How do you self-indentify in terms of ideology?

I take it you are asking people in the united states?

I welcome all answers.

Well, skipping along, I was raised a mix of Taft Republican and labor interested Democrat. The nun who taught civics sent me out as Republican, class access, which I got over, as I was busy doubting, then talking at length with my first lover, a jewish atheist, brilliant even now, I hope.

What do you say is ideology? (see title)

5) other

I've oftentimes described myself as an independent, libertarian-leaning, small-government-conservative, social liberal, centrist.

Others may have a word to identify me, but it seems I don't. I vary.

How about yourself, Finn? What do you self-identify as? I think that if you're going to ask that personal a question, you should volunteer some information on your own beliefs. Only fair.

I'm a utilitarian. In the current economy, and in America, this translates to being about 90% liberal. In any other country, and in a historically-normal economy, it translates into being about 50% (or a little less) liberal, 50% (or a little more) libertarian.

You only asked the progressives, but not the liberals, to distinguish between these terms, but I'll answer that part anyway. I think they have historically differed on how authoritarian they are. For example, liberals opposed eugenics programs, progressives supported them; liberals opposed prohibition, progressives supported it. Today, I perceive "liberal" and "progressive" as almost synonyms. "Progressive" is used by gutless liberals to avoid the widespread unpopularity of the word "liberal". Personally, I have no problem calling myself a liberal. But because of the progressive movement's ambivalent past, I can't see myself ever referring to my politics as "progressive".

And all those terms make me dizzy, I'm sure I've been left or occasionally (though I don't remember why) to the right of either. I'm not a marxist but I've understood them. Not that I've understood marxism as such, too much to read.

I will. Surely you didn't think otherwise, did you?

The question wasn't intended to be exclusive.

I think you're right about the recent use of the term "progressive," as well as the ideological distinction you've suggested. I'm not sure that many people draw that distinction though. The terms now seem to be inter-changeable.

A lot of people in this forum have argued that Obama is not a liberal, and that may be the case, but he certainly is a progressive.

omsigDavid's the only person I've seen/heard describe himself as a progressive, so to me progressive reads as reactionary conservative.

Obama appears to be a moderate conservative to me.

I'm a libertarian on the social-left side of the scale.

I was always entertained spending time with BoGoWo in real-life. He got sheer joy out of introducing himself to what would likely be a moderate conservative in the U.S., but is far-right wing here - as a libertarian anarchist. Quite the chappie.


another edit: progressive seems fairly law and order-oriented to me

If Utilitariansim can be defined simply as maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering (which is not to say you would agree with this definition), does it require a short term or immediate view or does it allow for a longer term view, which considers that wide spread suffering tomorrow might be avoided by acts that produce a narrow degree of suffering today?

In other words, is a Utilitarian OK with the notion that to possibly avoid suffering on a grand scale (a great number of people) it is acceptable to take actions that might almost assuredly will create suffering on a small scale ( a relativly small number of people)?

I ask because I can imagine some who subscribe to what I've defined as the Utilitarian credo might argue that causing the definate suffering of a few today to prevent the possible suffering of many tomorrow is unacceptable.

Is an authoritarian government necessarily at odds with Utilitarianism?

Because I am a historically honest libertarian, therefore I am a conservative
(i.e., conserving the anti-authoritarianism of the Bill of Rights of the Supreme Law of the Land).
I support and exhort progressively greater n greater progress toward personal freedom, at the expense
of governmental jurisdiction, knowing that the said jurisdiction and personal freedom are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.
Roosevelt-Kennedy liberals are authoritarians; i.e., thay warp the Supreme Law of the Land AWAY from freedom and
toward repression by a government, whereas as a progressive, I advocate change toward weaker n more feeble jurisdiction
and stronger INDIVIDUALISM and hedonism. Liberals are distortionists, or perverts, whereas conservatives support orthodox,
Original Americanism (as amended, per Article 5). I 'd re-establish the legal status quo ante, as of c.1880, for more personal liberty
and fund all governments in the USA only from sales taxes at the same rate for everyone and importation tarriffs
with the provision that NO citizen will ever be called upon to pay more than $100,000 total taxes in any year.





David

Liberal, progressive.

To continue on that, that fellow's parents were very left, and he was knowledgeble, which added to my own stuff. Sorry I stopped at saying he was a jewish atheist in an earlier post, it was a whammo for me at the time, me barely getting out of being catholic, but he was more interesting intellectually than that.

I think I don't know what being a progressive means.

I don't think one person's claim to a given ideology should define that ideology, even if you have an entirely accurate opinion of that person.

Hawkeye claims to be a socialist. Should I define socialism base upon what I believe Hawkeye believes?

To me a major tenant of Progressivism is the idea that a strong federal government managed by perceived subject experts (or simply highly educated people) is preferable to a greatly de-centralized government in which those who govern locally are probably selected for reasons other than subject matter expertise. It seems clear that Obama is a progressive in this sense.

Can you elaborate on what a libertarian on the social-left side of the scale means? Libertarian (primarily) in regards to "social issues"?

If so, this suggests that you have a different view on non-social issues, and if this is the case, what is that view?

Not trying to read more into your comments than may be there, just trying to understand what people mean when they use these terms.

Are the two terms interchangeable to you?

Or do you consider yourself a liberal progressive as opposed, perhaps, to a conservative one?

You're not the only one, and that includes people who consider themselves progressives.

Of course the same can be said for liberal, conservative, libertarian et al.