Is "progressive" the new "liberal?"

[ebaycj]

In all seriousness, does the right ever change the names for its issues?

Like global warming to climate change, liberal to progressive?

In all seriousness, the right never changes anything. That's the problem.

 

[Atreus21]

Representing the welfare of the society on behalf of the people, able to stand up to powerful interests who want to excessively further their own interests against the people.

That means things like having policies under which the people prosper the most - tax policies that result in a prosperous society, enough but not too much inequality, etc.

The government facilitates a strong economy - so that productive activities are encouraged and rewarded while harmful ones are discouraged or prohobited.

Sometimes that means getting out of the way, other times intervening. The discussion is more difficult because of the warped nature of activity since Reagan's shifts.

It also means protecting individual rights, from abuses by private forces or the government.

In short, there are two basic models - the high concentration of wealth with a few rich and powerful and the masses serving them in relative poverty, or a strong middle class.

Liberals are for the strong middle class, the doing well by as many as possible.

Freedom, prosperity, peace are the goals of the liberal government.

The liberal recognizes the danger of private tyrrany, not only public tyrrany like the right. Liberals are not anti-well off, they're anti-robber baron rich hurting the public.

Then we don't disagree on the ends, just the means.

My opinion, which I believe to be backed up in the real world, is that the best way to promote the middle class is to allow the free market to function. My belief is that, in the long term, the free market promotes equilibrium, not monopoly and abuse.

I know how much you dislike Friedman, but I think he asked a very important question in, "What is greed?" In my estimation, it's a word that thrown around like socialism; a word used to villify OTHERS, not ourselves. What actions of mine you might call greedy, the same actions of yours you'd call protecting yourself. It's self-interest, not greed. I don't think they're coterminous.

Something else I think liberals and conservatives have to agree on, if ever we are to cooperate consistently, is the fixed pie scenario. As I understand it, Liberals by and large believe that the pie is fixed: One gains at the expense of another. Whereas conservatives believe what Smith pointed out: If two parties voluntarily are allowed to negotiate an agreement, they will both profit, or get a fair trade.

I don't disagree with hardly any of liberals' stated goals, even with respect to abortion. Abortion is the means, not a goal, and its the means I disagree with.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In all seriousness, the right never changes anything. That's the problem.

We have the progressives in NY who have managed to come up with their own little twists. They changed things alright. They decided after decades that there was fraud in the Medicaid system. Well imagine that! The kindly souls then decided that Medicaid recipients would have to show their card each time to get benefits. Good idea.

What's the problem? Well they changed things before giving everyone the chance to get their new cards and now they are going without their AIDS medications and the like. It's a perfect example of how things really work .

They changed things alright.

 

[wwswimming]

if you want to check out pseudo-progressives, come to Wacco ...
http://www.waccobb.net/forums/discussion-board/

notice the ads ...
http://www.lovejourneytantra.com/taoist_massage.htm
"This workshop will synthesize the wisdom of many traditions – both modern & ancient – that celebrates the great gateway to the Infinite that is the Yoni & rejoices in the sacred Vajra Wand of Light."

http://www.waccobb.net/forums/event...air-3-27-sebastopol-more-info.html#post107799
"Spring Renewal Wellness Fair"

/\ pseudo-progressives. my 10 foot pole isn't long enough.

anybody got a 20 foot pole ?

 

[QuantumPion]

The term progressive originally referred to early 20th century intellectuals whom thought that people were stupid and needed a strong centralized government of elites to rule them. Progressives of the day include Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Mussolini and Hitler. The term went out of style after WW2 due to the obvious associations, but is now making a comeback due to the realization of modern progressives that "hey, except for the genocide, I generally agree with Hitler's agenda and policy decisions".

 

[Craig234]

The term progressive originally referred to early 20th century intellectuals whom thought that people were stupid and needed a strong centralized government of elites to rule them. Progressives of the day include Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Mussolini and Hitler. The term went out of style after WW2 due to the obvious associations, but is now making a comeback due to the realization of modern progressives that "hey, except for the genocide, I generally agree with Hitler's agenda and policy decisions".

Stop lying. None of those people were progressives, but FDR was at least a lot closer.

Hitler and Mussoli were fascists - you know, the opposite of progressives, Mussolini the founder and mentor to Hitler, who helped fascist Franco in Spain - in a war where progressives all over the world went to Spain to fight Franco and defend freedom, and lost the war. The right in the meantime was happy to do business with them.

