What does the word 'progressive' mean? Line up to tell me, take a ticket!

@joefromchicago,

Are there progressives in congress? Where are they?

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

If you think hippie is based on what you look like, I think you should come up with a better definition.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

But independent of whether I'm right on this particular aspect, I'd like to pursue your idea that progressives are intimidated liberals who dare not speak their name anymore. I agree with that. And I think it matters, because I think it's bad strategy to change one's brand in response to detractors disparaging it.

What if it's an inherently better brand (Which I allege "progressive" is vs "liberal")?

I don't really care what people want to call themselves but I think that "progressive" is an easier brand to sell than "liberal".

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

I think 'progressive' as an adjective is more accurate.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Compare the Democratic Party's platform with the Republican Party's platform. According to general American usage, which is labeled more progressive?

I don't know why you think I need to be linked to their websites to answer this kind of question (I've heard of these guys before, dude) but to answer it I think it's obvious that the Republican party is conservative, showing a marked general preference for traditional values which includes changes that tilt the country in that general direction (e.g. your example that cracking down on Mexicans is a new thing is still an attempt by them to preserve the traditional ethnic majority in the country). The Democratic party is clearly the progressive party with a general preference for modern values over traditional ones and will be accepting of things like gay marriage, legalization of weed and other such things more readily than conservatives.

Quote:

And which platform, if enacted, would change the status quo in America more? That is why the distinction you suggest does not convince me.

But it doesn't matter which one currently wants a bigger change from the status quo, it matters which direction they are pulling in. "Conservatives" don't reject any changes, they push for changes that strengthen the traditional culture they prefer.

If you think of it that way it is a very consistent descriptor. Here are some of the major political issues and where the parties fall on them:

- Gun Control: Democrats are more likely to be in favor of increased gun regulation than conservatives. Increased gun control would be a shift from the traditional culture.
- Abortion: Democrats are more likely to want to keep this legal, Republicans are more likely to want to enact changes make it illegal. Traditionally it was illegal, and on this issue Democrats clearly lean toward modern values and Republicans toward traditional values.
- Immigration: Democrats are more likely to support immigration than Republicans. While immigration is something that was obviously central to the founding of America this is still clearly an attempt to preserve the ethnic majority they grew up with vs the erosion of that majority, they are again appealing to tradition vs being more accepting of shifting toward more multiculturalism.

I don't think this label perfectly encapsulates every part of anyone's political psyche (I don't actually think any label can), for example it does not capture the general tendency of conservatives to be more literally conservative with government spending and the liberal tendency to be more literally liberal with it. But at the same time those terms do not capture other important political spectrums like the preference for authoritarian vs libertarian values etc and all political labels will fail to capture every axis of the many political spectrums perfectly.

I think that the main fundamental spectrums that influence people's political positions are (in order of importance):

authoritarian vs libertarian
frugal vs lavish
old fashioned vs new fashioned

I think "conservative/progressive" captures the last one well.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

I take this all as a clue to not even start to categorize myself.

My personal approach has been to understand where I fall on the primary political spectrums more than what label I am. I've never embraced the term "liberal" not because of fear of conservatives but because it doesn't encapsulate all of my views. However on the spectrum of traditionally understood conservatives and liberals in the US I'm clearly toward the liberal side etc.

So I don't identify with particular labels strongly, but am very clear on what my political DNA is made of by understanding where I fall on the main political spectrums:

Authoritarian vs libertarian: I am libertarian on this spectrum (but not a libertarian in label because I do favor more regulation on personal liberty than pure libertarianism would).
Frugal vs Lavish: I am generally more fiscally conservative than not but differ from many fiscal conservatives in that I would be lavish in specific social spending (education, healthcare, etc), still my general preference is for smaller government than the current US government because I think that we can be lavish on them while resisting increased spending by being more frugal on spending I don't agree with (such as much of the military spending as well as the use of our health budget on private vs public care)
Traditional vs Futurist: Of all the spectrums this one is the one I am most extreme on, I am clearly a futurist in almost any way. I think there is no such thing as achieved perfection and want to relentlessly tinker with anything. I do not see any sport that I do not want to debate changes to that might make it better and I am constantly thinking of what might be vs what is.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I think 'progressive' as an adjective is more accurate.

