Forum Post: Progressive?
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 10, 2011, 8:31 p.m. EST by MVSN
(768)
from Stockton, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What exactly does the term progressive mean to your kind? Many people apply this word to themselves but what does it really represent?liberalism? Marxism? Socialism? The DNC?
For me, progressivism means two things. In a vague, ideological sense it means a willingness to embrace social progress; that technological change can and should be matched by social change, and that the only important parts of an idea are how many lives it betters and how much it betters those lives. This does not mean that anything goes, but rather that we continually reevaluate the social contract under which we live, and when it fails to serve the people as well as it is able we seek the minimum amount of change needed to rectify that failure. We believe that continuous incremental change is part of life, but that a sudden upending of our world is often counterproductive and should only be used as a last resort.
If you want to talk about what it means to me in terms of policy, it means that I accept that our fortunes rise and fall based on the flow of capital between industries and enterprises, and feel that choking off that flow would be in very poor judgement. I do, however, believe that capital is inherently an amoral force (not immoral, but amoral) and thus should be directed, firmly but gently, toward the enterprises where it can do the most good for the most people.
To that end I want to see a robust regulatory environment, in which small businesses are allowed to grow and flourish free of most burdens, but in which the natural pressures that lead the markets toward oligopoly and monopoly need to be countered such that the larger a business is, the more difficult it is to continue growing and thus an equilibrium will develop such that economies of scale can be realized without driving the little guy out of business.
It means that I also believe in protecting the environment via direct regulation and by pollution taxes, not because I enjoy placing burdens on our industry but because on some level we all breathe the same air, drink the same water, and live under the same climate, and irreversibly fouling any of these things may be profitable in the short term but is bad for everyone in the long term.
It means that I believe in a strong social safety net for our poor because our economy is strong enough that doing so should not impose an undue burden on those of us who are not poor, and a form of collective poverty insurance (think something similar to Social Security to supplement welfare) is a good idea because as few people should be sleeping on the sidewalk and having to live on spare change as possible.
It also means that I believe (at least right now) in some form of economic protectionism until we reset our balance of trade, because a reset balance of trade means more jobs for Americans and thus a route out of generational povery for those who wish to take it and a road to the top for those who are smart enough and ambitious enough to pursue such a position.
It means that I side with the left on most if not all social issues, because I believe that as long as no undue harm comes to people there is no reason to regulate how they conduct their private lives, and that most actual stupidity is either self-correcting or can be corrected at far less of an expense to the community and to the nation than it would take to punish it.
This is an excellent answer, and we agree on all points.
Thank you for your honest answer. I'm beginning to understand.
That's good to hear; I honestly don't care if you disagree, but I'd rather we have a real debate about policy based on real definition of terms than a simple shouting match and I'm glad that we agree on that.
Can't wait to be called filth. I welcome your hatred.
Progressives: Lincoln (proto-progressive), Teddy, Wilson... Liberals (basically progressives 2.0): FDR, ~Ike, JFK, LBJ, ~Nixon... All "marxist filth," I'm sure.
Every president since Reagan, and majorities of both parties, are neoliberal - which is to the right of earlier-era conservatives on fiscal/economic matters, and basically the opposite of progressive. To the right of the neoliberals are reactionaries (you) and hardcore libertarians - old school conservatives (conservative on social issues and moderate liberals on fiscal/economic issues) are as rare as actual liberals these days.
Liberals/progressives are about well-regulated capitalism that promotes moderate equality and provides a safety net. We think the capitalist economy should work for people/society, not vice versa.
Liberals started using the older term "progressive" after folks like you turned "liberal" into a perjorative, similar to "faggot" or "hippie."
I am a proud liberal.
And what is "moderate equality"?
It used to be (during the liberal consensus years - 40s-70s) that the average CEO made 40 times the average worker. Now it is 400 times. It used to be (40s-70s, again) that we had a large and growing middle class, where a single earner could comfortably support a family of four with a modest home, car, and adequate savings for college and retirement - now that is impossible except for those at the very top - who have far more than they need. There is no middle ground. Moderate equality is the middle class and the American dream, which is dying.
