--> Does progressive and liberal = the same thing? What's the definition of liberal?

[Joe Link]

I had a long conversation with a good friend of mine today. I've posted it below. I'd like to hear what you guys have to say on this topic.

[13:09] ridikule81: anyway, liberal and progressive basically mean the same thing anyhow.
[13:09] ridikule81: and Jesus was most definately a liberal.
[13:09] ridikule81: haha
[13:09] joeylink503: there's a big difference
[13:09] joeylink503: you can be a progressive, conservative republican
[13:09] ridikule81: Don't let the 'way it's always been' be a crutch. Not to say that many systems in place aren't good, but there is always room for improvement.
[13:10] joeylink503: the word progressive is basically an opinion
[13:10] ridikule81: hrmm
[13:10] joeylink503: if a republican banned gay marriage, many would say that's progress
[13:10] joeylink503: or cut taxes
[13:10] joeylink503: etc.
[13:10] joeylink503: but it wouldn't be progressive to dems
[13:10] ridikule81: there's a difference because of stereotypes of what those words are supposed to mean... but the basic meaning in the english language... makes no difference... you can easily say lincoln was a liberal republican.
[13:10] joeylink503: so it's all subjective
[13:11] joeylink503: well would you call a republican cutting taxes liberal?
[13:11] joeylink503: cause that' wouldn't fit
[13:11] ridikule81: why not?
[13:11] ridikule81: well
[13:11] joeylink503: because liberal is the opposite of conservative
[13:12] ridikule81: yea?
[13:12] joeylink503: and lower taxes isn't being liberal with the peoples money
[13:13] joeylink503: it means you have to conserve, ie a conservative mindset
[13:13] joeylink503: whereas raising taxes means more to spend, more liberal spending
[13:13] ridikule81: definition of liberal is 'favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.' so really I would have to say that liberal and progressive are the same thing... people use progressive because they don't want to use liberal and be considered to 'have democratic views.'
[13:13] ridikule81: it's sad
[13:13] joeylink503: NOOOOOOOOO
[13:13] joeylink503: lol
[13:13] joeylink503: that's the dems definition
[13:13] ridikule81: that's merriam-webster definition.
[13:13] joeylink503: look in websters from 1864
[13:13] joeylink503: lol
[13:14] joeylink503: how is reform liberal?
[13:14] joeylink503: not taking into account the political definition, because most people dont use that
[13:14] ridikule81: I don't believe in this crap of having a different definition for a word because of your policial background... it's all brainwashing in my opinion, the only definitions I use are the dictionary's.
[13:14] ridikule81: ?!
[13:14] joeylink503: who writes the dictionary and what's their political view?
[13:15] ridikule81: I would have to say that reform is liberal by default.
[13:15] joeylink503: really?
[13:15] ridikule81: Conservative - doing it the way it's always been because it works. Liberal - trying it a new way because they think it might be better.
[13:15] joeylink503: i haven't seen them reforming anything lately
[13:15] joeylink503: that's not true anymore
[13:15] ridikule81: whose them?
[13:15] joeylink503: liberals
[13:15] ridikule81: I'm not talking about anyone
[13:16] ridikule81: I'm talking about what it actually means.
[13:16] joeylink503: it changes with the political climate at the time man, these aren't set in stone definitions
[13:16] joeylink503: once you start studying politics more you'll see what i mean
[13:16] joeylink503: cause i used to say the same thing
[13:16] ridikule81: all words change definition once in a while.
[13:16] joeylink503: exactly
[13:17] joeylink503: well when politics are involved it happens alot faster
[13:17] joeylink503: sometimes every few years
[13:17] ridikule81: but liberal and conservative are words that shouldn't change that much... you start letting them define it and it'll be so convoluded you won't even be able to point out distinct differences.
[13:17] ridikule81: so what's your definition of liberal?
[13:18] ridikule81: if it's not 'for reform' then what is it?
[13:18] joeylink503: if you put alot of jelly on your toast, you're liberal with the jelly
[13:18] joeylink503: if you dump tons of money into welfare, you're liberal with the welfare money
[13:18] ridikule81: whoa
[13:18] joeylink503: it's all subjective man
[13:18] ridikule81: stop right there
[13:18] joeylink503: i mean the literal sense
[13:18] joeylink503: not the democratic definition
[13:18] ridikule81: that's the difference between 'liberal' and 'liberally'
[13:19] ridikule81: they are two different functions of the same word
[13:19] joeylink503: liberally is just the extension of liberally, past tense wouldnt it be?