I don't think any of them can be accurate for all of the political spectrums so I think it is more "accurate" for the traditional vs futurist axis but less so for the fiscal axis and liberty ones.

Since no label gets them all right, I describe my politics as where I fall on the specific spectrums.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

How about when compared to political platforms and actions?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I map them to the specific spectrums and my preferences are then clear too.

So for example if I have to choose between Republican and Democrat:

Authoritarian vs libertarian: Republicans are more authoritarian, I fall toward libertarian so on this I would side with Democrats most of the time.

Fiscal conservative vs fiscal liberal: I am pretty centrist here with a preference for overall frugality in government (i.e. I strongly believe that we could do all that I want with the revenues we have easily and that nearly half of the budget is wasted) but with a preference for strong social investments in education, healthcare etc. On this I'd say I slightly lean Republican but the Republican preference for big military spending almost negates that (i.e. there are no true fiscal conservatives between the two parties but the Republican party is slightly more fiscally conservative overall so this would be an area where I am moderately Republican on things like total spending and taxation but a Democrat when it comes on what to spend money on.

Traditionalist vs modernist: Republicans are generally traditionalists and Democrats mildly modernist, I would fall toward Democrat here too.

So while I do not think 'Democrat" is a good label for me, and I do not call myself a member of the party, it is clear that for me they are the generally preferable choice in US politics.

Can do the same for pretty much any policy too.

3 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Fair enough! I do no believe there are many strict conservative or liberal; most fall in a little left or right as a preference. I'm a fiscal conservative, but mainly lean towards liberal causes. I think it's possible if our government didn't waste so much money.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Citizens Against Government Waste have identified $648 billion that could be cut.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I agree with your self descriptions, and not just to be agreeable.

One post I remember of yours, now rather long ago, was your description of your treatment at a hospital in the country you then lived in and maybe still do. I remember the country but don't know if you want it named. I was very impressed, and that's the kind of situation/system I would like to see here, in some large part, and as far as I've seen, that isn't what people mean by the words "single payer" - it's much more than that.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

It's just a fairly typical healthcare setup really, public hospitals and private ones side by side. Anyone gets a basic level of healthcare (but in public hospitals that are not as comfortable etc) and anyone who can afford it has insurance and goes to private ones.

Works that way in many places I've lived and is what I recommend for the US (vs subsidizing and inflating the costs of private care through universal insurance coverage).

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I don't know why you think I need to be linked to their websites to answer this kind of question (I've heard of these guys before, dude)

Maybe you don't, but we're not exchanging private letters here. This a public forum, and I have reason to believe that a large share of the public is ignorant of how radicalized the Republican party has become. (It's not just Trump, it's the whole party, and it's right there in the 2012 platform.)

Robert Gentel wrote:

I think it's obvious that the Republican party is conservative,

Then we see things differently --- again, worse things have been known to happen. To me, it seems obvious that the Republican party has become a party of proto-fascist radicals who cover their tracks by abusing the traditional rhetoric of conservatism and liberty. It's an Orwellian trademark fraud by Republican propagandists, and it will not convince me that their agenda of unprecedented change is in any meaningful sense conservative.

Robert Gentel wrote:

But it doesn't matter which one currently wants a bigger change from the status quo,

It does if your benchmark is which side is "more accepting of the evolutions in society". The decline of labor unions, the erosion of reproductive rights including but not limited to abortion, the perpetual rise of the billionaire class, the increasing adultation of the military, the correspondingly increasing contempt for and sabotage of legislatures --- all these are "evolutions in society" that the Republican party approves of and furnishes.

