How progressives can ( and probably will ) blow the next election

[GulfCoast66]

26. That is not my experience.

But perhaps we live in different parts of the country. My Democratic Voting relatives(what are left of them that have not become republican) would reject the term Socialist.

I also agree that some people use your definition for Democratic Socialist. But I think the definition betters suits the term Social Democrat and outside of Europe and DU you will not find many folks who could discuss the differences in the two! You and I could have a friendly discussion/debate of the nuances of names and it might be enjoyable. Regardless, most Americans have never been to Europe and are not on DU and I think it is not wise to handicap ourselves from the get-go by self identifying with a name so may people view with suspicion. And not just Fox viewers. Marketing does matter!

You question about why I reject the name progressive has 2 separate but related answers:

First, the spotty to sordid history of the progressive movement from it's founding over 100 years ago until around WW11. It was at its heart a populist/nationalist movement presenting tons of grievances, some true and some not so much but looking for people to blame. Most often the rich, which might have been partly true. But the movement not only ignored blacks and other minorities, it often actively threw them under the bus in order to attract the white working class. Huey Long and Woodrow Wilson are both example of progressives who used racial animus and xenophobia to further their causes. Now I know these things happened 100 years ago, but I personally see the beginning shades of that behavior in parts of todays progressive movement. And as a Louisianan who learned from my father, a staunch FDR democrat, the dangers of men like Huey Long, and I just choose not to associate my name with men like them

The second reason I reject the name because to me, it has been about elitism since I first started hearing the word again several decades ago....many progressives are 'too pure' for we poor liberals. I am concerned that it too often harkens back to the reasons from 100 years ago. My take is that many of them see economic justice as the prime reason for our existence as a political party and are not adverse to letting other go to achieve that overriding goal. I am not saying they are actively hostile to other causes, but will not go to the mat for them if it furthers their economic cause. I may well be wrong, but that is my impression.

And other things like rejecting free trade but I am already have diarrhea of the keyboard!

Thanks for the spirited discussion. Feel free to respond and challenge any of my assertions.

Have a nice evening.