- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 19, 2010 at 3:07 pm #595616
JoBParticipantI won’t mention who because he was a nice kid
… ok..ok..so i have officially turned into an old fart…
but one of our local campaigners dropped by the house this weekend and when asked what was progressive about him, he told me that progressive was just the new label for democrats:(
is this the new face of progressive democrats… as lazy and inarticulate as the republicans.. expecting us to salivate at buzzwords like progressive?
if you want my vote… make the word progressive on your campaign literature stand for something worthwhile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
progressive is not just another label for democrat.
July 19, 2010 at 6:44 pm #699466
YardvarkMemberI think there’s a lot of progressives out there who would be deeply insulted by that responce from one of our local campaigners, and I think it’s important that you share who that was, JoB.
July 19, 2010 at 7:03 pm #699467
KenParticipantPeople also think progressive is a replacement word for liberal.
In the past there were republican liberals as well as progressives.
No more. They have been purged. Well maybe the teabaggers will finish the job…
Here is the last one I have read:
Excerpt:
Past “liberal” republicans such as Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, La Guardia, Thomas Dewey, Nelson Rockefeller and Earl Warren represented Republicans who adhered to basic liberal ideology of positive government action to alleviate economic and social ills and to funnel and guide in a basic way the powerful free-market system to ultimately benefit not the CEO’s or stockholders or the upper echelon of society but for the rest of Americans.
People of a political unit (City, State or country)owning and operating their infrastructure (Roads, water, power and waste disposal) are progressive values and have been under attack by conservatives for decades. As liberals and progressives are driven out of the republican party, electing republican becomes more dangerous since the corporate, theocratic and know nothing (teabagger) wings are all that is left.
July 19, 2010 at 7:16 pm #699468
JoBParticipantYardvark..
LOL… i think the conversation he had with me was probably censure enough .. and hopefully educational:)
July 19, 2010 at 7:16 pm #699469
CarsonParticipantKen,
You forget to also mention the original Liberals. Our Founding Fathers, a few of whom actually participated in The Tea Party (which has little to do with a group using the same name these days).
July 19, 2010 at 7:26 pm #699470
YardvarkMemberAs long as you set him straight, JoB. He was probably just delusional from all the doorbellin’.
July 19, 2010 at 7:35 pm #699471
JulieMemberHmm. It’s pretty easy to refute. Just reference the Blue Dogs.
July 19, 2010 at 9:10 pm #699472
JoBParticipantYardvark..
having interacted with the group of “progressives” who came out for the primary.. i don’t think he really knew the difference. I am sure they didn’t.
i am glad to see all of the political enthusiasm in younger people.. i just wish they were more informed.
it probably seemed to him that i was quibbling.. but these things matter. If you don’t know what you stand for.. how can you stand?
and yes.. i did set him straight.
julie..
i did ;->
July 19, 2010 at 10:03 pm #699473
DPMemberAh, but what does it mean to be “progressive” anyway?
Ken, you’ve given one example of a political value (local ownership and control) but I don’t think you’d be able to find any conservative (tea-flavored or otherwise) coming out against something like that.
Something a conservative might be against, I imagine, is local infrastructure being regulated by an expanding federal government. But is that something a progressive would be against? Not necessarily . . .
Hm . . .
JoB, would you be willing to consider that part of the problem stems from the loaded nature of this term “progressive”? All it means, technically, is someone who’s for progress. But when’s the last time you heard someone come out against it?
See, when you call yourself progressive, you are asking people to buy into your assertion that you are somehow more enlightened (i.e., for progress) than the other guy.
Hell, maybe you are . . . but the label itself doesn’t mean much until it’s put into the context of deeds. And even then, it’s the deeds that are important, not the label.
It’s kind of like starting off a discussion about Israel by referring to Jews as “God’s Chosen People.”
Still, it IS important to talk about progress, so let’s talk about that.
Yeah. Um . . . So what is it?
Well, to a liberal, it might mean spending more on the social safety net, on the theory that it will lift people out of poverty. To a conservative, it might mean cutting taxes on the same theory, viz., that it will lift people out of poverty. Since both programs aim to move society forward, then either one would constitute a progressive program, would it not?
So what I’m saying, JoB, in a very roundabout way, is that you are absolutely right to question ANY candidate referring to himself as “progressive” and expecting to get your vote based on that.
So I agree with you, actually.
Just not for the reasons you wanted me to.
;->
Anyway, have a progressive day, y’all.
July 19, 2010 at 11:10 pm #699474
YardvarkMemberAgreed, DP. But the one definition that doesn’t work is:
“Progressive is just the new label for Democrats”
It’s a bit worrisome and kinda offesive if one of our Democrat cadidates actually believes that. A lot of folks who might be happy to be labeled progressive – whatever it means to them – might not dig being automatically lumped in with a political organization.
July 20, 2010 at 12:10 am #699475
KenParticipantIf a republican has supported municipal ownership of any infrastructure, in the last 40 years, I seem to have missed them.
http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=MUNI_History_II:_The_Progressive_Era_and_Public_Development
But that is all history.
Nearly everyone is unsure what progressive really means.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141218/americans-unsure-progressive-political-label.aspx
July 20, 2010 at 1:53 am #699476
JoBParticipantwiki says it well..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
“American progressives tend to support international economics: they advocate progressive taxation and oppose the growing influence of corporations. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. Yet progressives tend to be more concerned with environmentalism than mainstream liberals.”
considering where progressive thought began in the united states… agian from wiki..