[13:19] joeylink503: you know the original definition of liberal?
[13:19] joeylink503: it has to relate to liberty
[13:19] ridikule81: if you use it as an adjetive, it means 'use unsparingly' as in to not 'conserve'
[13:20] joeylink503: thomas jefferson was a liberal, as he believed in personal liberty
[13:20] ridikule81: don't confuse conservitive and liberal with conersve and liberally
[13:20] joeylink503: he was also very conservative
[13:20] joeylink503: it's all the same though
[13:20] joeylink503: if you liberally fund the welfare fund, you're being liberal
[13:20] joeylink503: same words
[13:22] ridikule81: yea, I don't buy that at all
[13:22] ridikule81: if you liberally fund the welfare fund, you're being liberal
[13:22] ridikule81: that's not a correct statement... if someone is using it that way, they need to go back to english class.
[13:22] joeylink503: ok funded is what i should have said
[13:22] ridikule81: Let me find another word that has the same functional use to disprove that... hold on.
[13:23] joeylink503: i was just trying to do the same thing, lol
[13:25] ridikule81: Liberal is just a bad word to use for politics
[13:25] ridikule81: it opens the doors for subliminal slamming
[13:25] ridikule81: like
[13:25] ridikule81: "Edwards is liberally spending all of your retirement money."
[13:26] joeylink503: but it fits
[13:26] ridikule81: and it is correct.
[13:26] ridikule81: The meaning here is "not conserving any" but it will be interpretted as "Edwards is spending all of your retirement money the way a liberal would."
[13:26] ridikule81: which is not a correct statement.
[13:26] joeylink503: you're only liberal based on your action
[13:26] joeylink503: s
[13:27] joeylink503: george bush is liberal with the money he pumps into iraq
[13:27] ridikule81: liberally has nothing to do with liberal.
[13:27] joeylink503: it's the same word man
[13:27] ridikule81: true
[13:27] ridikule81: yes
[13:27] ridikule81: but it's a different meaning
[13:27] ridikule81: one is an adjective and the other is a noun
[13:27] joeylink503: no it's not
[13:27] ridikule81: what?
[13:27] ridikule81: dude, go back to school.
[13:27] joeylink503: the Democrats have turned it into a noun
[13:27] ridikule81: george bush is liberal with the money he pumps into iraq
[13:27] joeylink503: liberal is not a person, place, or thing
[13:27] ridikule81: LOL
[13:28] ridikule81: whatever you say
[13:28] ridikule81: george bush is liberal with the money he pumps into iraq
[13:28] ridikule81: okay...
[13:28] joeylink503: is that wrong?
[13:28] ridikule81: in this sentence liberal is a description of an action
[13:28] joeylink503: my grammar probably is off
[13:28] joeylink503: exactly
[13:28] ridikule81: and therefore NOT a noun in this sentence structure
[13:28] ridikule81: when liberal is used as a noun, it means what liberal means as a noun
[13:28] ridikule81: "one that is for reform."
[13:28] joeylink503: Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
[13:29] joeylink503: that's from m0w
[13:29] joeylink503: m-w
[13:29] ridikule81: yea
[13:29] ridikule81: you found ajective usage
[13:29] ridikule81: good for you
[13:29] ridikule81: ?
[13:29] joeylink503: it's #1
[13:29] ridikule81: I'm lost...
[13:29] ridikule81: and?
[13:29] joeylink503: lol
[13:29] ridikule81: dude...
[13:29] joeylink503: you'll learn in time if you keep up with this political stuff
[13:29] ridikule81: we're talking about the difference of adjective versus noun
[13:29] joeylink503: it's not a noun
[13:29] ridikule81: so what you SHOULD have pasted is the definitions for both
[13:30] ridikule81: It's not a noune?
[13:30] ridikule81: HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
[13:30] joeylink503: the only person who uses liberal as a noun are people who label themselves "liberal"
[13:30] ridikule81: right?
[13:30] ridikule81: that's how you would use it
[13:30] ridikule81: Main Entry: 2liberal
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways
[13:31] ridikule81: Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
[13:31] joeylink503: lol i cant argue this with you, once you get involved you'll see what i mean
[13:31] ridikule81: I really doubt it.
[13:31] ridikule81: I'm too smart to get word-****ed.
[13:31] joeylink503: ask someone y ou trust
[13:31] joeylink503: HAHAAH
[13:32] joeylink503: you already did!
[13:32] joeylink503: by the Democrats!
[13:32] ridikule81: Yea, by properly using english words.
[13:32] ridikule81: sad
[13:32] joeylink503: they're the ones that changed the definition of that
[13:32] joeylink503: go talk to someone you trust about it
[13:32] joeylink503: or go ask on the net womewhere
[13:32] joeylink503: some*
[13:32] ridikule81: The only point I am making is this: A Liberal is one that is not tied to the traditional ways. That's it. That doesn't by default make them do anything liberally with anything.
