a prize. "progressive" actually MEANS SOMETHING -- something that SHOULD BE very important.

[LSdemocrat]

11. I don't care what a person calls him/herself, I care about results

See "compassionate conservative" and Dubya

[nashville_brook]

16. yah -- republicans LOVE it when no one knows what words mean

[LSdemocrat]

20. I'm just saying a person's record in office is more important than their rhetoric

when predicting what they will actually do once elected.

[nashville_brook]

21. i get that -- you don't get to call yourself a "progressive" without reeling in corporations

with a stick. if all a politician does is offer incentives, they are taking a liberal economic approach.

progressivism is rooted in pragmatism -- real world results matter.

[OHdem10]

14. Our best Liberal Presidents were "hated" by the Right

because of their strong regulatory actions.

The people who call themselves progressive on the Hill
can be counted on with regularity to vote with GOP.
Progessives on the Hill are the most Pro Business.
The DLC , ie Bayh and the list goes on call themselves
Progressive.

I do not believe we have really defined Progessive.

Liberal and proud of it.

[nashville_brook]

18. words actually mean something -- Bayh can call himself a progressive all day long

and it won't make it so until he starts VOTING like a progressive.

[nashville_brook]

22. how libs and progs differ since the 60s...

From the New Deal to the 1960s, the progressive movement was largely subsumed into modern American liberalism.After the 1960s, however, progressives grew increasingly unhappy with the direction of the liberal movement and the leadership of the Democratic Party. On the one hand, progressives agreed with many of the concerns of the New Left, such as environmental conservation. On the other hand, they preserved their commitment to the original progressive issues, such as workers' rights, which liberals grew less interested in. And finally, progressives also began advocating entirely new ideas - for example electoral reform (including proportional representation) and campaign finance reform.

As many American progressives felt disenfranchised from the contemporary American liberal movement, they sought to establish their own separate political organizations.

this is core -- what's so wrong with workers' rights and electoral reform that any Dem can't get on board?

[Lerkfish]

23. good post.

I think the problem comes down to people who want more "centrist" candidates like to use the term liberal as an epithet for anyone who does not support their issues. therefore, the definition has become extremely fluid depending on who's doing the defining at that given moment.

I think people are trying to frame debates to their advantage, but doing so bogs down the debate into semantic arguments.

[nashville_brook]

24. that fluidity is dishonest -- you can't erase a 100+ years of political history with a word

when people try to do that, they are engaging in philosophical theft (i just made that up). it's what Rove wannabes do -- steal meaning.

[happyslug]

26. Herbert Hoover's Call on FDR during the 1932 election about who was more "Liberal"???

When Herbert Hoover heard that FDR was calling himself "Liberal" Hoover proposed a debate on who was more "Liberal", him or FDR. The reason Hoover wanted this debate was prior to 1932 the Democratic Party called itself Progressive NOT liberal. While the GOP called itself "liberal" (Liberal did NOT become a bad name till the 1960s). People forget that around 1900 and while into the 1930s the term "Liberal" included leaving Corporations run loose, while the progressives of the turn of the Century wanted to rein them in. Even today what we in DU tend to call "Conservative Economic policy" still is called by Economics by its proper name is "Liberal Economic Policy". The name "Liberal" meant in the 1800s and while into the 1900s that it was liberal to leave people (and corporations) do as they wanted to, with minimum Governmental interference. Thus around 1900 those people who wanted to fight the power of Corporate American (and the wealthy elite of the US) had to use the term Progressive for their policy of wanting reasonable restrictions on Corporations and people (Mostly wealthy people so to minimize harm to the Majority of the people). In many ways the GOP holds to this more traditional "Liberal" approach then the Democrats ever did (The Democratic Party embraced progressivism in 1896 and except for brief lapses and stayed with it since that date).

Now FDR started to use the term "Liberal" to cover what had previously been called "Progressive" policies during the Great Depression. Part of this was to show Conservatives that he embraced Liberal Economic Policies so that the rich's fear of Communism could be minimized. After WWII it became popular to use the term "Liberal" for any progressive idea (This is especially true after the older progressives of 1900 died off along with the Corporate "Liberals" of the 1900s). Thus after the 1930s you do NOT hear the term Progressives but you do hear the term Liberal to describe the Governmental policy of the Democratic party.

