What if they lose?????

ebrown_p wrote:

I think I disappoint you Asherman. I am a solid progressive.

By what objective definition of progress?

0 Replies

I don't know what ebrown would say, but "progressive" here in the U.S., Thomas, means they want to grant more power to government.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I don't know what ebrown would say, but "progressive" here in the U.S., Thomas, means they want to grant more power to government.

Thanks, okie, but I know what it means. I was asking because the word "progressive" bemuses me. Although you can disagree somewhat about what "liberty" means, too, "liberal", which at least has some discernible meaning. It means that someone is trying to advance liberty. "Progressive", on the other hand, merely means "pro-good, anti-bad". Without further information on what's considered good, the word means basically nothing. I don't understand why anyone would trade in "liberal" for it.

0 Replies

Thomas, I understand "liberal" means something quite a bit different there where you live than it does here? Here, I do not think anybody associates the word "liberal" with "liberty."

I think some liberals here like to use "progressive" because many people view "liberals" in a bad light because of some fairly extreme ideas attached with that philosophy. For the average uninformed citizen, they may not know what "progressive" means, so it sounds good, right, because who could be anti-progress?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Thomas, I understand "liberal" means something quite a bit different there where you live than it does here? Here, I do not think anybody associates the word "liberal" with "liberty."

I do. Liberalism (to me, at least) is the belief that new ideas and thoughts are equally as valid as old ideas and thoughts. Liberty is the freedom to have

I think some liberals here like to use "progressive" because many people view "liberals" in a bad light because of some fairly extreme ideas attached with that philosophy. For the average uninformed citizen, they may not know what "progressive" means, so it sounds good, right, because who could be anti-progress?[/quote]

Conservatives have tried pretty hard to make 'Liberal' into a curse word in America. Progressive is more than a re-branding of the word 'liberal,' it is the idea that we have a long way to progress as a society and as a species before we will achieve the goals set forth in the US constitution: freedom, equality, liberty, and justice for all. Not just Americans, or rich Americans, but everyone, everywhere.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I am using "progressive" as a self-label which, for the purpose of this discussion I will define (circularly) as a set of positions in political issues which I agree with. In general I favor civil rights, promote effective social programs backed by a reasonable and just tax structure and personal privacy without government intrusion.

Any label is useful only as a shortcut. This term is somewhat useful since it is used by many people who agree with me on most issues also define themselves with the same label.

I don't use the term "liberal" for two reasons. First "liberal" now is largely a straw man set up for derision by hate radio commentors. Second, I differ from many people who have traditionally used this label in the US in issues like protectionism.

I have outlined my positions on the important issues here and elsewhere. If my label "progressive" works for you, use it. If not just look at the principles I stand for and the issues I support.

0 Replies

... oh, and the important part is that "progressives", defined as people who hold the same positions that I do, hope the Democrats to win big in November.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I am using "progressive" as a self-label which, for the purpose of this discussion I will define (circularly) as a set of positions in political issues which I agree with.

Thanks for being candid about it, ebrown_p. I think that's exactly what "progressive" means for people who call themselves by this name. As okie says, it describes something that everyone is for and feels good about, without any discernible meaning to anyone but the speaker. I find the current usage of "progressive" as simplistic and annoying as Bush's "battle between good and evil". Like it or not, neocons and progressives are all united in being pro-good, anti-evil, pro-progress, and anti-regress. Please excuse my impatience with such meaningless self-labelling.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

... oh, and the important part is that "progressives", defined as people who hold the same positions that I do, hope the Democrats to win big in November.

U-oh! By this definition, I am at least moderately progressive -- although my own idea of progress is best served by a gridlocked Congress, not a Democratic landslide.

0 Replies

Quote:

Like it or not, neocons and progressives are all united in being pro-good, anti-evil, pro-progress, and anti-regress.

I don't believe that Neocons are 'pro-good' or 'anti-evil.' They haven't displayed a lick of it in the entire time their officials have been in office.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Okie

okie wrote:

I don't know what ebrown would say, but "progressive" here in the U.S., Thomas, means they want to grant more power to government.

Your version of history never fails to amaze me.

Can you name another president who has been "granted" more power than George W. Bush. His administration set out to give more power to the executive branch by weakening the judiciary and legislative branches.
He has been the most successful at this in history (with the possible brief exception of Lincoln during the civil war.)

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Like it or not, neocons and progressives are all united in being pro-good, anti-evil, pro-progress, and anti-regress.

I don't believe that Neocons are 'pro-good' or 'anti-evil.' They haven't displayed a lick of it in the entire time their officials have been in office.
Cycloptichorn

Many Republicans believe the same about you when you were in office, and conclude that you are against progress.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I don't know what ebrown would say, but "progressive" here in the U.S., Thomas, means they want to grant more power to government.

BBB answered this, but I also found this statement odd-- given that we progressives are opposed to the Patriot Act, opposed to increased wiretapping without a warrant and insisting on the right to habeus corpous.

All of these things are examples of progressives opposing those who would grant more power to government.

0 Replies

Re: Okie

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

okie wrote:
I don't know what ebrown would say, but "progressive" here in the U.S., Thomas, means they want to grant more power to government.

