2
   

2008: Who's the most progressive presidential candidate?

 
 
nimh
 
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 12:18 am
Regardless of your personal preference for the nomination, which of the candidates do you consider the most progressive? And, more importantly, why? Who'd be the second most progressive? Which of the candidates on the list (in the poll) would you not call progressive?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 4,521 • Replies: 71
No top replies

 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 06:00 am
What definition of 'progressive' are you implying?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 06:03 am
Interested watcher.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 06:51 am
Here's one definition.

Quote:
What is Progressive?
By Andrew Garib, July 25, 2005

A young person attempts to define the meaning of progressivism today.

Progressivism, like many important concepts, is many things to many people. Nevertheless, it has its own history, its own culture, and its own politics - all wrapped into a potent package that is making its comeback in the political discourse of this great country. The Campus Progress conference is just the latest manifestation of a political movement that is already changing America's political landscape for the better.

So what the heck is "progressive"? Those called 'progressives' of the late 19th and early 20th century, including such figures as presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, were renowned for checking the rise of corporate power and abuses and expanding democratic rights domestically. Later, leaders who followed the progressive line on foreign policy created an American nation that was an international leader in an economic, military, and moral sense.

Today, progressivism is not as easily definable as the ideas of the so-called Progressive Era of TR and Wilson. Nonetheless, the progressive movement's leaders, young and established alike, certainly have something to say about what "progressive" means to them.

"At its core," John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress writes, "progressivism is a non-ideological, pragmatic system of thought grounded in solving problems and maintaining strong values within society." Progressivism is practical and driven by the values that define America morality and have made our country stronger and better. It's a dynamic concept giving the leadership of an up-and-coming generation of politicos - you - the tools to make this nation's future brighter for all.

Sound enticing? It should be: The future of America's progressive political landscape is in your hands.

It's not liberalism

The first key to understanding progressivism is that it's not the same as liberalism, as many might assume. "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics," Halpin said in an interview with Campus Progress. "It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept ... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressivism is not an ideology at all, but an attitude towards the world of politics that is far less black-and-white than conservatism or liberalism, breaking free from the false and divisive dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative that has dominated American politics for too long.

Said simply (perhaps oversimplifying), American liberalism is an ideology grounded in traditionally liberal American values: individual freedom, democratic government, freedom of thought and belief, and equal opportunity. Government intervention is generally seen as the solution to society's problem.

Progressivism, on the other hand, is far more flexible than any one ideology. Traditionally, conservatives see the world, especially human nature, as predictable and static. Liberals are often burdened with endless optimism - a belief that all problems can be solved through implementing utopian visions (especially through government intervention).

Progressives aren't simply liberals; progressives see the world for what it is, accept it as ever-changing and dynamic, and choose the best course of action in line with decidedly American values.

It is pragmatic

"A progressive skier is unafraid to huck a 40 ft. cliff, but a progressive skier wears a helmet." Once again, Geoff the Philosopher/Intern gives us a glimpse of what progressive means to him. In reseraching this story, I asked several young progressives (including Geoff) what 'progressive' means to them. Many, along with Halpin, emphasized how progressive thought is above all pragmatic and flexible.

Free of ideological structures that tie leaders to strict policy courses, progressivism is averse to simple answers and flourishes within the details of the problems facing our society. That's why asking others - and ourselves - what 'progressive' means to them (and to us) is a crucial part of the never-ending development and growth of the progressive movement, and a key part of progressives' participation in American democracy.

Certainly, government involvement is one solution among many. CAP intern Suzanne Kahn, another young progressive, expressed one insight: "Progressives [understand] that government can be used as a force for good." But progressives don't simply ask "How can government help this situation," but "with the tools we have, both public and private, how can we solve this problem?"

It is value-driven

One reason that Americans commonly equate progressivism and liberalism is that progressive thought is often informed by liberal ethics - it's driven by a desire to promote fairness, human well-being and opportunity. CAP intern Andrew Fong puts it this way: "Progressives believe in maximizing human freedom and helping society (and its individual members) achieve their full potential." Fong reminds us that "power, wealth, and information must flow freely rather than be concentrated in the hands of a few so that all citizens have the means to contribute."

Conservatives often accuse progressives of rejecting a values- or morality-driven perspective on society and government. Nothing could be further from the truth: Progressives encourage personal and moral responsibility, and promote respect for ethical values.

Compare that with the false and empty chants of compassionate conservatives, who gladly engage in reckless and unjustified war; deny gays, lesbians and transgendered Americans their rights as citizens; condemn working families to a cycle of poverty; and err on the side of big business over public health and nature's untouched beauty. These are the same 'principled' conservatives who whole-heartedly defend the most crooked legislator in decades, Tom DeLay.

It's yours

Radical conservatives who accuse progressives of being unpatriotic are amusingly out of line. Progressivism is about pragmatism and fairness, two ideas that couldn't be more American.