"Liberal" since the 1950s has embraced opposition to Racism, Sexism and now Sexual orientation. Corporate American really had no objections to this change. What Corporate American hated about "Liberals" of the post-WWII generation a its embrace of Progressive ideas, like Labor Unions (1900 Liberals opposed them as a restraint of Trade), Regulations of HOW employees are paid (1900 liberal, interfering with the employee right bargain for his own wages, even if the employee has to accept whatever his employer is offering), Care for Widows and Orphans (Liberals of 1900, Interference with their spouse and parents duty to provide for them even if he or she did NOT have the money to do so).

My point is "Liberalism" has always embraced the concept of individual rights, even if that means harm to others. Progressives reject the concept of Individual rights IF IT MEANS HARM TO THE PERSON WHOSE RIGHT IS BEING RESTRICTED OR TO OTHERS. For example a 1900 Liberal would reject Segregation as a Governmental Policy, but also reject the right of the Government to force business also to reject Racism (The 1964 Civil Rights Act for Example, which restricts people's right to be racist). This embrace of individual Rights by Liberals has always been Liberals weak point, when individual rights were a minor concern (i.e. 1930s-1950s, the Great Depression and WWII) Liberals have thrived for its bad side did not come into play (i.e. the rights of individuals over the Right of the Majority). Come the the 1960s Liberalism went into decline as its support for individual rights (Including the rights of Business to rip off people) came into play. The progressives where set off by this and basically became dis-oriented. This lead to the big decline in the Democratic Party from the 1960s till 2000 (The Democrats stayed in power in Congress till 1994, but more do to habit then any embrace of Democratic Ideas, for example Southern Democrats help keep the Democrats in Power during this time period, while the same said Southern Democrats were defecting to the GOP). In many ways it took the lost of Congress by the Democratic Party in 1994 to force the Party to find its progressive roots. Even then it took the lost of the Presidency for the party to Embrace its Progressive Roots and even today they are members of the Party that prefer its a "Liberal" base for the party as opposed to a Progressive base.

The Party right now is set for a movement ot the left, as is the country as a whole. This left movement is NOT an embracing of "Individual" Freedoms, but what is good for the Country as a whole, even if that means people lose some individual freedoms to rip off their fellow Americans (i.e. the right to form a Union, the right to higher wages, the right to better treatment even if the cost is less "Choice". This is the heart of Progressivism of 1900 and Liberalism in 1940. It will again become the heart of the Democratic Party.

Thus the difference between Progressive and Liberal is more historical them real. Both were used by people to describe what people through of as improvements in society. Over time both terms were re-defined (Liberal more then Progressive) but the thrust of the difference between the terms remain. In simple terms the Democratic Party is Progressive, while the Republican is Liberal as those terms diverge. The GOP now dislikes the term "Liberal" and disparage it, but if you view Liberalism as supporting your right to rip anyone else off, the GOP still embraces that concept.

Now there will be people who dislike my definition of Liberalism and tying it in with the GOP. Remember I am going by Liberalism as it was defined in the 1800s and how it was defined till the 1950s. A lot of people who would have been progressives in 1900 embraced the term Liberal in the 1950s, thus you have a diverge of the definition of "Liberalism". Many liberals stayed with the GOP and its rejection of Government restrictions, other embrace the anti-Racism, Anti-Sexism liberalism of the 1950s-1970s. This later became what most people define "Liberalism" to this day. This is NOT the traditional Definition and why we are having this debate on which is better Progressivism or Liberalism. I am trying to help that debate by trying to define each as they are viewed today AND as they have been called in the past.

[nashville_brook]

28. wow -- this is a great post. i think it's interesting that there's an historical push-pull between

the two terms.

i've been struggling with the distinctions during this campaign cycle because of the divisiveness that's coming from either side. in reading about the differences and history (some of it i remembered from college, not much), the economic restrictions facet emerged as the hidden force behind our disagreements (on the "left" and "right" of DU).

it seems that when a candidate is critiqued for being soft on corporations, the person issuing the crit is marginalized on the assumption that they aren't sufficiently supporting the Dems. this seems very foreign to me -- that corporate restrictions/regulation should be a wedge for the "left."

there shouldn't be any wedgies right now -- we've got all the "political capital" we could ever need. using the carrot approach is devastating the environment, economy and social safety net. it seems to me that we can all agree on this. we all want clean water, safe products and a living wage and it's high time we use some of our dry powder to get these things.

