That's beautiful, almost like a Liberal trying to describe himself in the best possible light.
I take it a Progressive is the Liberals version of the Conservatives NeoCon.
Classical liberalism is probably the ultimate in the human condition, being based on freedom as an ideal. The only problem is that liberalism has evolved to not accept reasonable consequences for one's actions. These are off-the-cuff idealized descriptions, granted, but then almost no one is a completely pure liberal or conservative. People are generally somewhat pragmatic as well as moved by their own biases. Few liberals want drug cartels to have free rein inside the USA; few conservatives want people to die rather than be treated in emergency rooms. Although it's always difficult to recognize one's own biases and prejudices, I know for instance that I differ from true libertarianism (arguably classical liberalism) on many issues, such as the need to protect the environment overriding one's natural right to dispose of one's property as one sees fit, or that Social Security and welfare (applied narrowly) are worth the loss of individual freedom to provide a safety net of socialized (as opposed to private) charity and are better to maintain an individual who is too old or infirm to do for himself with a certain dignity and a lifestyle at the poverty level in a modern society.
Werepossum's description of a progressive sounds a lot like a socialist to me.
On a side, I'm not sure I agree with the part where liberals believe they should help others who can, but do not, help themselves. We may be more apt to support welfare programs, but I don't think true liberals want a welfare state. Maybe I'm not a real liberal when it comes to welfare (if what you are describing is actually liberal). Then again, "those who can't help themselves" may be a gray area. Are we talking about people who could work but do not?
I'm not sure what "cult of the individual" means, but I do advocate for more social responsibility.
A progressive is a socialist or worse, dedicated to achieving through slower means what his brethren in Cuba achieved via revolution. As with liberals and conservatives not all progressives are in favor of full socialism (i.e. communism), but they seem to be generally more radical than are classical liberals and conservatives. Another good definition of a progressive would be a statist, as he is dedicated to increasing the power of the state at the expense of the individual.
Perhaps a better description of a liberal's view of welfare would be that liberals tend to see failure to succeed as evidence of inability to succeed, due either to personal deficiencies or more likely to systemic failures and prejudice. I think the main differences between a classical liberal and a conservative on the welfare state are first, a wide difference in how many people they think can truly not take care of themselves, and second, the liberal belief that we collectively have a responsibility to take care of those who do not take care of themselves even though they could. A progressive on the other hand welcomes all to welfare as everyone has an inherent right to the necessities of life regardless of whether or not he choose to contribute - and of course each new welfare deadbeat increases government's power and contributes to the leveling of society. (And an anarchist believes that no one should receive welfare even though he's probably on it.)
A good example of people who could help themselves but don't would be someone who drops out of school and maybe works a minimum amount at a minimum wage job. He could have finished high school - but he'd rather smoke dope and play video games. He could take classes to get his G.E.D. or specialized training - but he doesn't. He could show up early, stay late, work hard, look for what needs to be done without waiting to be told, volunteer to learn new skills, and generally be an exceptional employee who will work his way up the ladder to success - but it's easier to be a slacker. So what does society owe him? A conservative would say not a damned thing, though probably relenting for things like access to free life-saving emergency care and free education for his kids. A liberal would say society owes him as many second chances as he "needs", that society needs to provide free adult education opportunities (and pay him while he attends) and welfare when he is between jobs, that society needs to force people to pay him a "living wage". And a progressive would say he deserves to have the government take money from the "more fortunate" and give it to him. Each can provide some justification for his position: He failed to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by living in the greatest country on Earth; Just because he screwed up doesn't mean we shouldn't take from others to give him a chance to become more productive and therefor successful - that's promoting the general welfare and the common good; Society discriminates and his chances were not nearly as good as the chances that many others had, so he deserves the same rewards and generally the same lifestyle that other people have.
Facebook
Twitter