Definition: Liberal vs Progressive?

[Jmaxfie1]

I was just wondering what people thought the difference is? I know some would say they are the same thing, but historically they are not. I also think there are demonstrable differences between the beliefs of people that refer to themselves as progressives vs those who refer to themselves as liberals.

One difference I have noticed between them is how they differ over the issue of free speech.

Liberals tend to be more Civil Libertarian. I.E. it is regrettable that Nazi's scream racist and anti-semitic remarks at people, but it is their right.

Progressives have a tendency to follow Herbert Marcuse's idea of repressive tolerance, that "Hate Speech" is not free speech because it leads to less freedom. (I'm not an expert on Marcuse, repressive tolerance or hate speech, maybe someone could give a clearer def).

Anyway, I think that is one difference, also progressives seem to be more interested in group rights and group solidarity where as liberals seem to be more interested in individual rights. (Another example would be that liberals seem to be more likely to uphold the 2nd Amendment rights of the individual where progressives are more interested in the rights of society.

I consider myself a Liberal so I am aware that some of my definitions are probably biased so am interested in other definitions or understandings of the differences between Progressives and Liberals.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. I think of progressives as gritty, pragmatic populists

who were spawned in the fight against the robber barons of the 19th Century. I personally will accept either term, but might tend to describe myself as a progressive because of its connection to Bob La Follette and others. I also find much in socialism that makes sense; I guess I'm just a leftist eclectic with strong civil-libertarian leanings, and don't try to fit myself into any of the boxes, all of which seem to be idiosyncratically defined by different people.

[Riftaxe]

4. I think of progressives as the early

20th century movement whose history is replete with supporting atrocities and such hideous things as eugenics and racial hygiene. Obviously the self described progressives on this board don't hold any more with those beliefs, however if someone on the street claimed to be a progressive I would look at them in the same way as someone claiming to be a nazi or a klansman.

[AlabamaLibrul]

5. WTF?

"if someone on the street claimed to be a progressive I would look at them in the same way as someone claiming to be a nazi or a klansman."

Seriously, WTF?

[Kingofalldems]

12. Very familiar.

[RandomThoughts]

2. That is education versus coersion.

Coercion says don't let them say it, because the weak people will be hurt by it. Although that is not evenly applied, and the very people that try to limit people do the exact same things for their benefit. And consolidations lead to more harm.

Education is teaching people why it is wrong, so they will know someone saying something is wrong in the parts of them that think that.


It is a coercion versus education argument you are making.


Why do you think they tried to take my beer and travel money? Because I would not join an authoritarian organization that was telling people to do wrong, and then using coercion against those that would not agree with them.

Freedom of speech is a protection for society, since there is an assumption that the bad will be censored, when most that believe in coercion, actually go against what is better.


So you have a choice, do what you are told and cower in fear, or don't and stand for what you believe, and learn if you are correct. If existence is bad, then standing wont help, and will be hard, but if existence is bad, why would it matter. And it is possible existence is good, and you are suppose to not be part of the bad to make it a better society.

You don't know what tomorrow will bring, the whole world could change. And if that is possible, I am going to try to be on what feels and I can think is a better choice.

And that includes having the beer and travel money, and many experiences that is due to me. Why because the better side was not so proud as to elevate themselves, and think they were superior. And that is a lesson I learned, and am thankful for.

[pennylane100]

3. very interesting post.

however, I think of myself as a progressive liberal. I always seem to take the middle road.

[white_wolf]

6. I don't know how accurate

it is but Wikipedia has an explanation of the differences between the two: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29

[AlabamaLibrul]

7. A progressive is someone who believes that as time changes, governments should keep up

Liberal gets kind of messy depending on whether you're talking about liberalism as an ideology, or what people think of as "liberals" today, which I would basically point to the average Democrat to explain. Not a Blue Dog, and not Kucinich. Generally believes in equal rights for women, reproductive rights, helping the middle class within the structure of the capitalist economy (some believe in LGBT rights) etc.

A progressive is on the vanguard, always marching forward with time, but making sure never to forget the past.

I wouldn't consider myself a liberal, and perhaps have trouble with calling myself a progressive if I assume my own definition of it being within the confines of reforming existing governance structures.

[white_wolf]

9. Despite

my post below I do really like your definition of progressive. I could consider myself a member of that type of ideology.

[AlabamaLibrul]

10. Thank you. I would like to amend it though, to say "governance" versus "governments"

Society has not always been under the structure of nation-states with rigid borders on maps, but it has had structure since long before that. I'm not suggesting we would go back to the Ice Ages if SHTF, but there's a lot more trust in family, friends, and the community you know than in a politician.

As times change, governance, awareness, thinking, ways of doing and being and living must change. The ideas that were held before are no longer relevant. I'm fine being called a progressive, if that's what it means.

And I hit 1000 and didn't even notice. Heh.

[white_wolf]

8. I prefer

to use the term socialist or democratic socialist to define myself, because honestly those two terms in the OP have gotten so muddied that it is very hard to define them.

[LooseWilly]

11. I think, historically, "liberal" was placed in opposition to "monarchist"...

it was very "freedomy" at the time... but by most modern standards (well, standards of ideals), it's kind of backward.


The Koch brothers are, strictly & historically speaking, liberals... in that they feel like they should have the right to employ their capital as they'd like and they feel like unions are a twisting of the "free market" and individual freedoms that workers ought to be able to exercise.

Nowadays, I think they're called Libertarians.

Monarchists... well, autocratic assholes who support the likes of Mubarak... those are technically/historically (19th century) Conservatives.

I don't know if "Progressives" has applied to some movement historically (upthread there's a reference to some strange sect of Progressives that sounds like a cross between Freud, Teddy Roosevelt, and the founder of Kellogs...) but I tend to use it as an alternative for "Liberal"—since the modern usage of Liberal seems to include all sorts of neo-New-Age pseudo-spiritualism as well as "two scoops" of Yuppie-dom.

Of course, something more accurate, like "Marxist-Anarchist" (which is probably not quite accurate either, since both words have a historicity that can sometimes be hard to trace without a PhD in history), is liable to just confuse/scare the self-diagnosed Liberals (with their two scoops of Yuppie)... which is another reason to use Progressive—so as not to spook the probably-too-comfortable-to-be-worth-much-of-a-damn... before one can at least get some use out of them.

Is that of any help? :+