[happyslug]

34. Most history in High School and Collage is design NOT of offend anyone

And as such avoids the disputes that make up history. For example if you had lived in the 1850s and called yourself a Liberal, you would have both opposed Slavery AND the restrictions on Corporations. Since the 1600s in Common Law Jurisdictions (Such as the US) it had been all but illegal to form a private corporation. You could form a Non-profit corporation but NOT a private for profit Corporation. The raise of the Railroads ended this pseudo illegality if for profit Corporation. Prior to about the 1850s if you wanted to form a Corporation you had to get permission of the State Legislature, which was difficult. After about 1850 the States all adopted laws permitting their Secretary of State to form Corporations. This made it easier to form corporations, corporations that could go bankrupt if the financial interest behind the Corporation thought that was in their best interest. All of this was part of the "Liberalization" of the economy by permitting business to run things for their best profit as opposed to the state running things for the best interest of its citizens. Thus in the 1800s Liberalism meant less Government, just like the GOP of today.

The problem with less Government is that when it comes to how to the issue of when it is NOT in the best interest of everyone to leave everyone do as their please (The concept of the "Incentive Trap"). The classic "Incentive Trap" is called the "Tragedy of the Commons". Adam Smith. a "liberal" of the 1700s, wrote about "Incentive Traps" in the 1700s and basically his writing involved the old common areas of England. These commons were open to everyone in the area. Thus you had more than one person using the common areas. The classic case is when ten people have the right to each place ten horse on the commons, but the commons can only support 50 horses. If each person put his ten horses on the Commons the commons deteriorate so it can only support 10 horses. The problem is each of the ten horse owners is that if their withdraw their horses from the commons, the other nine owners horses get to feed off the commons. Thus the person who removed his horses still has to feed his horses, while the nine who did NOT while NOT able to feed their horses off the commons, the feed their horses get off the commons is less feed their have to buy. Thus no owner has any reason NOT to graze his horses on the Commons, for as long as their do they get some benefit (I.e. 1/10 of the feed their horses need). How do you resolve this problem? The real issue is getting the horses down to 50 so that the common can recover and feed those 50 (remember the Commons can feed 50, it is 10 if it is overgrazed). They is two ways to do this, the first is how England did it in the Middle ages, Religion. i.e. it became immoral to leave horses overgraze land (people condemning the actiosnof others is an example of such "Religous" attacks i.e. moral attack). With the Reformation such religious restrictions on the Commons were removed (The Reformation was more economic then religious in Nature for a lot of Middle Ages religious restrictions addressed such incentive traps as is the Tragedy of the Commons). The other way is Government Regulation. I.e. the Government tells you, you can only graze 5 horses not ten (I will ignore the English Solution of taking the Commons and giving it to someone Politically connected to Parliament, this is an attempt to address incentive Traps that can NOT be resolved by stealing people's lands).

Liberals embraced Adams Smith's solution which is to sell the Commons (even if that means cutting off a lot of Peasants access for what little food their could obtain). Progressives accept that such solution can do MORE HARM THEN GOOD and the better solution would be GOVERNMENT REGULATION. A more modern "trap" would be highways. We all use them, why not sell them to private Enterprise to maintain? The reason is simple, such maintenance can be done cheaply by the state and even if the Private Company is honest, the cost of collecting a toll is at least 30% of the toll (It is cheaper for the state to collect the Gasoline Tax than any toll, even the Feds recognize this, in Federal projects if the State is using Gasoline taxes the feds will pay 90%, but if the State share is from tolls, the Feds will only pay 60% for 30$ is the cost of collecting the tolls to provide the State's 10% share).

This is the heart of the diverges between classical Liberalism and Progressivism. Liberal are willing to leave the market do as it can, while Progressive expect the Government to at least try to protect them. Things have changed, but in basic economic terms these terms remain the same.

[JackRiddler]

31. & let's not forget neoliberalism, basically the opposite to liberalism

as these are conventionally defined.

[Selatius]

33. What definition of liberalism? Today's definition? Or the one from 70 years back?

Back then, liberalism was averse to government intervention in the markets and strong regulations on the forces of the so-called "free market." Progressives pushed the exact opposite back in the 1890s clear through the 1940s. They truly favored trust busting and government intervention to protect the rights of workers and consumers at the expense of corporate freedom. Liberals back then would rather not see that kind of restriction imposed on anybody, worker or CEO.

