What is a "Progressive"? Can a person be opposed to, say, gay marriage and still be "Progressive"?

[RBInMaine]

Can a person be for gun rights, but ok with gay marriage, and still be progressive? Can a person be for gay marriage but opposed to gun rights and still be "progressive"? Can a person be for personal responsibility and still be "progressive"? Can a person be for gay marriage, against gun rights, against abortion, and for unionization and be "progressive"? Can a person be for strong nationa security, for the Afganistan war, against the Iraq war, and for tax fairness and a living wage and still be "progressive"? How about for green energy development, against gay marriage but for civil unions, for fair taxation and a living wage, for unions, but against single payer healthcare and still "progressive"? Please, someone, show me two people are not in lockstep in each and every issue and yet both can be "progressive."

Considering myself, I think of myself as "progressive" since I believe in PROGRESS. I am for in tax fairness, government investment in infrastructure and education, clean energy, corporate responsiblity, gay marriage (that's their choice, why should anyone else care?), reproductive choice, and unionization. I am opposed to the Iraq war, but I do think, due to Iraq, we have to give the other one more time, but LIMITED time. I also believe in flying the flag and a whole lot of personal responsibility attached to opporunity (i.e. welfare to work programs, minimal grade requirements for publicly subsidized loans and schools, paying for your own abortion if that is your choice (rape, incest, and medical emergency excepted) etc.). I am for progress, even if it has to involve some compromise so at least small steps can be made. (Rarely does the whole world change overnight.) I woul prefer single payer healthcare, but I know we can't get that now and would even welcome insurance reform as a first step. How about it? Do I
qualify as "progressive"? Oh yes, I also vote virtually straight Dem, even if the Dem is not as "progressive" as I might like, since the RePUKE is always 10 times worse.

The point of all this?: It seems some are too quick to label themselves but not others as "progressive," even in a society where two people very rarely agree on all issues. These lables really are pretty mushy. Some "progressive" really need to be careful about ideological/issue purity. It is a sure loser nationally, as evidenced by the perennial Nader/Kucinich campaigns.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Well I believe you should have to pay for your own Viagra then.

The Hyde Amendment should be repealed. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and is health care needed by women.

[rd_kent]

3. I agree that boner pills should be paid for by the consumer, but not all abortions should be paid

for either.

As stated in the OP, only abortions for rape, incest, life of the mother, etc., should be paid for. All other abortions are a choice the mother makes, a personal choice, that should also be a personal expense.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure and is health care needed by women.


I agree 100%. Abortions need to be kept safe and legal, but just like boner pills, personal choices should be a personal expense.

[RBInMaine]

4. Pregnancy is very preventable, so no public funding for abortion. Yes, also pay for Viagra.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. So then why should child birth be funded, if pregnancy is preventable?

What a ridiculous argument. All kinds of medical conditions are preventable, yet the government funds the treatment of them if the person has government medical coverage.

[RBInMaine]

13. Oh please. Are you serious? Yours is the ultimate example of apples and oranges.

[Hello_Kitty]

19. Bullshit. Abortion is a legal medical procedure. No different than a tonsilectomy in that aspect.

Just because you don't approve of it doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to get one if the federal government covers my health care.

[RBInMaine]

64. BS right back at you on this. People need to be responsible. Are you for endless tax-paid

abortions? Want an abortion, fine. There are private programs that help. They're usually only a few hundred bucks. Go and get on the pill. Wear a condom. Whatever. And there are private programs to help with those too. But abortion except under the circumstances I've said should not require public financing. That is plenty fair. Just my opinion, and I still think I get to be "progressive". How about promoting wind power? Can we agree we are both "progressive" on that. I think it's great.

[Hello_Kitty]

70. I gotcha loud and clear. Punish the sluts.

It's nice that you're for wind power but IMHO you are a forced birther authoritarian misogynist so NO, you are NOT a progressive.

[RBInMaine]

89. And you hear only what you want to hear and chuck out insults like a TeaBagger. Real nice.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. I think you have managed to answer your original question in this sub thread.

Loud and clear: nope, you probably aren't a progressive. You are a mildly authoritarian moralist. You hold a mixture of opinions that range across the political spectrum, but you have nailed yourself to standard mainstream center right authoritarianism with your position on abortion.

