nimh wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:My definition of a Progressive is someone who believes progression is inherently a good thing, that the status quo is really stagnation, and that change for the sake of change is to be valued.
That's certainly the literal and original background of the term. But how would you describe the tradition of Progressive politics in the US, specifically?
I mean, "Republican" literally and originally means/meant nothing more than someone who prefers to have a republic than a monarchy as state form. But in US politics, "Republican" certainly has some more specific connotations..
Same here. Isnt the label "progressive" by definition tied in with the specific parties and movements that have played an important role in US politics under that name and banner? I mean, if you dont want to just go ahistoric?
I would describe the so-called tradition of Progressive politics in the US as essentially the Liberal Movement desirous of a new name.
I don't think there is any significant difference between Liberal and Progressive politics, at least not in terms of the last 40 years or so.
I think my definition of a Progressive fits equally well with Liberals.
From an ideological sense it means:
A belief that there is such a thing as the wealth of a nation and that it should be distributed based on need more than endeavor.
A belief that if not all, than damned near as many, disputes in life, whether they are between individuals or nations, can and should be resolved through dialogue.
A belief that all perspectives are valid.
A fundamental disdain and distrust of capitalism and capitalists.
A fundamental disdain and distrust of religion and the religious.
A belief that the State is the most reliable of social institutions.
A basic aversion to nationalism.
Romanticism of other systems, cultures and nations.
From a political sense it means
A vital interest in a permanent underclass.
Casting Christians in the image of Inquisitors.
Class warfare in the face of undeniable elitism.
The glass is always half filled.
Obviously, people with a more positive regard for Progressives and Liberals will come up with a definition that leans a bit more towards the positive side, just as will those who have a positive regard for Conservatives.
While all perspectives are not valid, they do all have influence.
Progressives would like to define themselves in purely glowing terms. That is to be expected; so do Conservatives.
The fact of the matter is that, for me, my definition of a Progressive rings very true, because in the end, these folks whether viewed through a positive or negative prism are founded on the sense that progression is inherently a good thing, that the status quo is really stagnation, and that change for the sake of change is to be valued. It all tends to flow from these beliefs. In this sense, Progressive is a much more apt label than Liberal, and contends better with the term Conservatism.