[13:32] joeylink503: go into #politics on efnet and ask
[13:32] ridikule81: they are two different meanings.
[13:33] joeylink503: that's not true at all
[13:33] ridikule81: sigh
[13:33] joeylink503: you're definition is incorrect
[13:33] ridikule81: THINK ABOUT IT FOR TWO SECONDS
[13:33] ridikule81: let your guard down and think
[13:34] ridikule81: I am for reform of several policies... I have liberal views on many things that probably should be changed. AS DO YOU. Are we by default ready to liberally spend tax payers money?
[13:34] ridikule81: see what I mean?
[13:34] ridikule81: you can't make blanket statements like that because they are out of context and don't make sense.
[13:34] joeylink503: lol, i am 100% confident you'll understand later
[13:35] joeylink503: once you get into the real world of this stuff and quit using the dictionary
[13:35] ridikule81: Yea, I think you are falling back on that as a weak argument.
[13:35] joeylink503: lol ok
[13:35] joeylink503: i'm gonna go shower
[13:35] ridikule81: the day I quit using the dictionary is the day you can call me an idiot.,
[13:36] ridikule81: on politicial radio they seem to use the words the way I would expect. Perhaps you've formed some incorrect assumption in your own mind because they seem to fit... but you should re-evaluate them.
[13:37] joeylink503: maybe you're right, will you go discuss this in the channel? I want to see some others agree/disagree with you
[13:39] ridikule81: hrmm
[13:39] ridikule81: that really depends
[13:39] ridikule81: you jump into a conservative channel and say 'liberal' they probably will just say 'you are wrong' before you even ask the question.
[13:39] joeylink503: yeah, i think this channel is more liberal though
[13:40] joeylink503: it's actually pretty even
[13:40] ridikule81: yea, well... it's a matter of grammar and I don't think this discussion has any political ties at all to be honest with you.
[13:40] joeylink503: k
[13:40] ridikule81: like I said you, you have liberal views... but that doesn't make you liberal with anything...
[13:41] ridikule81: what if your liberal views are targetted to reform something in such a way to 'conserve' it more?
[13:41] joeylink503: then it would be a conservative progressive view
[13:42] joeylink503: you said "conserve" yourself
[13:42] joeylink503: and if you're a liberal conservative that's an oxymoron
[13:42] ridikule81: You can have this same argument about Progressive Blues, to be honest with you. It's a matter of word choice.
[13:42] ridikule81: see
[13:42] ridikule81: that's where you are wrong
[13:42] joeylink503: heh, ok
[13:43] ridikule81: if you are a liberal, conserving something is NOT an an oxy moron.
[13:43] ridikule81: convservative and liberal / conserve or convservationally and liberally are not interchangable... it's all in the context of the sentence.
[13:43] ridikule81: There are liberal republicans
[13:44] ridikule81: and convervative Democrats
[13:44] joeylink503: now you're saying the same thing i am
[13:44] joeylink503: [13:43] ridikule81: There are liberal republicans
[13:44] ridikule81: and convervative Democrats
[13:44] joeylink503: but there aren't conservative liberals
[13:44] ridikule81: well
[13:44] ridikule81: if you agree with that statement, then you contradict yourself with the oxymoron statement.
[13:45] joeylink503: no i dont, i just said there aren't conservative liberals
[13:45] ridikule81: why can't there be conservative liberals? It's been around long enough.... a conservative liberal would be one that is sticking with the ideas of reform that they had 10 years ago, while others are going for some new idea.
[13:45] joeylink503: unless you're using the Democrats definition of liberal, which is what they like to call them selves (a noun, a label)
[13:46] ridikule81: the noun of liberal is simply one that is for reform.
[13:46] ridikule81: which pretty much everyone falls into
[13:46] joeylink503: democratic definition
[13:46] ridikule81: unless you love the current state of america
[13:46] ridikule81: yea...
[13:46] ridikule81: m-w definition
[13:47] joeylink503: k
[13:47] ridikule81: Democrats didn't 'make' it a noun as you said... that's ridiculous.
[13:47] ridikule81: yea, I'm going to go clean out the garage... later
[13:47] joeylink503: seriously?
[13:47] ridikule81: seriously what?
[13:47] joeylink503: [13:47] ridikule81: Democrats didn't 'make' it a noun as you said... that's ridiculous.
[13:47] ridikule81: right.
[13:48] ridikule81: it's been a functional usage before north america was even discovered
[13:48] joeylink503: lol i'm going to post this conversation on democratic underground and the high road, it'll be interesting
[13:48] ridikule81: k