There is a political spectrum that applies in any system.
One end is conservative, the other is liberal.
Conservatives are the power structure, unwilling to change, or trying to revert back.
Liberals are the people, wanting to change or rebuild the system.
Most people have mixed views along the spectrum.
These other terms are not so clearly defined.
Your kind, indeed. Try Webster's Unabridged Dick&Harry.. What does it mean to you, pray tell?
And, conservative, does it have anything to do with Edmund Burke? Or, is a euphemism for Fascist? What does it really represent, oligarchy?
Now that the system is just the way you like it, shouldn't you give it a name? Historians will want to know.
Amazing that you think you know what I believe. So what does progressive mean?
Is it a coincidence that you choose the most pejorative synonyms from the right wing echo chamber for your question? Was it that you were too lazy to look it up? It's a brand of car insurance.
The problem is the "your type" part of the question. Amazing that you think you know what I believe and what type I am.
It might mean to an objective observer, moving ahead with social reforms faster than a conservative would like, but slower than the people who are being denied their rights would find acceptable.
Slaves would have preferred their freedom in 1789, conservatives grudgingly gave it to them dragged kicking and screaming by progressives in 1965, sort of. Mississippi ratified the13th in 1995, but not officially.
Your turn.
So, what does your type think it means?
It means exactly what it means it was not always a lefty term, those on the right used to use it to. It is about progress. Advancement, moving forward into a better future, with this there must be change, many are afraid of change. progressive is not a bad word. It is a word that is always associated with the word reform, which is another word that means change for the betterment of society. Being progressive also means being cutting edge and embracing new ideas that actually move this society forward rather than backward, we must keep moving forward as a society. Progressive change means a methodical step by step process of creating positive change. I think marxism and socialism are not progressive. Being flexible and creating policy with an eye toward how societies are evolving into the next few decades is important. Extreme conservatism, to the point where we always maintain the status quo and fear any kind of change does nothing to better society, our goal should be to not settle for antiquated styles of government like the electoral college as opposed to a direct count of the peoples vote (just an example of antiquated policy) Our goal should be to be cuting edge, to have the richest lower class of any country to close the gap between the rich and poor to embrace equality for all. During the civil rights movements the republicans chastized the liberals for being "progressive" when they wanted to see all citizens regardless of race have the same rights, we still have the same idiotic antiquated debates only now it has to do with gay rights
Well spoken and interesting. Food for thought.
Classical liberalism is long dead. To call both Jefferson and FDR a liberal just shows how meaningless the term has become. Jefferson was anti-statist and FDR used the state like a musical instrument. Today what is called libertarianism is really much closer to classical liberalism than is anything on the left (though liberalism as such is really a centerist rather than a leftist doctrine).
Libertarianism used to be the term applied to a very left wing, very democratic variety of socialism. It was successfully appropriated by the Chicago School and the Randians sometime in the early 70s.
The notion of progressivism arose at the beginning of the last century basically among the embattled 19th century middle class who were threatened from above by the rise of corporate culture and from below by a rising working class movement. In their distress these embattled liberals turned to the state for assistance, turning classical liberalism on its head. To the radicals below them who were calling for the socialization of industry and finance, they counterposed regulation. Thus differentiating themselves both from the left below and the corporations above.
This became the dominant ideology of America by 1912 when it ultimately captured both major political parties. Ultimately, even the labor movement and what was left of a radical left bought into it.
the word has been hijacked. Just like the word "Liberal' There is no liberty in anything today's "liberals" stand for. The use of force in all their policies has nothing to do with liberty !
Yep. But they don't see it that way. In my opinion liberalism destroys everything it touches. "Liberalism is the anteroom to anarchy". But perhaps that is what they really want.
The bunch of freaks dont know what they want. this is a childish temper tantrum.
I may have to disagree. I think there are legitimate concerns here. This movement isn't totally stupid. It's just misguided sometimes. The utopian/ anarchism idiocy needs to go.