[laughingliberal]

122. Well, that pretty well nails it. nt

[laughingliberal]

103. Endless abortions are pretty much a myth created by the RW anti-choice crowd

No birth control methods except abstinence are 100%. Good luck convincing adults to give up sex. Insurance companies are not even required to cover birth control. But this picture that has been painted of women who just willy nilly run off to the clinic for another abortion is on the same level as Ronnies' welfare queens. Those who oppose the use of tax dollars for abortions generally also oppose funding to help poor mothers raise the children and many of them oppose affordable access to family planning. It's just a vicious cycle. Deny access to family planning, deny access to abortion, then bitch about the 'welfare queens.'

[Hello_Kitty]

107. Yup. It's hatred of poor people and women at it's core.

Poor people don't deserve any pleasure and neither do women.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

113. The difference is that abortion for purposes of birth control (vice medical necessity) is ELECTIVE

surgery.

[laughingliberal]

114. A lot of surgery is elective

Having your gallbladder out if it hasn't ruptured yet is elective. Knee replacements are elective.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

129. There is tipping point for those and other surgeries that are not "dire necessities"

I think the economic argument works for elective abortions as much as sterilization procedures, and I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.

Intellectually I wonder if the government were not funding them, would the communities step up. Here in CA that is not an issue

[Hello_Kitty]

123. So are vasectomies and tubal ligations.

Yet those will be covered by plans in the exchange.

BTW, I don't want to bear a child. Ever. If I get pregnant abortion will be a medical necessity.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

127. The argument for those is economic, though the anti choice crowd will not tell you that

I think the same math works for abortion as well.

[laughingliberal]

20. It does seem having a baby is a personal choice, also.

Consistency would demand we pay for no personal choices.

[Hello_Kitty]

42. Exactly. No drug or alcohol addiction treatment.

No treatment of injuries occuring while engaging in a sport or hobby either.

[RBInMaine]

95. Ah, now now. We are mixing apples with oranges again.

[Hello_Kitty]

100. Right, because abortions go to sluts.

Big difference.

:eyes:

[laughingliberal]

116. +1000 nt

[wickerwoman]

137. Or STDs.

Currently fifty year old businessmen who go to Thailand and sleep with nine year old kids and come back with chlamydia are covered.

But the forty year old woman with three kids who finds out she'd pregnant with a Downs baby and agonizes over the decision to burden her existing kids with that kind of lifelong commitment? She's the monster who needs to pay (along with her whole family) for her own poor life choices.

[Hello_Kitty]

141. But hey, Bristol and Sarah can do it so that woman should be able to as well

Even if she doesn't have a fraction of the money and resources the Palin family does.

[RBInMaine]

90. A full term child is a very different matter. Let's please be real.

[laughingliberal]

98. Of course but it was, nevertheless, preventable

And I have no problem with those who choose to have children. But, why should I pay for it? Isn't that always the argument against funding abortiong? I don't want to pay for it. Well, maybe I don't want to pay people to populate the planet.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

130. The magic word is theraputic...be it abortions or any other kind of treatment

If an pregnant healthy woman chooses an abortion, it is clearly elective surgery, which some compare to mamoplasty (boob job).

Sterilization however is covered, which clearly makes good economic sense. I think the math works for elective abortion as well.

Here in CA the courts have held the state must pay for elective abortions. Solves the issue for us.

[RBInMaine]

5. But again, what is a "progressive." With my description, do I qualify?

[midnight]

2. Progressives should not discriminate.

But I guess people can call themselves whatever they want.

[RBInMaine]

6. Well, thanks. But objectively, do I qualify? (See OP)

[Hatchling]

126. nope. nt

[freddie mertz]

7. "Paying for your own abortion." OOPS.

Not a very progressive position.

[RBInMaine]

10. But what about my other positions? Does that ONE disqualify me? Am I out of the club?

[freddie mertz]

82. There is no club. I don't run admissions.

I personally find your abortion view to be revealing of a deeply conservative streak somewhere.

But that is my opinion.

There is no club.

[anonymous171]

8. "Progress" is an arbitrary term

We should adopt policies because they are right and be against policies that are wrong. Appeals to "progress" annoy the shit out of me

[RBInMaine]

11. But it is the very root meaning of the coveted title "progressive." And what is "right"? I don't

think taxpayer funded abortion is "right." I think welfare to work IS right? Am I "wrong"?