 

[beerslurpy]

dude post cliff notes so we dont have to wade through the back and forth of your conversation

I dont get the non-obvious point you are trying to make. Are you even trying to make a point?

 

[AF_INT1N0]

No..

Progressive meaning for progress is just a word leftists use as a way to seem enlightened.."We the Democratics are for progress, we are progressives" (It's just window dressing, 5 second sound bite name your cliche. )

Any side can be for a progress, but progressing towards what?

I consider myself for progress towards a universally armed and polite society. I doubt seriously that most liberals would be for that kind of progress.

The other day I saw a group of Leftists protesting a grocery store to remove vegetables that had been genetically enhanced. (You know go back to the inefficient way food used to be grown.. Clearly the anti-theses of progress.

ONe of the things that make english so hard to learn for people is that words mean different things to different people.

 

[Geronimo45]

Just a stupid title. Like compassionate conservative, liberal progressive. It sounds better than 'conservative' or 'liberal' alone. Means very little.

 

[RealGun]

That is a good one for the search function. The subject has been beaten into submission not that long ago.

 

[Tommygunn]

"Progressive" is a euphemism used by leftists since they have-- after 60++ years, finally realized Americans don't like the word "communist."

 

[AF_INT1N0]

I like Tommygunn's answer better..

 

[Sam]

Tommygun are correct.
After the name"Democrats for Socialism" crapped out, they now call themselves the "Progressive Caucus"

Sam

 

[Art Eatman]

First off, realize that in today's world, "Liberal" is not the same as the Classic Liberalism of Locke and Hume. Many of the ideas of Classic Liberalism are incorporated into our Constitution.

Look up the date of Karl Marx's "Das Kapital" and realize that he gained a following through the latter part of the 19th Century and on into the 20th. Those who had begun to subscribe to his concept learned that the words "Socialist" and "Communist" had negative connotations among the public at large. So, they first used the label, "Progressive" to disguise their political philosophy.

This segued into "Liberal" in the late Depression/WW II era. At that time, you had actively patriotic liberals; Harry Truman is a good example.

As times got good and the 1932 Socialist Workers Party got its platform enacted into law (by 1964), the liberals were turning even more to the left and more active Socialism. Action begets reaction; with the Vietnam-era changes in our politics, "Liberal" started to become a curse word, a word of scorn.

And so, once again, to divert attention, the left has moved away from an emotional word to a more neutral word, "Progressive".

It's still, basically, Socialism. Or Fascism with a Socialistic tint; take your pick. Probably a mix of both.

My own personal view of the serious split in political philosophy is that there are those who favor a very strong central government, with governmental solutions to social problems. To me, these are "Statists". The rest of us don't need a name or a National ID Card; we know who we are. It's sufficient to know our enemy.

Art

 

[tellner]

No AF_INT, Progressive is a word that certain political elements use, some Left, most which would have been smack in the traditional Center until that moved so far to the Right that it actually adopted almost all of the points of classic fascism. And no, that's not hyperbole. It's simple truth which I would be happy to demonstrate if you are interested.