Robert Gentel wrote:

- Gun Control: Democrats are more likely to be in favor of increased gun regulation than conservatives. Increased gun control would be a shift from the traditional culture.

Actually, gun-control regulations on the state and local level were fairly common in the 1800s. I don't know if the briefs in the Supreme-Court case of Heller vs. DC are still online somewhere. If I remember correctly, the District of Columbia's briefs, as well as several amicus briefs in the District's support, provided a trove of examples.

Robert Gentel wrote:

Traditionally it [abortion] was illegal,

Nope, not in the founding era. According to Blackstone (1765), for example, an individual's right under English law to live only begins with quickening, which happens about four to five months into the pregnancy. That's barely more restrictive than the law in America today, and far more permissive than what Republicans want.

Robert Gentel wrote:

- Immigration:

Immigration was, for practical purposes, completely open from the founding (1776) to the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). It remained almost completely open to anyone but the Chinese until the early 1920s, despite Trump-style resentment against whatever the current wave of immigrants was. (First the Germans, then the Irish, then the Italians and the Russians --- you name it, there was a Trump agitating against it.) Anti-immigration policies are not traditional in America. Most of them began in the Progressive Era. (Although, to be sure, correlation is not causation.)

So even by the examples you gave, Republican policies are not conservative, and Democratic policies not progressive as you define it. Democratic policies are, however, quite consistently liberal in your examples, as in "increasing human liberty".

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Spot on, Thomas.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Maybe you don't, but we're not exchanging private letters here. This a public forum, and I have reason to believe that a large share of the public is ignorant of how radicalized the Republican party has become. (It's not just Trump, it's the whole party, and it's right there in the 2012 platform.)

Fair enough. I have argued here that I think that the conservative/progressive divide does not reflect who wants to enact the most legislation etc, but a preference for how things were (i.e. for them and their parents) vs how they think things will be (i.e. for their kids and grandkids).

I'm not sure if you just don't agree with that because you haven't addressed it. It sounds like you are repeating the argument that the Republican party is more radical hence they want more "change" right now but that seems like a very semantic argument.

It seems pretty clear that they fit the description of people who want the way of life that they or their parents had vs the way of life they think their kids or grandkids will have.

Quote:

Then we see things differently --- again, worse things have been known to happen. To me, it seems obvious that the Republican party has become a party of proto-fascist radicals who cover their tracks by abusing the traditional rhetoric of conservatism and liberty. It's an Orwellian trademark fraud by Republican propagandists, and it will not convince me that their agenda of unprecedented change is in any meaningful sense conservative.

Do you see Republicans as people who generally want the way of life that they used to have or that their parents have vs the way of life that they think their children and grandchildren will have?

Quote:

Robert Gentel wrote:
But it doesn't matter which one currently wants a bigger change from the status quo,

It does if your benchmark is which side is "more accepting of the evolutions in society".

Macro evolutions, not micro changes. It's not a preference for more vs less legislation, or more or less changes to legislation. It is a cultural preference for the ways of their past vs the ways of the perceived future.

Quote:

The decline of labor unions, the erosion of reproductive rights including but not limited to abortion, the perpetual rise of the billionaire class, the increasing adultation of the military, the correspondingly increasing contempt for and sabotage of legislatures --- all these are "evolutions in society" that the Republican party approves of and furnishes.

Sure, and you can find exceptions (many even) to any description of a general trend or preference but do they not still fit the bill of people who prefer the culture of the past than the culture of the future?

Quote:

Actually, gun-control regulations on the state and local level were fairly common in the 1800s.

And I and others like joe have mentioned that it not really relevant what it was like hundreds of years ago. People who prefer the past aren't simply historians who desire things exactly like they used to be, it doesn't matter to them what the laws were like hundreds of years ago, the preference describes what they feel about where they think laws are going now.