“The Progressive Movement began in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women.”
it’s unlikely that progressives are going to advocate a “free market” … since a free market does not protect workers at all.
or.. you could just read the progressive. lots of good ideas in there :)
July 20, 2010 at 2:55 am #699477
maplesyrupParticipantAre opposition to corporations and progressive taxation tenets of international economics? What defines “international economics” anyway? I’m curious.
July 20, 2010 at 3:54 am #699478
DPMember“International economics” is indeed a bit vague. By that, the Wiki author(s) probably meant someone who sees both American workers and American corporations as part of a global whole.
In any case, Wiki’s definition, though accurate, is also limited to a certain historical context. It’s talking about the Progressive Movement, as opposed to a broader set of principles. (By Wiki’s definition Teddy Roosevelt, grand imperialist though he was, was still a Progressive.)
There are some folks around today who would very much like to resurrect the Progressive Movement of the early 1900s. I could go for that, as long as there were some updates to account for a vastly more globalized economy.
The Green Party has borrowed a lot from the Progressive Movement. Maybe they’re what we need.
July 20, 2010 at 1:15 pm #699479
TDeParticipantGeez, give the kid a break. He might have just been caught off guard by your question. We all shoot our mouths off sometimes and say things we wish we could take back. One of those young political wannabees came to my gate yesterday and the fact that he was doing a lot of hard leg work (I live on a hill) impressed me. He took the time to shake my hand and introduce himself and scored some points with me just for doing that. I’ll check out his political positions closer as his campaign progresses.
Interesting information posted on Progressive thought though. Thanks for the good info.
July 20, 2010 at 1:29 pm #699480
KenParticipantSeattle Dems are mostly progressives anyway. With just enough of us old fashioned liberals to keep them from “going Nader” at election time.
The kid can be forgiven for not living through the “blue hair old ladies only” era of the 34th district Democrats. Though some of them were really hard core progressives too.
July 20, 2010 at 4:50 pm #699481
JoBParticipantDP..
imperialism somewhat worked in teddy’s day…
he was too busy reforming American institutions to worry to much about what was happening outside our borders..
these days the focus on international politics is due to the fact that it no longer does… we will have to take a wider perspective than our shores if we want to compete globally.
July 20, 2010 at 4:54 pm #699482
JoBParticipantKen…
i forgive him for his lack of historical perspective… but worry that the new crop of kids actually think Obama’s politics are progressive:(
We will only make progress by electing more democrats and holding their collective feet to the fire… and
our newly elected representatives won’t do that if they don’t understand the need.
July 20, 2010 at 6:52 pm #699483
YardvarkMemberSadly, JoB, recent tragic events have shown we won’t make progress by electing more Democrats.
How can they take risky and progresive stances when they’re so handicapped by their party’s consequent vulnerabilities?
They can’t. Their first allegiance is to the Donkey. So what we’ll end up with are Obama progressives, who are forced to look at their party’s overall national strategy rather than just advocating for what they might believe is right.
We end up with progressives who were more worried about mid-election election disasters for their Democratic party that they were for the potential (and now very real) disaster in the Gulf.
Or progressives that, upon closer examination, realize that closing Guantanamo would make their Democratic Party look weak on national defense, despite the fact that the opeation remains undeniably and uncomfortably illegal on all counts.
They are not progressives. They are Democrats. And the other boys and girls at the party across the street are not conservatives. They are Republicans.
You just can’t elect a Party and expect an idealogy. It doesn’t work that way.
You can, however, elect an independent.
July 20, 2010 at 6:59 pm #699484
CarsonParticipantWhat Yardvark said. Twice over.
July 20, 2010 at 7:12 pm #699485
DPMemberYardvark, you’re officially in my will. (Shall I put you down for the toaster oven or the end tables?)
Just beware, for if you vote independent on any race where it actually matters, you will feel the Wrath of the Donkey!
July 20, 2010 at 7:45 pm #699486
charlabobParticipantAnd, if enough people feel that way, we will wind up with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House John Boehner. And if you do anything to make that happen, you will face not only the wrath of the donkey — but, additionally, the contempt of people with a clew(tm)
July 20, 2010 at 8:03 pm #699487
YardvarkMemberIf enough people feel that way, we’ll end up with politicians who have enough backbone to stand up to Donkeys, or at least to stand free of them.
July 20, 2010 at 8:10 pm #699488
DPMemberI’ve said it before, I’ll say it again . . .
(only a little differently each time, just to keep the spice in our relationship)
The reason we wind up with the politicians we wind up with is because we set our sights so low.
If the Dems really served their constituencies, then more people would vote for the Dems and wouldn’t feel compelled to either stay home or vote for third-party candidates. If Patty Murray loses to Dino Rossi because I didn’t vote for her, then the blame rests firmly with her, for not doing what she should have done, like ending the war(s).
I get so tired of hearing Patty Murray talk about all she’s doing for our injured vets. Why doesn’t she do something to keep them from getting injured in the first place?
Why doesn’t she bring them home?
Now there’s a clew(tm) for you!
July 20, 2010 at 8:12 pm #699489
CarsonParticipantThere aren’t enough people, so in the mean time we walk into the booth (or open the envelope), hold our nose and vote for the least objectionable. Principle is great, but the last time we voted on principle we sent 5000 kids to their death and watch the economy crumble. Never again.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.