What does it mean? Well, now, that's interesting. You see, the Right is terribly authoritarian and can not tolerate anything except lockstep conformity. Religious Freedom means you are free to pick your particular brand of fundamentalist Protestantism or Marketism. Political debate within the Party has been declared seditious by your President as of Friday. Literally. Freedom of speech and the press means ever tighter control of the broadcast and print media by an ever smaller number of owners all but two or three of whom are hard core Republicans. Patriotism means mindless acceptance of killing anyone the President unilaterally decides to kill for any reason.

The Right, as evidenced by many hear, is motivated primarily by fear of some Enemy. The Enemy is implacable, ever-present, utterly terrifying and eternal. It's been the Free-thinkers, the Freemasons, the Witches, the Devil,the Illuminati, the Anarchists, the Communists, the Mud People and now the Muslims. Fear makes people biddable and willing to unquestioningly do the bidding of The Leader as long has He promises to make them feel safe. Because of their desperate desire to feel secure they will give up their liberties without even a sniffle. Well, except for the liberties that make them feel safer from the Enemy of the moment.

The Left, on the other hand, is much more chaotic. By its very nature it is made up of people who are comfortable with ambiguity and lack of clear certainty. They tend to respond much less to authority and the motivation of fear than does the RWA. They tend to be more comfortable including different sorts of people, so it can be very fuzzy.

But what are some of the defining characteristics of Progressives? First, a high regard for individual freedom. Second, a mistrust for authoritarian churches and a visceral disgust for Church and State supporting each other's power. Third, a belief that the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an ever-tinier elite (which can be amply demonstrated by even a cursory examination of easily available data) is destructive to democracy and the nation. Fourth, a focus on local issues. The movement to buy locally produced food and clothing, support local businesses over multi-national chains and produce energy locally (cf. biodiesel and photovoltaics) are symptoms. Yes, concern over environmental issues tends to be a big one.

 

[Hutch]

Gee, Todd, care to see how thislooks when it's flipped around? to misquote you

What does it mean? Well, now, that's interesting. You see, the Left is terribly authoritarian and can not tolerate anything except lockstep conformity. Religious Freedom means you are free from any religious influence or exposure. Political debate by those who hold conservative views has been declared to be Hate Speech and very unPC. Literally. Freedom of speech and the press means ever tighter control of the broadcast and print media by an ever smaller number of owners all but two or three of whom are hard core Republicans, but who amazingly seem to put on air pundits that have swallowed the Marxist KoolAid. Patriotism means mindless acceptance of killing anyone the President unilaterally decides to kill for any reason while the truly enlightened among us can blame America first, equating Frat hazing at Abu Ghraib with decapitation and dismemberment.

The Right, as evidenced by many hear, is motivated primarily by fear of some Enemy. While the Left is motivated by hate. The Enemy is implacable, ever-present, utterly terrifying and eternal. It's been the Free-thinkers, the Freemasons, the Witches, the Devil,the Illuminati, the Anarchists, the Communists, the Mud People and now the Muslims. The Left, however hates Nuclear Power, Acid Rain, Greenhouse Gasses, Smoking, Big Business, Guns and <gasp> The Rich. Fear/Hate makes people biddable and willing to unquestioningly do the bidding of The Leader as long has He promises to make them feel safe. Because of their desperate desire to feel secure they will give up their liberties without even a sniffle. Well, except for the liberties that make them feel safer from the Enemy of the moment.

But what are some of the defining characteristics of Progressives? First, a high regard for individual freedom, as long as it's not freedom to keep what you earn, or school your kids at home, or other such nonsense It takes a village, remember. Second, a mistrust for authoritarian churches that aren't supporting Democrats and a visceral disgust for Church and State supporting each other's power, except when it supports Leftist goals. Third, a belief that the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an ever-tinier elite (which can be amply demonstrated by even a cursory examination of easily available data) is destructive to democracy and the nation God knows how we, as a nation, survived the 19th Century. Fourth, a focus on local issues, since we'll never get Congress to approve Kyoto, maybe we'll have more luck in the California Legislature. Ditto gun control. Ditto smoking bans. Ditto feel-good "Nuclear free zones", etc. The movement to buy locally produced food and clothing, support local businesses over multi-national chains and produce energy locally (cf. biodiesel and photovoltaics) are symptoms. Yes, concern over environmental issues tends to be a big one, and we'll be sure to tell you at a conference we flew our private jet to, and appeared in an SUV, all the while denying that we "own" it.