Do you think conservatives generally like the direction of the way they think gun laws are going more than progressives?

Quote:

Robert Gentel wrote:
Traditionally it [abortion] was illegal,

Nope, not in the founding era.

In their past, in their parents lives. Why do you keep thinking that people with a preference for the past prefer the distant past and that any example you can find in the distant past that semantically contradicts the notion refutes it?

If you go far back enough there was nothing illegal, at some point it becomes pointless and what is more relevant to this distinction of political personality is what their past was like.

Abortion was illegal in their recent past (from roughly 1900 to mid 1970s). Don't you think that is a stronger influence on them than the fact that if you go far enough back there is not going to be a law about abortion?

Do you see conservatives as people who on the subject of abortion want to go back to their previous culture vs the modern or future culture? It seems like an obvious fit and that these examples are merely good semantic arguments that ignore the general thrust of what I'm saying entirely.

Quote:

According to Blackstone (1765), for example, an individual's right under English law to live only begins with quickening, which happens about four to five months into the pregnancy. That's barely more restrictive than the law in America today, and far more permissive than what Republicans want.

Do you think that 1765 is more relevant to politics today than 1965? In 1965 abortion was illegal in much of the US, why would it be more relevant what it was like in 1765 to people today?

Quote:

Immigration was, for practical purposes, completely open from the founding (1776) to the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). It remained almost completely open to anyone but the Chinese until the early 1920s, despite Trump-style resentment against whatever the current wave of immigrants was. (First the Germans, then the Irish, then the Italians and the Russians --- you name it, there was a Trump agitating against it.) Anti-immigration policies are not traditional in America. Most of them began in the Progressive Era. (Although, to be sure, correlation is not causation.)

The key desire with immigration laws are not to erect immigration laws but to preserve demographics they prefer. To prefer an ethnic majority that is shrinking to not shrink.

So again, it doesn't really matter that what the laws were like in the 1700s to these people, they are people who prefer immigration laws (new ones even!) to preserve the culture of their past, the culture of their parents versus that of their children.

Quote:

So even by the examples you gave, Republican policies are not conservative, and Democratic policies not progressive as you define it.

Oh but they are, and you are taking a strange semantic approach to them and seemingly willfully ignoring what the clear meaning I am using is.

Conservatives are obviously people who prefer the way of life of their parents vs their children. Progressives are people who prefer the way of life of their children to that of their parents.

And inordinate literalists are people who will take this simple concept and deem the absence of a law in the 1700s as a reasonable refutation of it based on an extremely narrow interpretation of "change". It seems purposefully silly to do this.

On every single one of these issues the descriptions fit, demonstrating that hundreds of years ago this was not the case does nothing to refute that it is the case for these people today.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Do you see Republicans as people who generally want the way of life that they used to have or that their parents have vs the way of life that they think their children and grandchildren will have?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to shirk your question. No, I don't see Republicans that way. If the median Republican lawmaker is in his mid-fifties, he grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, in a society with economic institutions well to the left of today's and social attitudes that were at least not consistently to the right of today's. (They wee more to the left in part and more to the right in other parts.)

That's a stark contrast to today's Republican platform. If implemented, it would transport America back into a political past before living memory. It would reverse, not just the reforms of Johnson's Great Society, but also the New Deal and most of what's left of the Progressive-Era reforms. (I say "most" because I don't think they'd dare touch the vote for women.) That's a past well before the youth of any Republican politician today, and well before the lifetime of most Republican politicians' parents.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Fiscal conservative vs fiscal liberal: I am pretty centrist here with a preference for overall frugality in government [...] On this I'd say I slightly lean Republican

You may want to check how America's budgets have changed under recent Republican and Democratic presidents. Until the 1970s, both parties delivered budgets that were more or less in balance. Afterwards, beginning with the Reagan tax cuts, the balance has consistently deteriorated under Republican presidents and consistently improved under Democrats. The Republican party, then, is not the party of overall frugality, and you are a Democrat in every political dimension that you care about. Like it or not.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I don't need to check it to know that there is really no fiscally conservative party in the US in my lifetime. And yeah if I wanted to play to the crowd on a2k I could talk about how there has never been a Republican I'd vote for, and how reactionary they currently are etc. That seems to be the thrust of your point, which I don't disagree with but that I don't find as interesting as coming to deep understandings about what fundamentally separates human beings instinctually.