Your version of history never fails to amaze me.

Can you name another president who has been "granted" more power than George W. Bush. His administration set out to give more power to the executive branch by weakening the judiciary and legislative branches.
He has been the most successful at this in history (with the possible brief exception of Lincoln during the civil war.)

How about FDR? He had thousands of Americans of Japanese heritage locked up in camps, for the mere reason of their heritage. Do you think Bush has even 1% of this amount of power? This is only one tiny example of probably many more, but this should suffice to prove your point is fallacious.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Like it or not, neocons and progressives are all united in being pro-good, anti-evil, pro-progress, and anti-regress.

I don't believe that Neocons are 'pro-good' or 'anti-evil.' They haven't displayed a lick of it in the entire time their officials have been in office.
Cycloptichorn

Many Republicans believe the same about you when you were in office, and conclude that you are against progress.

I haven't held office previous to this point, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Cycloptichorn Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

I am working very hard to push the Democrats away from the center. I should be the Democrats base and I think they should cater to me. After all the Republicans cater to their base and it doesn't seem to have hurt them much (at least until now).

I think you are wrong in believing that the Democratic Party will gain strength and elective office by abandoning the Center for the more "ideologically" pure partisan activists on the margins.

The GOP has never been so apt to become self-destructive as the Democrats. There is a solid partisan base to the GOP, just as there is in the Democratic Party, but the Democrats hate one another almost as much as they hate the GOP.

The GOP took a terrible political hit with Nixon, but Ford began putting things back together both for the Nation and the Party. The electorate chose Jimmy Carter largely because we were disgusted with the low character displayed by Nixon, and many believed that a good and virtuous man at the helm just might make things better. The Democrats sure pushed that plank of the platform, and many Republicans voted Democratic. I voted for Carter, and I still have great admiration for his humanity and essential goodness. On the other hand, he was a terrible Presidential leader. He was, or should have been an inoculation against political wishing. The Democrats pounded us with George Bush's "Read my lips; no new taxes" after his administrating found it necessary to raise tax revenues in the short term. A stodgy Republican running against an attractive young sax player from Arkansas gave the Democrats a new opportunity to show what they could do. They claimed the economic benefits from the two previous administrations, and screwed up their major project ... revision of the U.S. Health Care system. They cut the military in real terms, and their approach to national security was at best lackadaisical. The emphasis was on domestic tranquility, and was largely successful. Clinton occupied the center, not the fringes.

Since Clinton the Democratic Party seems to have totally abandoned the center, and so long as that condition prevails the GOP will probably remain either in power, or so strongly entrenched that the Democratic ideologues will be unable to implement policies that depart drastically from the center. Bush has had the backing of the Evangelicals, and that is doubtlessly a powerful voting block, but his real strength lies in the center where traditional American values, optimism and confidence are still important.

0 Replies

Quote:

Bush has had the backing of the Evangelicals, and that is doubtlessly a powerful voting block, but his real strength lies in the center where traditional American values, optimism and confidence are still important.

This is, of course, a matter of opinion that will be only answerable (with hindsight) in ten years or so. But, I don't swallow the idea that Bush is anywhere near the center and many of his conservative positions are things that the majority of Americans don't support.

But, let's see what happens with the next couple of elections. I know where my hope lies.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

okie wrote:
I don't know what ebrown would say, but "progressive" here in the U.S., Thomas, means they want to grant more power to government.

BBB answered this, but I also found this statement odd-- given that we progressives are opposed to the Patriot Act, opposed to increased wiretapping without a warrant and insisting on the right to habeus corpous.

All of these things are examples of progressives opposing those who would grant more power to government.

You have chosen a couple of very narrow issues as regards to national security and police protection of citizens, which conservatives believe are one of the legitimate uses of government, but surely you must confess that progressives are more socialistic and therefore more pro-active for government intervention into almost everything. So I don't know what is so odd about my statement. It is pretty common knowledge what a progressive is, so if you are one, you should own up to it.

0 Replies

When all else fails, so long as Hope survives you aren't dead yet.

As I've said before, I expect the Democrats to win seats in both Houses. It is even possible, because the numbers are so close, that the Democrats will be in the majority by the end of November. I don't regard this election as a referendum on George Bush, or the ability of the Republican Party to conduct effective government. I'm sure you disagree, but that's only one opinion against another.

Actually, a Democratic majority in the Congress could well backfire on them in the next Presidential canvass.

In the immortal words of Jesse Unrhu, "In politics, two weeks is forever". Jesse was the Democratic political Boss who pretty much ruled California for decades. Not a particularily nice man, but oh what a political savant. The Democratic Party could sure use his insights into politics now.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

but surely you must confess that progressives are more socialistic and therefore more pro-active for government intervention into almost everything

Not true. I also want no government intervention in

- which consenting adult I choose to marry
- whether my wife chooses an abortion
- in which language I choose to conduct my business or educate my kids
- what type of non-violent expression I choose to protest against the government
- what I choose to watch on television

There are plenty of areas that I wish government would simply butt out of.

0 Replies

What if they lose?????

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know