The dynamic outlook of progressives also is inherently democratic, a call for participation and leadership for today's young America. Progressivism is a living tree of pragmatic problem solving, informed by a constellation of bright leaders. Progressives have to stand up and define the future of the progressive movement, founded firmly on the principles that make this nation great.

Progressivism is uniquely American and entirely yours. Be a part of the discussion that defines both a concept and a nation. On the eve of this great conference, let's define "progressive" for ourselves.

http://www.wiretapmag.org/stories/23706
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 06:57 am
Based upon the above description, none of the above!
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 07:02 am
Based on the discription above who do you think is the most progressive in the Republican Party. Or do you believe no one is progressive, in either party; based on the definition above.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 07:46 am
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 Smile
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 08:06 am
Okay! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 08:11 am
xingu wrote:
Based on the discription above who do you think is the most progressive in the Republican Party. Or do you believe no one is progressive, in either party; based on the definition above.


None on the republican side either!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 09:11 am
mark
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 09:21 am
I chose Kucinich, because i genuinely believe that what he proposes is "progressive" to the extent that it is compared to the policies which have been implemented by our government since 1932, and any proposed by the other candidates. My favorite candidate, however, is John Edwards.

I don't think either one of them have a hope in Hell of being either chosen as the candidate or of being elected; although of the two, Edwards would have the best shot.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 11:54 pm
Setanta wrote:
I chose Kucinich, because i genuinely believe that what he proposes is "progressive" to the extent that it is compared to the policies which have been implemented by our government since 1932, and any proposed by the other candidates. My favorite candidate, however, is John Edwards.

I don't think either one of them have a hope in Hell of being either chosen as the candidate or of being elected; although of the two, Edwards would have the best shot.


Kucinich is probably the most progressive, but he is so inconsequential (polling about one percent) that I voted for Edwards.

Edwards has a good plan for Iraq. He thinks we should stop providing military training in Iraq because this amounts to a continuation of our occupation. Other countries should do this, and we could do some of this outside of Iraq. Our forces, except for a small number to guard our embassy, etc., would then be withdrawn during the next 10 months.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 06:45 am
By your definition of "progressive", nimh, the most progressive candidate is Dennis Kucinic. His platform is the one that's most consistently pro-workers' rights, pro-union, anti-corporate power, and so forth.

Of course, "having the most pro-workers-rights ... platform" is neither the same as "being most likely to actually affect change along these lines", nor the same as "I like him the best".
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 06:57 am
Thomas wrote:
Of course, "having the most pro-workers-rights ... platform" is [not] the same as "I like him the best".

Absolutely not. Hence the question being, "Regardless of your personal preference for the nomination, which of the candidates do you consider the most progressive?"
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 11:21 pm
Substitute the term, "socialistic" or "anti-capitalist" for the term "progressive," and it helps explain what is being discussed here.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 11:26 pm
Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are the only candidates I even bother to listen to.

The rest is bull$hit with debate so narrow they have to fake it.

I just saw them both on Bill Moyers.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jan, 2008 11:34 pm
Thanks for this thread, nimh.

(As an outsider) I've found the charts & polls & stuff a wee bit daunting & bewildering.

This is really interesting!
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 09:25 am
Excuse me beforehand for revealing the extent of my ignorance on this issue, but even if such a progrssive candidate, willing to pit himself against the system, was to become the next president, how much effect could (s)he have as long as the culture of lobby-ism continues to exist in the political venues of Capitol Hill?
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 11:12 am
Your not igronant. Its a good question and the answer is none until they get rid of the lobbiests.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jan, 2008 11:53 am
najmelliw wrote:
Excuse me beforehand for revealing the extent of my ignorance on this issue, but even if such a progrssive candidate, willing to pit himself against the system, was to become the next president, how much effect could (s)he have as long as the culture of lobby-ism continues to exist in the political venues of Capitol Hill?


Yes, you are ignorant--which is not only pardonable, but understandable. What would be unpardonable would be a circumstance in which you would not admit obvious ignorance, or would fail to supply the subject of your ignorance if you have the opportunity.

Lobbying is possible because any citizen has the right to approach any member of Congress to urge their own point of view. Bribery, no matter how indirect the form, is not legal. The problem arises in being able to show that any particular lobbyist has used illegal means in the attempt to influence members of Congress, or that any member of Congress has acted in the legislative process in favor of someone who has provided them material rewards. Reform of the legislative process to make it more difficult for lobbyists to "buy" votes from members of Congress would require congressional action. Rather a case of asking the foxes to make the hen house more "fox-proof."

Even were all the abuses of lobbying eliminated, the most pernicious form of lobbying, which is not recognized as such, is in campaign spending and the contributions which provide the funds to accomplish campaign spending. Congressmen and -women are well aware that this is an important subject with the public, and they are more than willing to appear to support reform in campaign spending--as long as they aren't tricked in to doing something actually worthwhile in regulating campaign contributions. Once again, we have a situation in which the foxes have been set to guard the hen house.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » 2008: Who's the most progressive presidential candidate?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 09:17:40