They call it neoliberalism because its a return to classic liberal economic ideology as defined in the late 1800s/early 1900s, which stressed freedom to do what one pleases in the "free market," even if it meant corporations running roughshod over everyone and the environment. Any barrier to that freedom was considered a barrier to efficiency, as the prime assumption was that marketplace competition is the best allocator of resources in society.

Today's definition of liberalism is tortured and lost.

[Tactical Progressive]

38. What a fantastic post

Thank you for that. I'm not surprised that 'progressive' is a political progression beyond the libertarianesque derivative that 'liberal' represents, which is just one reason I don't like the term liberal - I have a strong aversion to the shallow posturing of liber(tarian) attitudes. 'Liberal' has the same origins.


I refer to myself exclusively as a Progressive, not for any historical reason, simply personal and pragmatic reasons.

Pragmatically, "progressive" isn't effectively smearable, in a way similar to the word "conservative". They can try, but it won't work. It also puts the word "conservative" automatically in its relative context as regressive. I just really like what the term stands for in straight definitional terms. Progress. Also, the coinciding connection to one of the main tenets of political-left economic ideology - progressive taxation - fits perfectly.

Personally, I just very much like the term progressive. And I've always disliked the term liberal - it has little inherent non-political meaning beyond preferring a 'liberal' dollop of whipped cream on my pudding. And in that definitional sense 'liberal' kind of connotes irresponsible generosity. It's also got a kind of verbally-ugly, blubbery sound to it that I just don't like at all.

'Progressive' both sounds good to me and means something very close to what I feel progressive beliefs represent, whereas 'liberal' fails dramatically on both those counts.

Just my personal choice. I respect people who want to hold on to old-time liberal terminology. More than that, I think it's good to have multiple facets of progressive ideology under the 'Democrat' label, which I also love.

[nashville_brook]

41. it's really nice to see someone appreciating the "sound" and "feel" of these words

i wanted to say something about that, but couldn't make it "sound" or "feel" right. but, i've always felt the same way about the word "progressive" -- that it actually points to something concrete.

from what Sirota says about the difference between the two, the thing about "generosity" is definitely a theme. carrot and stick, again.

[librechik]

30. hmm -- I guess I'm a liberal progressive

although progressives (in history) were responsible for some fucked up stuff--for example they were sure it was unsanitary for mothers to breastfeed, and introduced the whole BS system of bottlefeeding and sterilization. Speaking of sterilization, they were also in favor of doing that to mental patients and
"the retarded." But that type of progressivism pretty much died out by 1970 or so. I like Sirota's new definition better.

[nashville_brook]

32. his definition jibes with the term's complicated history, but is much more accessible.

didn't know about the breastfeeding thing.

[Selatius]

35. Want to know why calling someone liberal is considered an insult to many leftists in Europe?

Because unlike in the US, the term liberalism wasn't co-opted by folks like FDR to describe progressive economic policy as opposed to liberal economic policy. In many parts of Europe, the term "liberal" has not had its definition changed by folks such as FDR-era Democrats. It still means to many people over there laissez-faire economic ideology.

The same applies to the word "libertarian." In the US, the Libertarian Party appropriated the term for their own gain, but historically, the term has carried with it leftist connotations, especially among libertarian socialists. Today, we call them anarchists. I'm talking, of course, of the old-school anarchists like Bakunin and Prodhoun, not the rock-totting Black Bloc who destroy things in protests and alienate demonstrators.

[JackRiddler]

39. Because liberals there are on the right, of course -

Like the Liberalen in Germany, who might one day legalize pot but leave no wage-earners with enough cash in their pockets to buy any!

[nashville_brook]

43. this is so cool -- i didn't realize that "liberal" was a slur in Europe, and what you say

is connecting some old history lessons that have been gathering dust in the far corners of my memory.


"anarchist" is another terms that has been bastardized beyond recognition.

[Katherine Brengle]

47. Indeed - I tried to rec you but it's too late :(

[nashville_brook]

48. eh -- this is only the beginnings of a proper essay i'm developing...

i'm workshopping this idea and i'm totally psyched to have your belated-rec! which is to say, i value your analysis.