[Deep13]

12. "Progressive" simply put means tending toward progress for the human condition.

It is pro-modernity, science, health, equality, egalitarian, standardization and democracy in the sense of popular accountability. It is against superstition, elitism, ideology, privilege, absolute property rules, oppressive traditions and democracy in the sense people are self-regulating rather than standardized. What I mean by this is that before say 1880, literally anyone could call himself a doctor. There was no standard training and very little hands-on experience. It was democratic in the sense that anyone could do it. The same way with patent medicine, a lack of education standards, a lack of environmental standards, etc. The Progressive point of view is that health care, safety, environmental, educational and just about anything that effects the community as a whole should be standardized based on scientific principles.

To answer the question in your subject line, without any real public policy reason to oppose same-sex marriage, I don't see how someone can be progressive who does oppose it. The objection is purely traditional and religious and has no basis in rationality.

[RBInMaine]

14. But what if a person on that ONE issue is not "progressive" but is on all else? Is he/she out?

A person may just be opposed to gay marriage on principle. Still out in your book? ONE position on ONE issue that is not "progressive," and you are out? Hmmmm....seems like you're gonna be in a pretty TINY minority going that route.

[Deep13]

15. It's a general description, not a qualification for a social club.

So I don't think there is a definitive answer. Imposing religious prejudices on others generally is not a progressive thing to do.

[RBInMaine]

22. What if it has NOTHING to do with religion but merely personal opinion? What about other issues?

If you go out of lockstep with "progressives" on a singly issue, does it mean you can't be "progressive" anymore?

[Deep13]

36. Depends what is the factual basis for that opinion is.

I have yet to hear one that is not based in religious dogma about how people are "supposed" to be.

[RBInMaine]

40. The basis might just be they feel the best society is one where opposite sex marriage is best. Do

they not have right to a personal opinion? Why must it be attached to religion on this? I know plenty of folks opposed to it on personal principle and are not particularly "religious" at all. In fact they would have no problem with civil unions. Marriage is just too far for them. Anyhow, what if they are also for labor unions, fair taxes, single payer healthcare, peace, the environment...do they still get to be "progressive," or would the marriage issue be a non-qualifyer?

[Deep13]

43. A gut feeling is not a factual basis.

Obviously people have a right to opinions. That does not prevent those opinions from being reactionary rather than progressive.

[RBInMaine]

45. So "progressive" on EVERYTHING else, but OUT if not for gay marriage?

[Deep13]

46. Out of what? Explain. EDIT

The D. party? No one is being kicked out of the party. Progressives do not have membership lists or qualifications to be a member because it is not a social club. Opposition to gay marriage is reactionary. A person's other views may well be progressive.

[RBInMaine]

51. "Out" of being a "progressive". It seems there are already some people here saying that if a person

is opposed to gay marriage (ONE issue), or opposed to public funding of abortion (ONE issue), or supports welfare to work programs (ONE issue), they can't call themselves "progressive" since those are not "progressive" positions. Must all "progressives" be in complete lockstep, or can there be some diverse views WITHIN the "progressive" population?

[Orsino]

125. Partly out, partly in.

People are allowed a bit of stupidity. Presumably, one does not shuck off the damage done by years of group-think in an instant.

[Pool Hall Ace]

118. If a person is opposed to civil rights for all, then I would not

consider him/her to be progressive. But like Freddie Mertz, I'm not in charge of membership to the "club."

[RBInMaine]

17. Does welfare to work policy in a market society not serve to improve the human condition at all?

If they are encouraged and given some skills but then REQUIRED to work, does that not improve society by having more people out there producing for the rest, creating, earning a living, earning self esteem and respect, etc.???

[Deep13]

21. I don't know. The answer lies in the data.

If it in fact works, then it would be progressive. If not, it isn't. It seems difficult to see how welfare-to-work can be successful now when there is no work.

[RBInMaine]

23. How about ATTEMPTING over the LONG TERM to go from welfare to work? Better?

[Deep13]

29. The proof is always in the pudding.

Honestly, work is not the goal. The goal is prosperity. A lot of people work hard and are still dirt poor. So, it is a good idea to the extent it promotes those goals.

[RBInMaine]

27. So all your policy positions are a matter of relying on data for proof they "work"? Hm. Principles?

[Deep13]

30. I never said that.

I was responding to your specific question.

