2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Progressive Pragmatism versus Liberal Elitism [View all]Chan790
(20,176 posts)Basically, you might have a point but you absolutely have the use of "liberal" (an ideology of political economics that explicitly embraces capitalism and free markets as pathways to a better society for all inhabitants) switched with "progressive" (a sociopolitical ideology that takes no stance on economic systems but advocates for the advancement of social and civil liberties towards a more-egalitarian society as being the highest ideal.)
Hillary by her own words is not a progressive, but is definitely a liberal. Is Hillary a pragmatic liberal? You make a strong argument for it. It's a sound description of her supporters...both the ones I can tolerate and the ones I despise.
Bernie is by-definition not a liberal (no Democratic Socialist is), but certainly a progressive. Is he an idealistic progressive? Yes, I don't think there's any doubt about that in anybody's mind. Nor should there be much question about most of his supporters.
Clarity of labels matters because words matter. What is more telling is that you clearly have no better idea of what a liberal is than all those anti-capitalists claiming to be liberals when they are progressives and all those social-moderates like Hillary who want to claim to be progressives when they are liberals, but not progressives. The terms are not interchangeable and Democrats and others on the left not understanding the differences is a large part of why Republicans were able to damn so many Democratic labels. The terms are not interchangeable, they're not even synonyms.
I may not like Hillary, but I have to respect her for knowing enough to know what "progressives" and "liberals" are and to know which one she is and which one she is not.