How do you self-indentify in terms of ideology?

You're making the common mistake of thinking you know what you're talking about. Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, most Americans thought he did. So much for thinking for yourself. It's something you've yet to master.

I'm not acting superior, you're acting dumb.

Actually I don't think it's an act, but if it is, it's a bloody good one.

Fluff, like BillRM, tries to wrap himself in the American flag whenever he gets an opportunity. He may be a tedious little tit with no mates, but at least he's an American tedious little tit with no mates.

Fluff, like BillRM, tries to wrap himself in the American flag whenever he gets an opportunity. He may be a tedious little tit with no mates, but at least he's an American tedious little tit with no mates.

You can discern all that from your vantage point in the U.K.?
You might not know how the heartland of the U.S. thinks.
Notice that the majority of the posters on these political threads,
in my opinion, seem to be lapsed Catholics. Quite nice; however,
the U.S. is still a Protestant country, and they more often than not,
ignore opposing views, since they are a majority that has no need
to promulgate their thinking. . . .

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You've never seen anyone, other than David, self describe themselves as Progressive?

correct

it is not a term used on its own to describe any Canadian political position

the closest was the former Progressive Conservative party (in Canada, PC has traditionally stood for Progressive Conservative - always funny to see it have such a different meaning in the US)

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

..assuming you really know what it means to be a social-democrat. I'm giving you credit that you do.

Indeed. I do.

Now of course you may know perfectly well what a social-democrat is but not be a very good one yourself, and therefore my logical conclusion may be flawed, but I'm guessing that you consider yourself, at least generally, an adherent of the ideology.

Now of course you may know perfectly well what a social-democrat is but not be a very good one yourself, ...

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.

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?

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.

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.

...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.

No conservative worth his salt would ever promise to fundamentally transform America and then proceed to attempt just that.

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.

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.

Mostly, I support (what is generally known as) a progressive agenda.

There are elements of (what is generally known as) the conservative agenda that I support

there are elements of (what is generally known as ) the liberal agenda that I support.

While I consider American conservativism a blight on the world

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.