[Bjorn Against]

26. How do you intend to require people to work when unemployment is so high?

Tell me your plans for creating all the jobs that would be required to employ everyone who is on welfare right now. If you can't provide people with opportunities for jobs then I don't see how you can require them to work.

[RBInMaine]

28. I am talking about general policies and using examples of them. Don't divert. What is progressive?

[Deep13]

33. It's pretty hard to follow a principle that ignores objective reality. nt

[RBInMaine]

53. Well, one principle for some "progressives" seems to be sitting out of voting to "send a message"

but where is the objective data to show that makes the person who didn't get those votes anymore "progressive". We can go around and around on that.

[Bjorn Against]

39. Well I would say the policy you are promoting is horribly regressive.

To suggest pulling government aid from people who don't work when there are so few jobs available right now is not a progressive policy it is a regressive policy.

[RBInMaine]

44. You are WAY overthinking the thing. I am speaking generally, not about the right here and now. So

stop diverting and tell me what a progressive is?

[Bjorn Against]

50. There is no strict definition of what a progressive is

There is no list of values that every progressive must follow, there are however progressive policies and regressive policies. Your idea of requiring people on welfare to find a job when there are no jobs available is regressive.

You are accusing me of "overthinking", I would suggest that you are not thinking things through enough before you promote your poorly thought out ideas.

[RBInMaine]

58. Bjorn, you have missed the whole point by a mile. I am not "promoting" anything. Not one thing.

This a philosphical discussion about ideology, the nature of it, and the limitations of it. The GENERAL policy points have been to illustrate philosphy and further the discussion. The point of the discussion is NOT about a very specific policy position at a particular point in time in a particular set of circumstances. We are talking political philosophy here, not the nuts and bolts of the present recession and its impact on specific policy areas. Think more generally.

[Bjorn Against]

66. I get the point, now here are some questions to see if you get the point...

What issues can a person actively oppose Obama on and still be a good Democrat in your view? Can they actively campaign against the health care bill and still be a good Democrat? Can they believe that Obama is responsible for the deaths that result from his surge in Afghanistan and still be a good Democrat? Can they actively promote a primary challenger against Obama and still be a good Democrat?

You seem to insist it is wrong for progressives to have litmus tests on certain issues, but can you honestly tell me that you don't have litmus tests of your own?

[RBInMaine]

86. As to the electoral matters, yes, yes, and yes, BUT also remember that in electoral politics it

is also important to stress the GOOD things the officeholder and party are doing (i.e. Obama/Dem green energy initiatives, more stem cells, more choice, stimulus that created/saved lots of job, SCHIP, Lilly Leadbetter law, working to close GITMO, ending torture...). To always dwell on what is not "progressive" enough isn't fair and is counter-productive, especially when the other party is on balance far worse and when GOVERNING with a big, diverse NATIONAL caucus WILL require compromise. At the end of the day, the party needs to be SUPPORTED, not constantly and incessantly criticized by those who also claim they want to be "Good Democrats". Can't have it both ways when a member of a political party. It is like saying, "Can I be against the coach and how the other players do things and work to replace the coach and always criticize other players...but still be a 'good' member of the team." The goal is to beat the other "team", in our case Republicans, and not to constantly chew up our own.

As to Obama, he INHERITED the wars and a rotten economy, he SAID it would take a LONG time to deal with the HUGE set of problems, and he deserves that time. We have to get some things done with a broad caucus, one that is better broad than narrow like the TeaHaters. So let's give him the time he deserves. And let's support the team and remember that the other half of the glass is full.

[Hippo_Tron]

109. Requiring single mothers caring for young children to work generally isn't progressive, IMO

Whether we should strive for a society where everybody works is a more abstract question that progressives can genuinely disagree about.

[proudohioan]

121. Only in theory.

In practice, that program is about as corrupt as they come. Ever seen Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine"? Welfare to Work program is touched on, and I'll tell you, Michael Moore is right on the money. I know, I used to work for a Department of Human Services in a large county. The "jobs" they train these women for? Basically flipping burgers and filling salad bars. The companies that eventually hire them pay minimum wage, often for less than 40 hours per week. On top of that, the company will get a tax credit of up to $9000 (depending on what employee's age, type of assistance and length of time on assistance) per employee. It's called a Welfare-to-Work tax credit and any employer is eligible to receive it. There are NO requirements to provide for paying a living wage.