 

[Kim]

Ha, Ha

 

[Dravur]

Remember..

The new meaning of "Progressive" is Progress down the road to socialism. Liberal can have many meanings in context. When used in the Political realm, it has come to mean the opposite of conservative. So, depending on the context, the meaning could very well change.

There are Social Issues Conservatives and Fiscal Conservatives. There are Socialist Liberals and there are Social Issues Liberals, and any combination of these makes up each person's psyche.

For example, I am a fiscal Conservative and more libertarian on social issues.

Oddly enough, Libertarians come closer to the classic version of Liberal, but that meaning has been pre-empted in modern usage.

 

[Deanimator]

A liberal is somebody who believes in civil rights, doesn't care if you take drugs without endangering other people, thinks that labor unions can [even if they don't in practice] help workers, and doesn't care if two guys or two girls get married.

A progressive is somebody who thinks that you shouldn't ignore the "good qualities" of Stalin, Mao, Castro and Pol Pot.

The relationship between a lot of liberals and the "progressives" is like that between an abused woman and the man who beats her. Progressives just keep lying to and exploiting liberals and the liberals just keep eating it up.

 

[Hayward Juhbuzzoff]

To the original poster... what you've gotten here is skewed partisan opinion on what the terms mean.

If you are really curious, do some googling on Progressivism and Liberalism. Teddy Roosevelt was the presidential nominee of the first Progressive party in 1912... not exactly a communist.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Look up the date of Karl Marx's "Das Kapital" and realize that he gained a following through the latter part of the 19th Century and on into the 20th. Those who had begun to subscribe to his concept learned that the words "Socialist" and "Communist" had negative connotations among the public at large. So, they first used the label, "Progressive" to disguise their political philosophy.

Oh, Kee-rist, Art, are you calling Teddy Roosevelt a Communist?

 

[Art Eatman]

No, TR was a statist. I still think my notion of using that word avoids the confusion of so many of the other labels. It also avoids any change in usage of other labels, over time. "Progressive" is subject to many interpretations.

Many who think of themselves as conservatives still seek solutions via government actions or programs. Our present President, for instance, with his Free Pills & Potions For Old Farts, or "NoChild Left Behind". Libertarians, do not--regardless of whether or not one disagrees with some or many of the stated Libertarian views. They take a private-sector approach, mostly.

So many of the old labels just don't work. For instance, the electees of both parties nowadays seem in favor of buying votes via government programs. The only difference betweeen them, generally, is in the type of program. It's still a tax-and-spend process. So you have to add "fiscal" to the label "conservative" to find an opponent of tax-and-spend. Complicates things to keep adding modifiers.

"Statist" easily includes socialist and communist, but it does not mean that one who favors governmental solutions is necessarily socialist or communist. I guess it's a matter of degree.

Art

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Sorry, Hayward Juhbeatmetoit...

 

[Byron Quick]

tellner's definition of 'Progressives' would include me. Maybe I need to reexamine my political beliefs for I'm with Art-I don't want to be grouped with the statist thugs-and that includes most of the 'conservatives,' too.

Whenever I consider the passage of a new law, I ask myself this question:"Is this issue so important that I'm willing to see my neigbors, who refuse to obey it, locked in a cage for a term of years, or, if they refuse to submit to such abuse, shot down by armed and uniformed employees of the state who are acting in my name? Turns out there are darned few such laws, in my opinion. And most of those would only apply to politicians holding office.

 

[Zen21Tao]

What does it mean? Well, now, that's interesting. You see, the Right is terribly authoritarian and can not tolerate anything except lockstep conformity. Religious Freedom means you are free to pick your particular brand of fundamentalist Protestantism or Marketism. Political debate within the Party has been declared seditious by your President as of Friday. Literally. Freedom of speech and the press means ever tighter control of the broadcast and print media by an ever smaller number of owners all but two or three of whom are hard core Republicans. Patriotism means mindless acceptance of killing anyone the President unilaterally decides to kill for any reason.

WOW…. Do you really believe this nonsense?