 

[Craig234]

if you want to check out pseudo-progressives, come to Wacco ...
http://www.waccobb.net/forums/discussion-board/

notice the ads ...
http://www.lovejourneytantra.com/taoist_massage.htm
"This workshop will synthesize the wisdom of many traditions – both modern & ancient – that celebrates the great gateway to the Infinite that is the Yoni & rejoices in the sacred Vajra Wand of Light."

http://www.waccobb.net/forums/event...air-3-27-sebastopol-more-info.html#post107799
"Spring Renewal Wellness Fair"

/\ pseudo-progressives. my 10 foot pole isn't long enough.

anybody got a 20 foot pole ?

That's new age. Many new agers might be progressive, but most progressives are not new age.

It's a little like how the extremist fundamentalist religious right are usually 'conservatives', but the conservatives are not necessarily extreme religious right.

 

[Craig234]

Then we don't disagree on the ends, just the means.

My opinion, which I believe to be backed up in the real world, is that the best way to promote the middle class is to allow the free market to function. My belief is that, in the long term, the free market promotes equilibrium, not monopoly and abuse.

Well we sure do agree on those things.

How was the government not 'free market' in the late 19th century leading to progressive reforn? Or in the 1920's - poverty for most, wealth for a minority - leading to FDR reform?

Seems to me anyone who has any basic knowledge of economics knows the tendency to monopoly of unrestrained capitalism. It's basic and clear.

And yes, when the 'free market' has the greatest freedom, the abuse has been high.

You are writing like an ideologue on this, denying the basic facts to further an ideological view that the 'free market' has all these pure benefits to worship and ignoring the facts.

I just suggest you look into the history and question whenther your conviction matches history and I suspect you are reasonable and can get a better undertanding.

I know how much you dislike Friedman, but I think he asked a very important question in, "What is greed?" In my estimation, it's a word that thrown around like socialism; a word used to villify OTHERS, not ourselves. What actions of mine you might call greedy, the same actions of yours you'd call protecting yourself. It's self-interest, not greed. I don't think they're coterminous.

Sigh, yiou are making me question my positive assumption above by reading from the gospel of ideological doctrine here, Ayn Rand ideology.

This has nothing to with 'greed'.

There are systems. They allow this or that. People had certain job options andincome in the late 90's, the 1920's, the 1950's, in Nazi Germany and Germany today.

Systems, not about 'greed'. People do what makes sense in these systems. Sometimes these systems allow for the concentration of power and wealth to exploit more, others less.

If the rules encourage corporations to exploit and become too big to fail and dominate our political system for their own benefit, they will and it has nothing to do with the CEO.

The CEO is merely doing what's in the corporation's interest under what's allowed, and if he won't he will not be CEO.

It's the rules being set up to incent things good for society.

Your greed talk is nothing but ideological propganda - no offense meant.

Something else I think liberals and conservatives have to agree on, if ever we are to cooperate consistently, is the fixed pie scenario. As I understand it, Liberals by and large believe that the pie is fixed: One gains at the expense of another. Whereas conservatives believe what Smith pointed out: If two parties voluntarily are allowed to negotiate an agreement, they will both profit, or get a fair trade.

Completely wrong.

I'll just repeat my opinion.

At any moment, the pie is fixed. Hey, we have a trong middle class! Hey, the middle are licking the boots of the rich while their children work in sweatshops for crumbs.

But economic systems either encourage the growth or shrinkging of the pie over time - and how it's allocated. FDR's changes led to plenty of pie growth in later decades, and more equal distribution. Those aren't just coincidences - as I've said, ie growth is reduced by both too low and too high wealth inequality.

I don't disagree with hardly any of liberals' stated goals, even with respect to abortion. Abortion is the means, not a goal, and its the means I disagree with.

I don't view abortion as a core liberal issue, even if most liberals hold one opinion. It's separate from the principles IMO.

But I agree with a lt of what conservatives think they are for. They are manipulated. If you like puppies, you're a conservative, they're told.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

But I agree with a lt of what conservatives think they are for. They are manipulated. If you like puppies, you're a conservative, they're told.

This is why I have a problem with progressives in general. There’s a pernicious idea on the left, derived from Marxism, known as “false consciousness“. It means that the proletariat have been brainwashed by the capitalists and deceived into thinking the capitalist status quo is good for them.

This is the “What is wrong with Kansas” conceit.(Or whatever that book was called; you know the one I’m talking about.) It’s a very convenient dogma for leftists, because it means that they can ignore cases where the majority oppose them. See, the majority don’t know what’s best for them, because they’ve been deceived by lies from the capitalists (e.g. the insurance companies) and demagogues (e.g. the Republicans).

So good and well-meaning leftists have an obligation to force the right programs through anyway despite the objections of the majority. And to use any tactic at all to make it happen. It’s for their own good, donchaknow?

Neat, huh?

 

[Craig234]

This is why I have a problem with progressives in general. There’s a pernicious idea on the left, derived from Marxism, known as “false consciousness“. It means that the proletariat have been brainwashed by the capitalists and deceived into thinking the capitalist status quo is good for them.

