How do you self-indentify in terms of ideology?

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finally we agree on something.

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

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?

Yes, utilitarianism allows for tradeoffs between present happiness and future happiness. For example, most utilitarians support present action to prevent runaway global warning a century down the road. Generally speaking, they think that future costs and benefits should be discounted against present ones at the long-term real interest rate. Currently that's between two and three percent, so a $100 benefit 30 years out would justify a cost of roughly $50 today (in constant dollars).

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Is an authoritarian government necessarily at odds with Utilitarianism?

Only if citizens dislike being pushed around by dictators. For purposes of a political-philosophy seminar, this may not necessarily be the case; in the real world though, it usually is.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

No. Liberal = believing Unions are good for the majority. Free schooling for all kids even to collages. Every citizen having a right to vote. Everyone having the right to hospitals even if they can't afford it. Everyone having the right to three square meals a day even if they cant afford it. The rich paying more taxes because they get more benefit from the infrastructure and can afford to pay more. Progressive= everyone who can afford it to pay back what they can afford. Even if it means a work program. Everyone paying the taxes they can afford.
I wont ask your definition of your political beliefs. I think I already described them in the "Would open primaries lead to-----" topic.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Manana - I was up at 4 am, dumber than usual now.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

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.

Obama's escalating surveillance state, the drone strikes, the killing of American citizens without due process, and all that, are certainly not liberal. But if they're progressive, how come American conservatives are criticizing him for not doing more of them?

1 Reply

I'm a social-democrat ("freedom, equality, justice and solidarity"). With some "conservative-green" leanings and a more "liberal" (= libertarian in your language) view in law-related topics.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

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?

I only use the person = ideology in the case where I've never heard the term used in real life. Progressive is not a political term that is used independently of other terms here. Canada has progressive conservatives, in fact that was the name of the conservative party here for many decades.

In the case of socialism, I have more real-life experience (perhaps knowledge) with the word. I have met people who self-identify as socialists. I've read campaign literature from a Socialist Party. Socialism was an ideology that was covered in world politics courses I took in high school and university.

Progressive. All I've got is omsigdavid as a reference.

2 Replies

Quote:

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.

This is not what I think of when I think of Progressive. I agree that this definition fits your view of Obama pretty well.

Progressivism is linked with social reform (i.e. progress). This includes issues of equality, race and gender, civil rights and poverty. This doesn't necessarily mean strong federal government (reform on social issues often happens locally).

Obama has turned out to be fairly weak in terms of progressive issues from drone strikes to immigration enforcement. Obamacare is not very progressive either, it is a centrist law far to the right of single payer. He didn't even get the public option.

Obama is governing as a centrist.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Interestingly, in Europe not only most of the conservative and liberal parties (originally, progressivism was one of the aims only by classical liberals) call themselves "progressive" but it's now part of the party programs of the British Labour Party and the German Social-Democratic Party as well. (Progressivism was - and still is - actually strictly anti-Socialism; it's a "social liberalism" in the classical meaning.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

The US had a progressive party in the early 20th century, and there was a progressive movement before that (in the muckraker era).

Was the term "progressive" around before that time?

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

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.

Interesting.

I perceive Obama as a conservative. Using the definition either you or Thomas provided of progressive, he might well fall into the old Canadian Progressive Conservative model.

3 Replies

I don't put too much stock in these labels. Whether I am progressive or not depends on the context (my ideas don't change, but the meaning of the word does).

Around Boston, progressive is used as a catch-all to describe someone who is pro-choice, supportive of gay rights and immigrant rights, against capital punishment, etc. etc. The label isn't that useful, but you see it used to say that someone would fit into the broad liberal educated group that is common here. Saying someone is progressive is like saying he is a good guy.

In practice these labels encompass a laundry list of positions on issues. Most people would be justified in slapping a liberal or progressive label on me, but as with any of us, there are several issues where I would contradict that label.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

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?

Very much on the left-libertarian side in regard to social issues, which translates toa desire to keep government out of personal lives/personal decisions.

Somewhat less left-leaning on the economic side, but still a libertarian.

Once upon a time (maybe 40 years ago?), where I am now politically would likely have been called a Red Tory.

1 Reply

I do not identify as a liberal or a conservative—nor as a moderate between them. It is my opinion that I do not belong on the continuum that supposedly exists between those two identities…and if I do “identify” myself politically, I embrace the term “iconoclast” in its more generic meaning.

There are elements of (what is generally known as) the conservative agenda that I support…and there are elements of (what is generally known as ) the liberal agenda that I support. Mostly, I support (what is generally known as) a progressive agenda.

While I consider American conservativism a blight on the world…I acknowledge that it has a place on the political stage as “the loyal opposition.” I just think many of its adherents have trouble being that “loyal opposition”…they want to lead, and they are, in my opinion, singularly unprepared to so and unskilled at doing so.

Further I think the problems plaguing the political system right now have less to do with the vast chasm that exists between “liberal” and “conservatives”…than it does with the fact that so many at the extremes of the two sides refuse to “see” the other position in any reasonable light.

The politicians, in my opinion, are at loggerheads with one another because the general populace is at loggerheads with itself.

The intransigence of the people here in A2K illustrates this problem in all its glory.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Today, I perceive "liberal" and "progressive" as almost synonyms. "Progressive" is used by gutless liberals to avoid the widespread unpopularity of the word "liberal".

Quite correct. Reagan was very effective in transforming "liberal" into a slur, equivalent to "communist." Liberals, as is their wont, entirely bought into the Republican narrative, which left them searching for some other term that they could use to describe themselves. "Progressives," therefore, are just liberals who are afraid of offending conservatives. That, I suppose, makes Obama the arch-progressive.

1 Reply

I'm a Socialist.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I'm a Socialist.

Actually...there is a lot going for that designation. I am a capitalist and "free enterpriser", because I see the utility of all that. But on another level, I am a socialist.

I would love to see capitalism tempered by socialism...but I do not think that can happen. America will not lead in that way.

China may be able to accomplish the same thing coming from the opposite direction...incorporating some capitalism and some free enterprise into socialism.

But for the record, I could live with "I am a socialist" much easier than I could live with "I am a liberal."

I could even live with "I am a conservative"...so long as in capital letters is added, "BUT NOT AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE."

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Over her we have a Liberal party that are currently in coalition with the Conservatives, and there's not much to choose between them.

I believe in public ownership of Health, Transport, (rail and buses, not lorries or coaches) and the Utilities.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Was the term "progressive" around before that time?

Indeed, it was: in 1861, in Germany the German Progress Party ("Deutsche Fortschrittspartei") was founded as opposition to Bismarck.
(Members were - at least in the very beginning - mainly Liberals, who had taken part in the 1848 revolution - the term "progessive" was used pre-1848 quite often here.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

the term "progessive" was used pre-1848 quite often here.

There's a German translation of a book by Massimo d'Azeglio about founding a "NationalParty in Italy") Published in Germany in 1848 (I can't find the Italian original), it was used to give the German revolution some more "progressive" ideas.

0 Replies

How do you self-indentify in terms of ideology?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know