"Progressive" and other political labels

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

I'll bite. Liberalism is a static concept, that of a balanced fair, open society with freedoms.
Progressivism is a kinetic concept, that change is necessary to get to a state in the future.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I'll bite. Liberalism is a static concept, that of a balanced fair, open society with freedoms.
Progressivism is a kinetic concept, that change is necessary to get to a state in the future.

I like that, Tosh!

But does it stand up? Conservative societies can be free, balanced, open... can they not? As for "fair"; that is somewhat subjective. An economically liberal society can, and most often does, have huge disparaties in wealth. Is this "fair"?

And your definition of "progressive" is enticing, but is it really as "kinetic" as you propound? To return to an earlier example I highlighted, Roe vs Wade is held up as "progressive", yet a judgement that is nearly 40 years old does not appear to carry kinesis. On the other hand, those who clamour for the "rights of the unborn child" certainly do seem to possess kinesis; are they thus progressives? And are Liberals who oppose them conservative regressives?

Interesting, yes?

[Holbytla]

I like to go camping.
When I go camping, I try and find a campsite that is owned and operated by someone who has a good amount of experience in the business of running a campsite, and a place that has some amenities like a place for a fire, running water, showers and toilets, and maybe a small store for odds and ends.

I bring my tent, stove and charcoal grill. I bring a Coleman lantern, flashlights, canopy, water jug, cooking gear, coolers and lots of beer.

That is my definition of camping.

Other people require an RV with cable tv and air conditioning, as well as all of the above.

Some people consider camping as a sleeping bag and tent out in the middle of nowhere, and maybe even some consider camping as making your own lean-to and bringing a knife and a water bottle.

In any case, all of those definitions seem to fall under the umbrella of "camping". I guess it all depends on who is doing the defining.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I like to go camping.
When I go camping, I try and find a campsite that is owned and operated by someone who has a good amount of experience in the business of running a campsite, and a place that has some amenities like a place for a fire, running water, showers and toilets, and maybe a small store for odds and ends.

I bring my tent, stove and charcoal grill. I bring a Coleman lantern, flashlights, canopy, water jug, cooking gear, coolers and lots of beer.

That is my definition of camping.

Other people require an RV with cable tv and air conditioning, as well as all of the above.

Some people consider camping as a sleeping bag and tent out in the middle of nowhere, and maybe even some consider camping as making your own lean-to and bringing a knife and a water bottle.

In any case, all of those definitions seem to fall under the umbrella of "camping". I guess it all depends on who is doing the defining.

And this is the fundamental problem with these self-defined political labels; they can mean anything, and a term that means anything ultimately comes to mean nothing...

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Nope, a campsite doesn't mean race track. There are parameters to meaning. Sure, close definitions are needed for sensible discourse but to claim words mean nothing is either nihilism or a shallow debating trick.

[yovargas]

Nope, a campsite doesn't mean race track. There are parameters to meaning. Sure, close definitions are needed for sensible discourse but to claim words mean nothing is either nihilism or a shallow debating trick.

Heh, I've spent many hours debating the meaning of "art" with a friend of mine who loves to say the word is undefinable....

[Holbytla]

There are parameters of course, but even within those parameters, meaning is varied, and skewed by perception.

Yes a round object meant to be hit with a stick can be considered a ball, but I never heard a puck referred to as a ball.

There is no one true definition of art, camping or progressive. They are all subjected to relativity and personal definitions. Upon close inspection meaning becomes somewhat futile. Sure, a broad inspection can get you into a ballpark definition, but when you are dealing with so many subsets of meaning, the lines become blurred and relatively meaningless.

[Holbytla]

And yes I used vague terms to illustrate my point.

[Primula Baggins]

I don't see the use of picking labels for things. A successful label wears out pretty quickly. If it conveys something positive, everyone adopts it, diluting it out of any meaning it might once have had. If it's negative, or starts to take on a negative connotation, it gets dropped and replaced with something else until the same thing happens. Look at the long succession of various terms for physically or mentally disabled people: the old ones are all considered offensive now. "Crippled." "Retarded."

I'm not pounding my cane here; people have every right to be called what they want to be called. I just don't think labels have ever carried much meaning, or not for long anyway.

And even if they were precise and completely agreed upon by everyone, what's the use? The only thing I see labels being used for in the political arena is to insult or dismiss or aggressively claim a position. It's to give yourself something to be angry at. It usually comes supplied with a complete list of straw positions, which you can then rail at instead of answering the actual arguments of the actual person in front of you.

Obligatory remark: This applies to everyone on all sides including me.

[Holbytla]

I agree with Prim. Labels and generalizations never stand the test of time and never encompass a whole group entirely.

People are individuals and to try to pigeonhole them into a predefined category is futile.

[yovargas]

Let the dismantling of political parties begin!!!!!!!!!!

[Holbytla]

If only.

Would that these eyes would live to see such a day.

[tinwë]

And replace them with what, though? At some level we have to be able to communicate with others what our political beliefs are. How else do we do that except through language? If words are meaningless how do we communicate?