It was truly upsetting to see these women, sent for "training" at a "non-profit" cafeteria, given duties such as cashiering and making sandwiches (they never were given any training in any of the REAL cooking, managing, bookkeeping, etc... ), then "placed" with certain select employers after their training was complete. I imagine a lot of money changed hands in this set up, and you can figure who's palms DIDN'T get greased......

Now imagine that you need to pay housing, food and child care, all while making minimum wage. Yeah, most of these women were in Section 8 housing, food stamps, Medicaid and CCAP, so that helps a bit.
Well, more than a bit.......

I am SO filled with pride at the thought of our "Free Market" at work! Ask me who I think the are biggest Welfare Queens in America.

[anonymous171]

24. Ew. Scientific [insert ideology/system of organization here] is never good

Scientific Socialism (Marxism)being a primary example of that principle. We should adopt policies because they are morally/ethically right, and not just because some loser in a white coat says that we should.

[Deep13]

41. That's not what science is.

There's nothing scientific about Marxism or any other ideology. I simply meant that public policy has to work in reality and not simply because it matches ones ideology, religion or other preconceptions. Here's an ideological statement: drugs are bad. Despite this the evidence is clear that the social cost of prosecuting marijuana crimes greatly outweighs any damage that the weed causes. Ergo, it should not be a crime.

[anonymous171]

55. My bad. It sounded as if you were advocating scientific management of society

As opposed to simply using science to help society determine its own laws. Sorry about that.

[Odin2005]

48. Good post!

[Mari333]

16. imo, anyone opposed the equal civil rights for glbt folks i.e. marriage

should be drummed out of the party.
thats my opinion.

[RBInMaine]

18. Even if they are fine with civil unions? Hm, seems like a wish for a pretty narrow party that won't

win many elections.

[Mari333]

35. civil unions do not provide over 1400 benefits that marriage does.

seperate but equal is horsemanure.

[RBInMaine]

47. You are getting very stuck on this ONE issue. Hm... very telling. Very much indeed.

Single issue-ness is pretty darn dangerous, electorally.

[Mari333]

49. you asked.

[RBInMaine]

54. Well, thanks for the honesty. So for you, against gay marriage, OUT of "progressiveness" on that 1

issue.

[Mari333]

57. you might as well ask "should democrats support the rights of black and white people to marry"

same thing.

[RBInMaine]

67. Hmmmm...not unless they are of the opposite sex.

[RBInMaine]

68. Again, I'm ok with gay marriage, but should there be any limitation? i.e Age?

[Bjorn Against]

72. Did you seriously just compare gay marriage to beastiality?

On edit: I see you just edited your post, but I saw what it said and it was disgusting.

[RBInMaine]

83. No, I was going to use a stark example to see where the limitations were on this issue were for some

people given some "absoluteness" I am hearing about "rights", but knew it would be very much misunderstood and perhaps too stark, so I edited it. And remember, I am all for marriage equality. I view it as a personal, private matter. However, I also respect the opinions of others on it, and most of those who are not for it, in my view, should not be labeled ignorant, and intolerant, etc. They have a right to their view, and they shouldn't be maligned for it.

[Jax]

87. Yep. Saw that too

Fucking sick that this whole thread is standing.

Fucking sick.

[RBInMaine]

93. "Sick" to discuss political philosophy on a political board? Are you that intolerant?

Do not all my "progressive" positions count for anything with you? Maybe you are sick?

[Jax]

96. Progressive my ass, you know what you EDITED out of that homophobic post

SICK.

[RBInMaine]

102. Kindly chill out and watch the namecalling. I have explained it. Sorry if you can't understand the

explanation. Homophobic? I voted FOR marriage equality in Maine, donated to that cause, and headed up my locality on the '05 gay rights Maine initiative that DID pass. (I could not work on this last campaign because I was working on another of the referendums, to kill the right wing TABOR bill, another PROGRESSIVE position we WON on.) I knew the point of that reply would be misunderstood, so I edited it. You are only proving me correct.

[Jax]

105. Name calling? Your post is HOMOPHOBIC.

It says it all, you prove your own homophobic shit with your posts.