When I talk about progressives and conservatives I'm trying not to make the familiar partisan points in US politics and I think it's more interesting to understand what fundamental political axes there are.

This is undeniably one of them, and a very prevalent one that influences politics in almost any scale. From the micro scale of A2K and how people see cultural and technological change here to how even though Islamic fundamentalists are actually doubling down on "tradition" and hearkening to an even more primitive interpretation of Islam than ever this is fundamentally about fundamentalists resisting what they see as their future, with globalism and perceived American imperialism.

They aren't scholars who look up exactly what a literalists definition of a conservative should be and want academic rigor in mirroring that clear definition of their politics. This is really about a fundamental personality type that separates many in politics between people who embrace the direction of society's evolutions and people who are wary of it.

You see this split (not all are split this way but it is a very prevalent axis) in almost any political setting.

And yes, Republicans are undeniably the conservatives and Democrats undeniably the progressives in this contest, this is something so obvious that very very few people would dispute it.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Robert Gentel wrote:
Do you see Republicans as people who generally want the way of life that they used to have or that their parents have vs the way of life that they think their children and grandchildren will have?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to shirk your question. No, I don't see Republicans that way. If the median Republican lawmaker is in his mid-fifties, he grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, in a society with economic institutions well to the left of today's and social attitudes that were at least not consistently to the right of today's. (They wee more to the left in part and more to the right in other parts.)

I think you are being entirely too literal to see the obvious truth in front of you. You are so insistent on portraying them as reactionary beyond a historical degree that you refuse to acknowledge the obvious that yes if you ask Republicans they generally want the culture that their parents had versus that they think their children will have. And if you ask Democrats they will answer generally in the opposite.

It is patently obvious that yes, Republicans in general are the party for those who generally oppose the changes in culture and the direction they see the future changes going and Democrats are the party for those who generally favor the direction culture is evolving.

Quote:

That's a stark contrast to today's Republican platform. If implemented, it would transport America back into a political past before living memory. It would reverse, not just the reforms of Johnson's Great Society, but also the New Deal and most of what's left of the Progressive-Era reforms.

This is merely just the doubling down of the tendency that the conservative/progressive axis describes and doesn't at all indict this as either a valid, relevant political axis nor Republicans as clear conservatives on this axis.

It is entirely typical for a party on either side of the aisle to double down on the extremity of the changes they advocate. This may make them not fit your extremely literal interpretations of what a conservative or progressive means but it doesn't in any way indict the meaning most people use this to mean.

Quote:

That's a past well before the youth of any Republican politician today, and well before the lifetime of most Republican politicians' parents.

Still it's the past right? You are being so literal that I think that if I just join you in basing Republicans a minute and agree that the Republican party is currently extreme and silly that maybe you can acknowledge that your difference with my definitions are not of substance but merely of tone.

These people are still not progressives. They are still conservatives, and just because they want something extreme doesn't change that you yourself acknowledge that they are pushing in a specific direction: the past.

This is a relevant political axis and one of the most relevant of political axes, on the level of fiscal conservative/fiscal liberal and authoritarian/libertarian axes. And despite the semantics and quibbling to preach to the choir to me on the state of the Republican party it is obvious which party is which on this political axis.

Yes Republicans are conservative.

Yes Democrats are progressives.

If we agree that Republicans are currently silly and extreme maybe we can move on to this obvious political truth.

0 Replies

What does the word 'progressive' mean? Line up to tell me, take a ticket!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know