Brand X wrote:What definition of 'progressive' are you implying?
Yours :wink:
No, I just mean that the ambiguity is a given; everyone has their own definition. In principle I'm referring to "Progressive" in the context of how the term has been used in US political history, which Wikipedia defines as follows:
Quote:[..] 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 [..]
Progressive political parties were created in the United States on three different occasions. The first of these - the Progressive Party, founded in 1912 by President Theodore Roosevelt - was the most successful third party in modern American history. The other two were the Progressive Party founded in 1924 [the leftwing coalition of "Fighting Bob" Lafollette, who got 16.6% in the presidential elections;
see this post for more info about his results - nimh] and the Progressive Party founded in 1948 [which launched the presidential bid of former Vice-President Henry Wallace, who got 2.4% - nimh].
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. [..]
Now, apart from the factual references to the various Progressive parties that operated in the first half of the last century, this seems to me a fairly arbitrary definition of "Progressive". The whole debate of what "progressive" is taken to mean in contemporary America beyond being another word for "liberal", is an interesting subject for a thread in itself. When people call themselves "progressive" rather than "liberal", it's sometimes just because of how negatively loaded the word "liberal" has become, but often also for a specific substantive reason. It's just that those reasons seem to differ from person to person.
If I were American, for example, would call myself progressive rather than liberal because I dont just want to see the present socio-economic system adjusted to be a little more social, but to be fundamentally changed. Basically, my beef is still, in the end, with capitalism as a system in itself, rather than just with how it's implemented - utopian as that distinction is at this moment in time. Back in the fourties and fifties, "liberal" denoted the moderates in the Democratic party who strived for increamental societal change through policy-making wonkery, while "progressive" was connected to a more systematic rejection of the system itself and a "power to the people" kind of populism.
I would also call myself progressive rather than liberal because I feel "liberal" has become too attached to these enlightened middle-class blue-state politics, which cares more about post-material issues like gay marriage, abortion, the environment, gun laws, affirmative action, division of church and state and human-rights based foreign policy than about the basic bread-and-better issues like poverty, inequality, union rights, unemployment, working conditions. Not that you have to
choose in any which way, I care about all of the former issues as well - but it's all about emphasis and priority. It's no wonder that traditional progressivism did well in the Midwest and West as well as in NY, California, and what today is called the Rust Belt, while today's liberals are overwhelmingly associated with the East and West coasts.
But all of that, again, is just MY interpretation, and that's fairly arbitrary again as well. There have been fascinating debates about this, but for the purpose in this thread, "progressive" means what you think it means or should mean, and then hopefully any differences in interpretations automatically come out if people explain why they think candidate A or B is the most progressive.
At least, that's the theory