[RBInMaine]

108. Inside your narrow, intolerant thought process perhaps. But it is just an objective question and if

you have read the whole OP you would see I cite MANY policy positions. Just because someone posits using the marriage equality issue, you automatically label it "homophobic." Did you read the rest? Did you see I voted FOR marriage equality in Maine? Did you just see that I DONATED to the YES ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN MAINE campaign? Further, I wrote a letter to the local paper FOR it. I used this issue as just ONE of many to see how narrow or brod the philosophy "progressivism" is for some people according to their stances on particular issues, marriage equality being just ONE. You really do need to take a chill pill and try to see ALL of what a person writes and means. And thanks, you have answered my original question as well. I guess if a person doesn't agree with you on something, he or she is not "progressive."

[RBInMaine]

74. AND, that is NOT what I'm saying. I'm asking IF a person opposed on that ONE issue, could he or she

still be "progressive" even if he/she met all other "requirements"? Sounds like in your case, NO. Gay marriage is your litmus test.

[Mari333]

76. one of them.

[RBInMaine]

94. Do you ever plan to run for office? You might want to lighten up a bit if you do.

[Mari333]

120. I wouldnt make it, I have ethics.

[Deep13]

25. Democratic and Progressive overlap, but are not synonymous.

The party exists to win elections. Progressive is a point of view.

[RBInMaine]

34. What point of view? And what of the importance of getting at least some of that view-

point enacted by winning elections?

[Deep13]

38. Already answered the first question.

I was responding to a previous post that suggested that anyone opposed to gay marriage should be excluded from the Democratic Party. I was not commenting on the need for progressive legislation.

[anonymous171]

32. I agree

And I really don't care about most social issues. A belief in Equal Rights (EQUAL RIGHTS =/= SPECIAL RIGHTS) should be a requirement. Civil rights are non-negotiable.

[RBInMaine]

37. But can there not be some disagreement on "rights" in a society of laws ?

[treestar]

31. People can have all kinds of weird combinations of views

Gay marriage - marriage is a patriarchal institution that one can be against, since it was designed for the oppression of women, according to some. Therefore it should be abolished, so why bother with gay marriage.

There was a group of Feminists against abortion. They argued that the reasons women have them is due to the patriarchy - you can't afford the child because of it, women had them to escape having a child out of wedlock, because they would suffer socially for that, which was the patriarchy at work controlling women. There was a certain logic to it. Women have babies, they should never be sorry about that or have to get an abortion to satisfy or escape the patriarchy. It made a certain sense if you looked at it from that angle.

As you can see I used to read a lot of feminist stuff. Some of it was way out there.

[Heidi]

52. You cannot oppose gay marriage and be progressive, liberal or a truly decent human being.

It's a fact that being homophobic can get you tombstoned from DU; the "decent human being" part is is just my own opinion.

The Admins' position "gay rights and related issues": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1324374

ETA: It's not "gay marriage," anyway. It's simply MARRIAGE, a contract which, in most states, excludes our gay brothers and sisters. What's progressive about denying marriage rights to consenting adults who love one another and are competent to enter into a state-sanctioned contract?

[RBInMaine]

59. So the majority of the American population is homophobic and bad? This SINGLE issue can destroy

all other "progressive" credentials? Gee, you are one strict constructionist on this.

[Heidi]

63. Selfish and ignorant would be better general descriptions than "bad," I guess,

but depending on the intent of those denying equal rights to other adult Americans, "bad" might apply, too.

[RBInMaine]

80. So the majority of Americans are "selfish" and "ignorant" because they disagree with you on a

social issue? Your opinion matters, but their's is wrong, ignorant, and selfish? This is a real trap you might reconsider. This is America. We have to respect other opinions even when we disagree.

[Heidi]

84. My opinion does not at all impede your rights. However, homophobia

impedes the human rights of at least 10 percent of the population. And, frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what the majority believes. It's the same majority tha opposed my white grandfather marrying my non-white grandmother. See how that goes?

[RBInMaine]

88. In a civilized nation, we can disagree without being disagreeable, as they say.

[Heidi]

91. A grwt way to demonstrate civility is to support human and civil rights.

And since my every reply to you kicks this flamebait disguised as "civil" discussion, I'm finished here.

[noamnety]

135. "we can disagree without being disagreeable"

Not really, not on all subjects. If a person is a bigot, they are by default already disagreeable, even if they say yes ma'am and yes sir while explaining their bigotry.