Freedom of religion mean the right to practice or not practice as you see fit to the extent it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others. If we live in a Fascist religious state then why are college campuses run predominantly by liberals? Why is evolution taught in school without any mention whatsoever of the theory of “intelligent design”? In fascist religious state only the latter would be allowed. However, we have a society with libs so thin skinned they can’t bare to have an alternative to their views offered.

This segues into the “conservatives control the airways” position you posited. Yes, there are some conservatives that protest things on TV they disagree with however, as I recall, it wasn’t conservative Senators that threatened a media venue’s FCC license to try to get them to didn’t kill or radically alter one of that venue’s productions just because they disagreed with the content. As for who exercises more controls the media, to think its conservatives is simply a joke. With the exception of Fox News the media (both television and print) definitely favors liberals. Yes, unless liberals have TOTAL control over the information being disseminated (point of fact: 1st Amendment loving Senators trying to stop “The Path to 911” from airing on ABC) they cry out “right wing conspiracy.”

 

[utahminirevolver]

Speaking of closing threads, I notice that the moderator says, "This would be a great topic for ASP" just before closing it.

What's ASP?

Liberals today do tend to hate America, try to appease America's enemies, and in so doing, be naive, because if America falls to, say, sharia, liberals will be among the first to be beheaded. Lenin was correct in defining them as "useful idiots".

 

[Zen21Tao]

Liberals today do tend to hate America, try to appease America's enemies, and in so doing, be naive, because if America falls to, say, sharia, liberals will be among the first to be beheaded. Lenin was correct in defining them as "useful idiots".

I do see the sad irony of liberals (specifically those running the Democrat party) snubbing their noses at America to do everything they can to protect radical muslims when every belief that liberals hold is an abomination to allah under radical islam and would get the libs beheaded if they didn't convert. This appears to be a byproduct of liberals blind hatred to George W. Bush and Republicans. They don't care about consequences just so long as they can side against those evil conservatives that stole the 2000 elections.

 

[kengrubb]

the Right is terribly authoritarian and can not tolerate anything except lockstep conformity.

That definition could readily be applied to the Clinton Administration. A number of Progressives consider him a Progressive. I tended to see him as simply a differently labeled authoritarian. Just different oxen being gored. (No pun intended).

Religious Freedom means you are free to pick your particular brand of fundamentalist Protestantism or Marketism.

Atheist and Agnostic extremists tend to describe themselves as Progressives, and they can be quite opposed to anyone exercising a religion other than one of which they would approve.

Even some more Progressively aligned Protestants can be quite intolerant and at times just as actively involved in politics. I believe it was the Methodists, the Episcopals and the Lutherans who got involved in gun control back in the early days of HCI and even GCA 68. I believe they are still just as equally committed in their antigun zeal.

Some more fundamentalists Protestant groups tend to be more progun, at times. Pat Robertson has expressed views both ways over the years, to suit him politically methinks.

The Right ... is motivated primarily by fear of some Enemy

Back to the Clinton Administration, and gunowners as the enemy. They are an enemy from which he has NOT retreated, and I fear the Democratic Party as a whole has not retreated--even if there's a lull in the hostilities at the moment.

Fourth, a focus on local issues. The movement to buy locally produced food and clothing, support local businesses over multi-national chains and produce energy locally (cf. biodiesel and photovoltaics) are symptoms. Yes, concern over environmental issues tends to be a big one.

Barry Goldwater conservatives, libertarians and others tend to favor small, local businesses for a variety of reasons. Some shared by Progressives. Some not.

American Apparel might seem a darling of Progressives, but I see it as a company that's exercising the free market, and very effectively. Might be a niche market, a fad, or a really new and different trend in fashion. Who knows. Much of their stuff isn't terribly conducive to CCW, but it appears to be good quality stuff and doing well. Saw a piece about them on 20/20, I think, several months back. Because of the way they do business, they wouldn't try to compete with mass sweatshops. But the reverse is true as well. If a sweatshop tried to compete against AA, I suspect AA could put a serious hurting on 'em without lifting a finger BECAUSE they do business differently. I think of AA as the little person's, or at least working person's, low cost designer label. Maybe that's the future of fashion and the end of sweatshops that couldn't possibly compete with the mobility of an AA. Market forces at work.

