Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Liberal or progressive? [View all]zipplewrath
(16,693 posts)85. A country mile between the two
"I simply don't want the progressive movement to turn into the left's tea party. "
There is a long way to go from where we are to any correlation between the tea party and the current progressive movement, such as it is.
And it was nice of you to ignore all my points, but address some impression you got from a conference I didn't attend.
But I have to admit, I'm not sure how a progressive caucuse can be considered on some sort of "purity" campaign by merely confronting a member of their caucus for not suppporting the aims of the caucus. Aims by the way that you claim the member agreed. It's that kind of "my way or no way" that the blue dogs bring to the party. The caucus I presume collectively came upon a position and strategy, one this member decided not to support. Imagine a caucus saying "oh well, what the heck". Kinda defeats the whole purpose of a caucus now doesn't it? A caucus isn't suppose to be a bunch of individuals seeing if they accidentally agree on something from time to time. They're suppose to coordinate. Sounds like the member wanted to be progressive in name, but not fact. That just undermines the caucus.
The progressives had to vote for ACA despite their objections to huge portions of the bill. The Blue Dogs sided with the republicans over a few aspects that didn't pass their purity tests. Heck, when you realize how much CAME from the blue dogs, not to mention moderate republicans of the past, it's hard to figure out exactly what their problem was, except that they weren't in charge.
There is a long way to go from where we are to any correlation between the tea party and the current progressive movement, such as it is.
And it was nice of you to ignore all my points, but address some impression you got from a conference I didn't attend.
But I have to admit, I'm not sure how a progressive caucuse can be considered on some sort of "purity" campaign by merely confronting a member of their caucus for not suppporting the aims of the caucus. Aims by the way that you claim the member agreed. It's that kind of "my way or no way" that the blue dogs bring to the party. The caucus I presume collectively came upon a position and strategy, one this member decided not to support. Imagine a caucus saying "oh well, what the heck". Kinda defeats the whole purpose of a caucus now doesn't it? A caucus isn't suppose to be a bunch of individuals seeing if they accidentally agree on something from time to time. They're suppose to coordinate. Sounds like the member wanted to be progressive in name, but not fact. That just undermines the caucus.
The progressives had to vote for ACA despite their objections to huge portions of the bill. The Blue Dogs sided with the republicans over a few aspects that didn't pass their purity tests. Heck, when you realize how much CAME from the blue dogs, not to mention moderate republicans of the past, it's hard to figure out exactly what their problem was, except that they weren't in charge.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
124 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"Capitalism has never slaughtered large numbers of people...".....BAHAHAHAAWWAW...clueless.
Katashi_itto
May 2013
#124
both are nebulous, ill-defined labels. Neither has an agreed-upon objective meaning at this point.
Warren DeMontague
May 2013
#3
Locke argued for the dispossession of the Native Americans because they weren't being "productive"
LooseWilly
May 2013
#20
Social Democrat. Here are the wiki definitions of liberal, progressive and social democrat, FWIW.
pampango
May 2013
#120
Liberal makes me think of classical liberalism... which is called Libertarianism today.
LooseWilly
May 2013
#4
Too bad your wasted time, and now mine, can't be summed up with the word "cogent"
LooseWilly
May 2013
#15
Agreed. Also let me add-A Harry Chapin liberal.Allard Lowenstein liberal.A Bob Graham liberal.
graham4anything
May 2013
#19
You are trying to make Progressive sound as radical and opposite of the right wing
liberal N proud
May 2013
#27
Never thought I'd see such a divisive prejudging Original Pos as this one.
Bernardo de La Paz
May 2013
#34
I think it's more a matter of focus. Liberals focus on people, progressives are more about policy?
reformist2
May 2013
#37
Righties (and some centrists) like to say liberals are "LIBERAL with other people's money".
progree
May 2013
#42
You want me to participate in a poll that begins with a diatribe? No thankyou.
pinboy3niner
May 2013
#49
I always identified as liberal, never labeled my self as progressive but in present context neither
TheKentuckian
May 2013
#64
Another liberal vs progressive thread and it's just as illuminating as the 100s that came before it.
Gidney N Cloyd
May 2013
#68
+1 and look at the choices made available to us. We have a binary system of 0/0. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
May 2013
#89
I'm actually a liberal progressive other, but I like to call myself a liberal because
Zorra
May 2013
#109
That other thread had some amazing responses. Lots of really thought provoking comments
Number23
May 2013
#112
Other; I am left-wing. In the UK, 'liberal' means centrist, and 'progressive' doesn't have any
LeftishBrit
May 2013
#114
Different people will interpret the two terms in such a way as to better validate their own opinions
LanternWaste
May 2013
#121