You're mistaken when you refer to people as single issue voters if they won't support a bigot. Bigotry is like a delta plain. It branches out in all different directions. It's never a "single issue" that it impacts because its foundation is rooted in a belief of supremacy of one group over another. That's tied to exploitation of the poor, militarism, colonialism, women's rights, corporate regulation, on and on.

Canary in a coal mine. It's the single issue of the one canary dying, and also it's the warning siren to back away before others are hurt.

[Hello_Kitty]

124. No, I respect peoples' right to have an opinion but I don't have to respect the opinion itself. eom

[Warren Stupidity]

81. Uh, yeah, pretty much.

[RBInMaine]

60. Yeah, well "gay marriage" gives us a way to put the discussion in context. Relax.

[Heidi]

69. Oh, the irony of being advised to "relax" by someone framing a discussion

of what it is to be a progessive at the peril the human rights of Americans every bit as equal and human as you and I. Charming, but wholly unconvincing.

[RBInMaine]

78. You're getting stuck in semantics and sensitivity. If "marriage equality" makes you happier, fine.

Is that better? Ok now?

[Heidi]

85. Don't make me no never mind, hon.

If you think for even a second that my ethics are even slightly impacted by how you frame your little flamefest, you must not be from 'round here. I was givin' you the benefit of the doubt and tryin' to help you out. My mistake. :-)

[RBInMaine]

92. Just an honest discussion about political philosophy and its parameters. Been interesting.

[Odin2005]

56. If you are...

Anti-Choice, anti-Labor, anti-Liberty, anti-Science, anti-poor, Anti-Enviromenment anti-Universal HealthCARE, a Fundamentalist, a cultural relativist, a militarist, a corporatist, a nanny-statist, a homophobe, a racist, and/or a eugenicist you are not a Progressive.

To be a progressive you must believe in the absoluteness of Human Rights, the absoluteness of Equality Under the Law, An absolute right to the privacy of one's personal life, and rational and scientific public policy.

[RBInMaine]

61. What if a person is FOR all you said, EXCEPT abortion? Not progressive?

[Odin2005]

71. Not progressive.

Violation of the absolute right to privacy of one's personal life.

[RBInMaine]

75. Gee. You are a real strict constructionist on all this. Seems it would make for a pretty thin

electorate. Maybe that's why Kucinich and Nader aren't winning the presidency?

[Odin2005]

111. You are assuming there will be no compromise (real compromise, not Centrist capitulation).

Real compromise would have been starting with Single Player and having a strong Public Option and strict regulation of insurance companies as a compromise, not the POS bill we have now. The Centrist capitulationists Failed Negotiation 101, which is NEVER unconditionally give in, especially at the very start.

[NorthCarolina]

132. Color me there. eom

[yurbud]

62. on health care, it is not compromise that's offensive but that they didn't even fight for the best

but when straight to letting the insurance companies and drug companies write their own ticket.

[TheWraith]

65. Well of course.

As little as some people here would like to admit it, the world doesn't break down into just DUers and neocons. There's people who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. And vice versa. Or the distinction between populist leftism and authoritarian leftism. Some of these are legitimate differences of opinion, some are cases were people might need more education, others are simply the political spectrum in action.

Take me. I'm a liberal with populist/libertarian leanings. The way I see it, I believe in a free country--one where you can get drunk, worship any deity or none at all, marry anyone you like, buy a gun, smoke a joint, and nobody looks at you twice over your life choices because it's your own business and no one else's. And moreover a world where you can do all those things safely, because we have a government that keeps the roads clear, the capitalists in check, and the citizens from hurting each other.

There are other people on this board who define themselves as "progressive," but don't believe in, say, ownership of personal cars, or it being legal for people to smoke, or owning guns, or other things that they deem unprogressive or distasteful. Personally I see that attitude as not being that much different from the attitude of the fundies, who want to be able to run people's lives "for their own good" and the supposed good of the community. Once you accept the premise that one group of people should be able to regulate the personal behavior of another group when the latter isn't directly harming anyone, that's an incredibly slippery slope.

[RBInMaine]

110. A very thoughtful response. Many thanks.

[fishwax]

73. You get to decide for yourself if you're progressive. Others may disagree with your assessment.

Such is life.