I don’t think the issue is so much how we choose to define ourselves, but how we choose to define others. As a progressive and a liberal I know what those words mean to me. But when I hear the way they have been twisted and vilified by others my blood begins to boil. It’s all lies, lies I tell you! And I’m sure they’d feel the same if they heard me talk about conservatives.

It’s a game we all play where we try to undermine the validity of those who oppose us by redefining who they are, by insisting that they are not what they claim to be, but what we accuse them of being. Conservatives don’t want to protect what’s important to us, they want to sell us out to the rich. Liberals don’t want what is best for all of us, they want to hand our liberty over to the government.

It’s a nasty game, one that benefits no one and leaves all of us unable to carry on any sort of meaningful dialogue because, you know, nothing means anything.

[Primula Baggins]

Well said, tinwë. In these unpleasant times it's too easy to be cynical. Of course words still mean things. I just wish the meanings weren't so easy to twist and confuse.

But of course the answer isn't to give up trying.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, the only thing that would be worse than having political parties, is not having political parties.

[eborr]

The problem with so many political parties is that only value they stick to through thick or thin is expediency. I am naturally inclined towards the political party my grandfather and father were members of, shame the party doesn't exist any more.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Yes, the only thing that would be worse than having political parties, is not having political parties.

Really? Why is that?

Although there is still a greater local government Independent presence (in the UK), the growth of party partisanship has seriously eroded efficacy. Rather than answer to the electorate, elected representatives increasingly answer to their superiors in the party hierarchy. This, naturally translates equivalently into national politics. Individuals hold allegiance to the apparatchiks who engineer their constituency selection and so pay lip service to the electorate that votes them in.

The party system increasingly divorces the people from power. The result is sham democracy.

And this does not even touch upon corporate influence. Parties are owned...

PS

Nope, a campsite doesn't mean race track. There are parameters to meaning. Sure, close definitions are needed for sensible discourse but to claim words mean nothing is either nihilism or a shallow debating trick.

Unless it is the Camptown Racetrack, perhaps?

If I was led to an incinerator, told it was a campsite, and instructed to pitch my tent in the flames, I would demur. I would also object to the use of the word "campsite" to describe the incinerator. If, however, I was made aware that modern usage of the word campsite now incorporated incinerators, I would conclude that this word had been stretched to meaningless; it encompassed such wildy disparate objects that it, ultimately, meant nothing.

Such is the case with political terminology, especially, I feel, mainstream terminology. "Progressive", "Liberal", "Conservative" have all been stretched and spun to the extent that they have no real meaning. They have left their political base camp, and deserve incinerating...

The problem with so many political parties is that only value they stick to through thick or thin is expediency. I am naturally inclined towards the political party my grandfather and father were members of, shame the party doesn't exist any more.

I have the same inclination, and it is disquieting to hear the rustle of my forebears turning in their graves as I fail to place my X in the requisite box. My (idealised) party left me, rather than me leaving the party...

[yovargas]

And replace them with what, though? At some level we have to be able to communicate with others what our political beliefs are. How else do we do that except through language? If words are meaningless how do we communicate?

Wanna know my stance on immigration? Ask. Wanna know my stance on health care? Ask. Wanna know my stance on abortion? Ask.

We'd replace the parties with discussion. From my perspective, all parties end up doing is replacing discussion with, well, politics.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, the only thing that would be worse than having political parties, is not having political parties.

Really? Why is that?

Although there is still a greater local government Independent presence (in the UK), the growth of party partisanship has seriously eroded efficacy. Rather than answer to the electorate, elected representatives increasingly answer to their superiors in the party hierarchy. This, naturally translates equivalently into national politics. Individuals hold allegiance to the apparatchiks who engineer their constituency selection and so pay lip service to the electorate that votes them in.

The party system increasingly divorces the people from power. The result is sham democracy.

And this does not even touch upon corporate influence. Parties are owned...

All of this is completely true. I have no beef with any of it. But the fact remains, that no practical model exists for successful governing without some kind of political parties. In theory, I am perfectly in accord with Tolkien when he said (Letter 52): "My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) -- or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy." The kind of Anarchy that he describes works well in the Shire, but I don't think it can be practically applied in the modern world at a level higher than a small village. (And, of course, the kind of '"unconstitutional Monarchy' that he refers to only works if you have a King Elessar to run it.)

[axordil]

And replace them with what, though? At some level we have to be able to communicate with others what our political beliefs are. How else do we do that except through language? If words are meaningless how do we communicate?

Wanna know my stance on immigration? Ask. Wanna know my stance on health care? Ask. Wanna know my stance on abortion? Ask.

We'd replace the parties with discussion. From my perspective, all parties end up doing is replacing discussion with, well, politics.

That can probably work for groups of limited size. A lot of towns and even fairly big cities don't have overtly partisan government.

I think it breaks down when the amount of money needed to communicate with voters exceeds what a candidate can come up with alone.