This is the “What is wrong with Kansas” conceit.(Or whatever that book was called; you know the one I’m talking about.) It’s a very convenient dogma for leftists, because it means that they can ignore cases where the majority oppose them. See, the majority don’t know what’s best for them, because they’ve been deceived by lies from the capitalists (e.g. the insurance companies) and demagogues (e.g. the Republicans).

So good and well-meaning leftists have an obligation to force the right programs through anyway despite the objections of the majority. And to use any tactic at all to make it happen. It’s for their own good, donchaknow?

Neat, huh?

The thing is, things can be twisted - and you twist them.

The fact is, there is a lot of truth to the misleading of the right followers.

Now, you can twist that all you like - turn it into its own deception, exaggerate it, and so on - you can even, though you didn't, find some real examples of abuse.

But it's a little like when someone points out (accurately) how cigarette companies have marketed to teens because they know that's when nearly all smokers get lifelong addictions and are especially susceptible to the marketing - it's true, but they can twist it. "Oh, you do gooders are calling the teens idiots, insulting them!" When it comes to adults, "you are against freedom!" No, we're for the freedom that comes from overcoming that teen-acquired lifelong addiction and their not suffering smoking illness for the profit of the tobacco companies, over the illusion of 'freedom' that the companies to disengenuously try to claim, pretending to be the ally of the smokers to protect their freedoms.

My view isn't based on Marx's theory; it's based on the situation. When I went to a county faire and saw each party's booth with a list of 'puppy dog' attributes to help people determine if they are aligned with that party, it was a great illustration of the technique. Some people see 'freedom' and 'prosperity' and say ya, they're for those things, and decide they're for that party.

It's a marketing method that not that many people are aware is very intentional. It's real, but you, the horse led to the water, don't drink but spit out that it's a 'marxist theory'.

You can't tell the difference between the accurate use of this stuff, and the theory of its being excessively blamed. You are the one spouting ideology.

Some of what the right believes is legitimate. Some is from propaganda. And some is a self-reinforcing shaping of opinions that comes from the people forming an echo chamber.

We could discuss which is which if you didn't put it all in a conspiracy theory, based on Marx no less (you never get tired of those four letters on your side).

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

We could discuss which is which if you didn't put it all in a conspiracy theory, based on Marx no less (you never get tired of those four letters on your side).

What makes you think that progressive's are free of manipulation and propaganda?

Also “False consciousness“ is a Marxist idea. I was making no association between Marxism and today's progressive's. You did that yourself. I think you are reading too much in to what I said.

Using a page from your play book: You couldn't have possibly understood what I meant anyway, because you are too stupid.

 

[Tab]

What the hell is the difference between liberal and progressive anyhow?

 

[Moonbeam]

The word progressive is like the term great person. It is an attempt by the most vile and contemptible of self haters to tag others as the garbage pit where these lowest of life forms can shit in symphonic harmony blowing the term progressive out their asses with farts. It is an attempt to create the one ring of power. It is a way for the nothings to attract attention to their stink by announcing themselves with the shit that flows from their asses.

The term progressive simply refers to an evolved human being as Negro just means black.

But there isn't much point in discussing this matter. Just as you can't put an old head on young shoulders, you can't give the less evolved your own evolution. It is like having climbed into the mountains into the fog. The more evolved are completely out of sight of the ignorant.

This is the way it is and this is the way it will always be. The dog will howl at the moon, uncomprehendingly.

But if the evolution of human society proceeds as it has in the past, the day will come when those who think like the progressive of today will be the assholes of tomorrow and the assholes of today will be ancient history.

 

[boomerang]

What the hell is the difference between liberal and progressive anyhow?

Liberals are OK with you doing your own thing.
Progressives think they know how to do it better than you and will go to any length to prove it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Liberals are OK with you doing your own thing.
Progressives think they know how to do it better than you and will go to any length to prove it.

Hahahahahaha, that's a good one. Hey dude, the only proof I need is for you to open your mouth.

 

[Jaskalas]

In all seriousness, the right never changes anything. That's the problem.

The dissonance here is that the right did in fact change and abandoned the constitution in favor of the election winning strategy of doling out big government dollars.

If they had never changed then things would be a lot better off today.

 

[Jaskalas]

Representing the welfare of the society on behalf of the people, able to stand up to powerful interests who want to excessively further their own interests against the people.

You do, of course, realize that our centralized government borne of tax and spend is the polar opposite of the principle you just stated? Are you honestly going to write here that you uphold the Bill of Rights and oppose everyone who works against it?

I don't believe you will, for if you were truthful to that principle you and I would be the same.

Or is it different means to the same end? Not that trading one oppressor for another would ever achieve your stated goal.