Biodiesel seems very much in favor with Progressives, but E85 isn't. That puzzles me. E85 seems an easy step, even if it's an interim step, until other alternatives mature. The Brazilians do quite well on E85. I suspect that some Progressives don't like E85 because it's empowering to the individual. Having a choice between E85 or straight gas (assuming it's an E85 capable vehicle) turns market advantage to the consumer. Some fear that Big Oil could drive down prices to undercut E85, but if consumers truly wanted independence from foreign oil, the elimination of 85 percent of our petro needs in our cars would probably get us closer than any other viable option on the table. With the federal mandate to switch from leaded to unleaded as precedent, a federal mandate to switch to E85 would probably be easier for the consumer and the industry to digest, and the benefits would probably be greater and more immediate.

As for local produce, there's clearly both a price and quality issue. Whether it's the Pike Place Market, or one of the roadside stands, the prices are close--even if at times I'm paying more for fruit. However, if you've ever bitten into a chain store peach, and believed you instead purchased a tennis ball, you'll be more than willing to pay a bit more for a real peach that's really ripe and is full of real juice. Perhaps even a bit of state pride and support for the local economy when I buy from locals.

 

[iapetus]

This is how I see it:


In general useage, "Progressive" means in favour of, or encouraging "Progress".

"Progress" means improving, and/or advancing towards an end.

As such, it ought to be a pretty meaningless as a description of political ideology. It would be like defining a particular political view as being officially "Nice".


However, it has come to generally mean liberal and/or left-wing (which shouldn't be synonymous, but increasingly are). I suppose because it is naturally opposed to conservatism. Generally, Conservatives believe that the way things have always been done will always be the best way to do things; progressives believe that new, better ways of doing things can be found.


"Radical" I suppose just implies someone who wants big, fast change from the (conservative) status quo, in any direction (left/right/real liberal/fake liberal/etc).


A rather simplified bit of history (as I understand it):

Originally (a few hundred years ago), the traditional way of doing things was:
- the right to govern was an inheritable privilage;
- the established church was heavily involved in legislating in favour of their beliefs, and the power of state was used to encourage (or force) people to follow that religion;
- the government had the authority to grant substantial monopoly rights to certain companies (typically those with friends in government).
-etc

Then along came various philosophers, campaigners, revolutionaries, etc, who proposed the radical notion that:
- The government should be there for the benefit of the people, not the governors
- People should be free to chose their own religion (or lack of it)
- People should be free to trade their property and money to whoever they liked
- etc

I think these people could be legitimately described as "(real) liberals", radicals, or progressives.


Unfortunately, some time after this (not necessarily very long after in some cases - e.g. the French Revolution), some people rather misunderstood the fundamentals of liberal, progressive policies, and concluded:
- We are progressive and liberal.
- The old ways are bad, and should be swept away.
- The government should be there for the benefit of the people, not the governors
- We want to make the world a better place
- Once we have become the government, everything we do is therefore for the benefit of the people, and anyone who opposes us is therefore by definition an enemy of the people (and of progress).
- And of course, while the previous government was being evil when it tried to control how people lived their lives and force them to follow their out-dated so-called "morality", because we are obviously not evil, and actually are making people's lives better, controling them for their own good is not only compatible with being liberal, but a requirement for it.
- etc


People who hold such views generally view themselves as both "liberal" and "progressive", despite being nothing of the sort. A more accurate term would be "its-for-your-own-good authoritarian statists, who hate the way the world was before they came to power", although that's a rather clumsy phrase, so is unlikely to catch on . Maybe IFYGASWHTWTWWBTCTPs will work...


The exact modern use of the terms "liberal" and "progressive" will vary depending on where you are and who is using them. It seems to me that in America, "liberal", "progressive" and "left-wing" have become synonymous. In the UK, there has been a lot of "progress" towards this usage, but it is not complete, and there seems to be a bit of a revival of the old usage: some centre and centre-right parties and campaigners have taken to using "liberal" to describe free-market policies, and some on the hard left are happy do state that neither their economic or social views are "liberal".

 

[solareclipse]

i am not reading someone's IM convo but i will say this.. i am a liberal when it comes to social issues. i don't advocate them however, but i do not cry against them. i just let people do what fancies them.

but i am conservative when it comes to security, economy, etc.

i honestly do not care about labels at this point. they are so vague and misattached it is sad