"Progressive" and other political labels

[vison]

I suggest 1392. America was pretty well perfect then.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I confess to a great deal of suspicion regarding those people who call themselves "progressive". It would seem that progress means change, but is change automatically a positive thing? Is "progressive" a positive thing? The term is certainly used by those so self describing as a "badge of honour", but in what way is this truly justified?

At the risk of falling foul of Godwin's Law... the NASDP (Nazi) government in Germany would most certainly fit the bill of "progressive" in a huge number of ways, including introducing the world's first animal welfare legislation. Was Hitler a progresive? If he was, what does that mean for the use of the term progressive? And if he, his party and his policies weren't progressive, how so?

PS An example I think illustrates the virtual "meaninglessness" of the term "Progressive" can be found in the abortion debate. It could be argued that extending protection to the unborn foetus is "progressive". However, this extension could, ultimately, result in the outlawing of a woman's right to termination. I would guess that a majority of people would still claim that the "right to choose" is "progressive"; it is a cornerstone of the feminist movement. Yet "right to life" and "right to choose" are mutually opposed. Which, then, is progressive? The answer would seem to be dependent on subjectivist conclusions...

[axordil]

Ultimately all political *labels* are semantically null. Any meaning they may have is based on historical momentum. The Progressive Movement in the US during the first half of the 20th Century was a real phenomenon, with a track record one can examine. The general goals of that movement were and remain admirable, if imperfect.

There is no current movement one can usefully label Progressive. It really is a way of saying "liberal" while avoiding the "liberals are evil" meme invented by the dark powers (see thread on Rupert Murdoch) during the beginning days of the current Corporate Age.

OTOH, I stick by my observation that the current big-R Right is openly and proudly REgressive. So if Progressive, as slippery a label as it may be, means I'm against that, I'll wear it.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I don't think labels are a semantic null, but that they have the potential to be. They can be descriptive of something, or they can be used to obfuscate.

What I've always wondered (and I think I'm starting to figure it out) is the difference between a progressive and a (US definition) liberal - and I'm convinced there is a difference.

[Primula Baggins]

As someone who accepts both labels, I disagree. I don't see any idea that the labels describe different things within the liberal/progressive movement. And if that idea had emerged, I would see it; there's a lot of arguing, now and always, and surely I would see people saying, "But you're not a progressive! You're just a liberal!" if there were any distinction in their minds.

[axordil]

The only difference I can see is historical. There was a Progressive movement that was described as such by those within it. There was never, so far as I know, a Liberal movement in the US fitting that bill.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

No, today there is very little difference because the two have such overlap that they become indistinguishable. But that doesn't mean there is no difference, it just means the difference is very subtle.

[Primula Baggins]

So subtle it escapes the people who are actually in that part of the political spectrum? That's interesting.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

It's something most people normally don't think about. So of course they normally don't think about it.

[Primula Baggins]

I'm curious to know what it is.

[nerdanel]

I feel as though the differences between 'liberal' and 'progressive' are likely to depend on the individual speaker. If C_G can describe a universally applicable difference between the terms, I'm keen to hear it.

Al (sorry for long delay in response; am blindingly busy and not checking HoF much) - guilty as charged. But the post of mine that you called out nicely illustrates why I think that placing a term in quotation marks is disparaging; I, too, was intending to be disparaging with the terms I used in that fashion.

[eborr]

This name/label thing is sort of interesting, taken to the extreme we get a "Life of Brian" deabate about what we call ourselves.

I also think it's ver.y intersting how words become demonised, socialism represents a political philosophy that you may or may not agree with, but as a philosphy that it a nutshell represents the interests of the many, against the interests of the few, that doesn't seem like grounds for it becoming a term of abuse.

I also remember the time when the 1st of may bank holiday had it's name changed from Workers day to the early spring holiday, one of Thatchers tricks, and remember commenting to a colleague that, the tories could not contemplate the notion of anything to commemorate the contribution that working people had made to the country. Maybe what they had wanted was a day for themselves but "rich (expletive deleted) day" didn't have such a ring to it.

[vison]

"rich expleted deleted day" is every day, isn't it?

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I feel as though the differences between 'liberal' and 'progressive' are likely to depend on the individual speaker. If C_G can describe a universally applicable difference between the terms, I'm keen to hear it.

I would go further, and request for an explanation of the differences between "liberal" and "liberal"... And, no, I am not being facetious, although the question as presented has a certain absurdism. What i mean is that "liberal" appears to encompass such a catholic constituency that it is reduced to meaninglessness. Again. Perhaps a cogent definition could be provided?

Al (sorry for long delay in response; am blindingly busy and not checking HoF much) - guilty as charged. But the post of mine that you called out nicely illustrates why I think that placing a term in quotation marks is disparaging; I, too, was intending to be disparaging with the terms I used in that fashion.

The placing of terms in quotation marks is not, of itself, disparaging. I would use this device to indicate uncertainty over definition or applicability, such as "progressive", "liberal", "fascist", "anarchist"... all terms that are repeatedly misused, it seems.

[eborr]

"rich expleted deleted day" is every day, isn't it?

you are so right(sorry I mean correct)

[eborr]

"rich expleted deleted day" is every day, isn't it?

you are so right(sorry I mean correct)

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I think the biggest difference between progressives and liberals is not where they're going but where they came from.

Liberals and libertarians are actually cousins. They are both descended from the original classical liberals, the ones who brought down monarchies by the belief in justice instead of hereditary power. One seeks justice through equality while the other seeks justice through liberty. The two are not necessarily incompatible, but their expression today is fairly much so.

Progressives don't come from that root though, having arrived at their current destination through a trajectory that never included classical liberalism.

[yovargas]

One seeks justice through equality while the other seeks justice through liberty.

I really like that summation.

[SirDennis]

Was Hitler a progresive? If he was, what does that mean for the use of the term progressive? And if he, his party and his policies weren't progressive, how so?

In some provinces in Canada there is such a thing as the Progressive Conservative Party...

[eborr]

The problem with liberalism is where are the boundaries, I know the classic argument runs something like, do as you choose as long as it does not harm others, the challenge is then the definition of harm. Liberty and the capability to exercise choice are limited by economic and political power, the capability to influence and to persuade mitigates against the notion the liberty has a relationship with the common weal.

Of course it's a good thing that you can think what you like, say what you like and vote for who you like, that you can choose what happens with the fruits of your labour etc.etc.

In fact this thread is an excellent example of how our liberty to think can be constrained. The demonisation by vested interests of certain words has the effect of predjudicing the way we think, for example let's suppose there was a political candidate who described himself as a socialist, because the notion of socialism has been so demonized who people examine his policies objectively - I think not -so the liberty to choose has been marginalized from all but the strong minded.

Liberty and choice are prophylactics offered by established interests