 

[MotF Bane]

So in other words, communists and socialists. Government is good, private is evil type.

Technically speaking, not accurate.

 

[theeedude]

In many countries "Liberal" refers to what we would call free market conservative or libertarian, and it's a dirty word there too
BTW, the evil ruining this country is Reaganite conservatism.

 

[her209]

In all seriousness, does the right ever change the names for its issues?

Like global warming to climate change, liberal to progressive?

You mean like changing "POW" to "enemy combatant"?

 

[yllus]

You mean like changing "POW" to "enemy combatant"?

Waterboarding <> torture?

 

[cubeless]

Do not forget that "Cap and Trade" is now "Pollution Reduction Targets."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6284M120100309



I do not know about you guys, but when I think "progressive," I think about Theodore Roosevelt rather than modern liberals.

boy is that what they want you to think... it must be working...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The word progressive is like the term great person. It is an attempt by the most vile and contemptible of self haters to tag others as the garbage pit where these lowest of life forms can shit in symphonic harmony blowing the term progressive out their asses with farts. It is an attempt to create the one ring of power. It is a way for the nothings to attract attention to their stink by announcing themselves with the shit that flows from their asses.

The term progressive simply refers to an evolved human being as Negro just means black.

But there isn't much point in discussing this matter. Just as you can't put an old head on young shoulders, you can't give the less evolved your own evolution. It is like having climbed into the mountains into the fog. The more evolved are completely out of sight of the ignorant.

This is the way it is and this is the way it will always be. The dog will howl at the moon, uncomprehendingly.

But if the evolution of human society proceeds as it has in the past, the day will come when those who think like the progressive of today will be the assholes of tomorrow and the assholes of today will be ancient history.

My problem M is that some Progressives (and I do not categorize everyone according to the little tags hung upon them. There are some I genuinely respect although I may differ with their POV on some issues) appeal to government in much the same way that the extreme right appeals to a Laissez faire system of capitalism. The latter doesn't work because the theory of competition leading to equity doesn't work, or at least the equity means a two class society.

Likewise a faith in government as a friend and partner is also naive. Time and again we see that there is a common thread between the two. The lust for power and control. The money isn't bad either.

The mentality in the ruling class (corporate or governmental) too often seen is that they know best, and their supporters will line up without really understanding the issues or what is in fact in the best interest of the people. To be sure, the goals sound good. Who doesn't want economic growth for all or those who are unfortunate to have insurance.

Hubris kicks in and decisions are made which cause companies to fail or government to institute insurance that people in dire need can't use.

Instead of examining why that is, the various sides proceed to circle up the wagon defending their philosophies rather than addressing the core issues.

To be sure that's as much a human failing as anything that those in charge have.

We need to see beyond Progressive and Right Wing and actually look at things as they are instead of pretending that if we do the same things harder over and over that the results will change. That's a definition of crazy as you pointed out recently.

Bottom line- the fault is in our almost religious faith in that which has not been demonstrated. Those in power on the earth seem to like to strike people more regularly than any god.

Rather than place our hope in "isms" it would be best to improve ourselves and do something not always easy and that's to see if our beliefs are consistent with reality as we can know it.

 

[Moonbeam]

My problem M is that some Progressives (and I do not categorize everyone according to the little tags hung upon them. There are some I genuinely respect although I may differ with their POV on some issues) appeal to government in much the same way that the extreme right appeals to a Laissez faire system of capitalism. The latter doesn't work because the theory of competition leading to equity doesn't work, or at least the equity means a two class society.

Likewise a faith in government as a friend and partner is also naive. Time and again we see that there is a common thread between the two. The lust for power and control. The money isn't bad either.

The mentality in the ruling class (corporate or governmental) too often seen is that they know best, and their supporters will line up without really understanding the issues or what is in fact in the best interest of the people. To be sure, the goals sound good. Who doesn't want economic growth for all or those who are unfortunate to have insurance.

Hubris kicks in and decisions are made which cause companies to fail or government to institute insurance that people in dire need can't use.

Instead of examining why that is, the various sides proceed to circle up the wagon defending their philosophies rather than addressing the core issues.

To be sure that's as much a human failing as anything that those in charge have.

We need to see beyond Progressive and Right Wing and actually look at things as they are instead of pretending that if we do the same things harder over and over that the results will change. That's a definition of crazy as you pointed out recently.

Bottom line- the fault is in our almost religious faith in that which has not been demonstrated. Those in power on the earth seem to like to strike people more regularly than any god.

Rather than place our hope in "isms" it would be best to improve ourselves and do something not always easy and that's to see if our beliefs are consistent with reality as we can know it.

Well if I said something then it must be right so I guess all I can say about the excellent and truthfully accurate post is that it's very Progressive.

A Progressive must be like Frodo and able to carry the ring.