[RBInMaine]

77. Thank you. That sounds reasonable. I just wish some "progressives" wouldn't label me a DLCer if I

happen to disagree with them on a point or two. Don't I get any credit for 80+ % we DO agree on?

[RBInMaine]

97. Gee, only on DU could a person with so many "Progressive" positions get flamed. Very telling.

[Sebastian Doyle]

99. To be "progressive" is to be in favor of progress, or moving forward.

Opposing marriage equality is not moving forward.
Wanting to overturn Roe vs Wade is not moving forward.
Continuing imperialistic wars for resources is not moving forward.
Opposing unions, supporting further privatization of health care, or anything else that promotes a return to a robber baron existence is absolutely regressive, moving backwards, not forward.

I would have a hard time considering anybody who supported any or all of those positions as a true "progressive".

[anonymous171]

101. Progress is an extremely arbitrary term

and should not be used as the basis for any political ideology.

[RBInMaine]

106. Interesting. Many on this board would probably take issue with you. I do up to a point. I just

don't see it as an all-or-nothing thing. That's my whole point. Too bad that some do.

[RBInMaine]

104. "Any"? Really? Boy, you sure are shutting a lot of people out then.

[Sebastian Doyle]

112. Well, there are a lot of people claiming to be "progressive" who are not

BECAUSE they support these regressive positions. You bring up abortion as an example. If someone is personally opposed to abortion, that's one thing. I'm not a big fan of it myself. But to advocate overturning existing laws, or to promote policies that would restrict access to abortion, especially on an economic basis like the Stupid Amendment to the House (so-called) "health care" bill, is completely regressive thinking.

[BlueCollar]

115. no...n/t

[Greyhound]

117. How about this...

A progressive views people as generally good and therefore, deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Conservatives view people as generally bad and therefore must never be trusted and always controlled (except for them, of course.

[Call Me Wesley]

119. No, to answer your question in the OP. (nt)

[Iggo]

128. Aw man, not this shit again.

[noamnety]

131. It sounds like you are a progressive

when it comes to the concerns of white male middle class citizens. And it sounds a little like you couldn't care less about the very real concerns that affect other people's lives - people who were born into different circumstances that you can't quite comprehend.

I tend to think of those sorts of people as "colorblind" (with scare quotes) libertarians.

[QC]

133. That sums it up very nicely. n/t

[Bluebear]

134. >gay marriage (that's their choice)< Just as an aside, WHAT is their choice?

[TexasObserver]

136. No, a person cannot be a progressive and be against gay marriage.

No exceptions.

[LeftyMom]

138. You need a few more right wing frames in your OP. nt

[1awake]

139. I find you very progressive,

Though many.. as you've noticed will argue that based on specific issues. One person (don't remember who) said something in their post like "progressives believe in the good of man kind".. well.. that rules out 90% of DU on most days.

A lot of people claim the name progressive and try and wear it like a medal. Others use it in disgusting ways.. usually by removing the "title" from anyone they are currently arguing with in an attempt to wound or sway thread opinion by belittling someone. In any case.. does it really matter what others consider you.. especially on the internet? Sounds like you have fought the good fight.. keep up the good work.


~LK~

[Douglas Carpenter]

140. I think "progressive" is relative to time and place

Fifty years ago, very few people - even self-identified progressives would have supported gay marriage or would have been pro-choice by current standards of the definition of pro-choice. But equally, fifty years ago almost all progressives would have supported a fully socialized health care system as well as numerous other aggressive direct government initiatives of direct assistance.

The tension that exist that makes forming a fully long-term sustainable progressive majority is the tension between those who would support progressive intervention of the government in the economy, what Europeans would call social-democracy - yet may hold many socially conservative views. There is no denying that a lot of ordinary people would support such social-democratic policies but might otherwise practically be bigots. Conversely there are those who might be utterly libertine on social issues, yet are completely committed to "free market capitalism".

We also find this divide occurring at times on environmental issues. Unions want jobs for their workers. But what happens when new developments may be environmentally unsound. But the same development projects creates lots of well paying jobs for unionized workers. Or perhaps their might be a new factory producing goods for military use and providing lots of high paying union jobs. But that same new factory is fueling the military industrial complex with weapons for unjust wars.

It is inevitable that contradictions in progressive values do occur.

[ElmoBlatz]

142. No