Progressive vs. Liberal (?)

ForumProgressive & Liberal!

Melde dich bei LibraryThing an, um Nachrichten zu schreiben.

Progressive vs. Liberal (?)

Dieses Thema ruht momentan. Die letzte Nachricht liegt mehr als 90 Tage zurück. Du kannst es wieder aufgreifen, indem du eine neue Antwort schreibst.

1abductee
Aug. 4, 2006, 2:51 am

It might be splitting hairs, but most group members so far have expressed themselves as "progressive" and are not quite comfortable with the "liberal" moniker.

Should "Liberal" be dropped from the group name? I'm open to suggestions...

Jeremy

2kukkurovaca
Aug. 4, 2006, 3:34 am

Ah, but wouldn't that be letting the "Classically Liberal" group win? :)

3rosinalippi
Aug. 4, 2006, 10:09 am

snort. giggle.

I don't see any reason to change the name, really. Better not to get hung up on issues like this, seems to me.

4Tricoteuse
Aug. 4, 2006, 11:20 am

I'd say leave it. I'm perfectly willing to call myself both, in defiance of all efforts to redefine "liberal" as a dirty word.

5elvendido
Aug. 4, 2006, 1:35 pm

I am quite happy being both a liberal and progressive. Keep it. :) Never let the enemy define your terminology.

6Linkmeister
Aug. 4, 2006, 1:47 pm

I've been a liberal a lot longer than I've been a progressive, at least in nomenclature. ;)

7quartzite
Aug. 4, 2006, 1:49 pm

Ditto X five.

8A_musing
Aug. 4, 2006, 1:54 pm

I'm fine with where it is, but if there's any reason to change it, why not just call us all "Southpaws".

9kukkurovaca
Aug. 4, 2006, 2:16 pm

Progressive isn't really a new term, is it? I associate it predominately with John Dewey, at least as far as my intellectual inputs go. But I'm definitely of the view that a rose by any other name would lean as far to the left, etc. I don't call myself a liberal, but I'm not confused by or offended by the group title. (Nor was I even when it was *just* liberal.)

10abductee
Aug. 4, 2006, 4:40 pm

A friend at work recommended I name it "Freedom Haters" - because, you know, we all hate freedom so much (or so we're told).

;-)

Yeah, I'll leave the group name alone; thank you all for the input.

11ExVivre
Aug. 4, 2006, 6:19 pm

Well, there is one aspect of the group name that can go: the parenthetical "and proud of it." It reads very meekly next to "Liberal & Progressive!" and sounds as if one has been sitting quietly in a room suffering through a three-hour diatribe by Ann Coulter and squeeked out, "and proud of it." The meek may inherit the earth, but only after everyone else dies off. ;)

12abductee
Aug. 4, 2006, 8:03 pm

done. excellently put, thanks ExVivre.

13akenned5
Aug. 9, 2006, 9:14 pm

Sorry to revisit the issue, but in Australia the conservative party is called the 'Liberal Party', which has greatly tainted the world for progressive thinkers. However, we still talk about "small 'l' liberals" so the original sense of the word is preserved.

14abductee
Aug. 9, 2006, 10:45 pm

Comment well taken, akenned5. I flip-flopped the group name to "Progressive & Liberal!"

Note: the name has flip-flopped, not the Democratic candidates. (Well, maybe Lieberman, but they can have him.)

15akenned5
Aug. 10, 2006, 12:41 am

lol. Comment not meant as criticism, just for info. Enjoying the postings here and on other message boards.

16Tanith Erste Nachricht
Aug. 26, 2006, 11:59 pm

I use the terms interchangeably, though I use liberal the most. It seems like in the U.S. at least "progressive" gets used as a sort of euphemism for "liberal" which has acquired a negative connotation (probably due to vitriol-spewing conservative pundits)

17migdali
Bearbeitet: Sept. 13, 2007, 10:23 pm

I have to admit that I almost didn't join this group because of the 'liberal' part of label. It just seems to be such a centrist, not leftist-enough word... Does anyone else see it that way?
Progressive is a more open term, and I would support a name change that would drop liberal and keep progressive.

18wyrdchao
Bearbeitet: Sept. 13, 2007, 10:29 pm

A big fat YES vote to keep Liberal in the title.

Guess it depends on where you're from, the connotations of 'liberal'; out here in the sticks it's synonymous with tree-huggers and bleeding-hearts and such. Don't mind be called them things, and don't mind 'liberal' either, regardless of what it means.

As for meekness? Let's drop it! 'The meek will inherit the earth, 3 feet wide and 6 feet deep.'

19BGP
Bearbeitet: Sept. 13, 2007, 10:59 pm

"I have to admit that I almost didn't join this group because of the 'liberal' part of label." - migdali

I most certainly did not join the group for the term liberal, but, at the end of the day, as long as the emphasis is on progressive, I have no qualms. The Democratic left in America has to work in concert with social liberals: even united, we face a very tough battle to win the hearts and minds of middle America. In leftist terms, we have to accept the fact that the only way to inspire respect for the left is through the adoption of a long term entryist political strategy, and, on a day to day basis, fight the good fight when it comes to holding liberals within the party accountable for progressive social change.

As for myself, well, I am a social democrat in the Continental European tradition (the short-lived social democratic party in Britain was really a social liberal party, and, in the US, the very, very tiny party that adopted the title were former socialists that were neoconservative before there was such a classifier). But, as I have already formed a Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists book group (which everyone who is interested in democratic left-wing politics should consider joining), I think it is in our interest to maintain our participation in a left of center group that is explicitly designed to attract the interest and attention of any and all individuals who lean left.

20amancine
Sept. 14, 2007, 8:38 am

I joined this group because I consider myself progressive and liberal. Don't change a thing, please.

21varielle
Sept. 14, 2007, 9:33 am

The term liberal needs to be reclaimed from those who have distorted it in the U.S. You can be a liberal and not be sitting around contemplating your navel, bemoaning the state of the world and hanging out on the ragged fringes.

22maggie1944
Sept. 14, 2007, 9:35 am

Ya! what varielle said.

23nickhoonaloon
Sept. 15, 2007, 4:16 am

#19

I`m with BGP on this one, just with the proviso I`d avoid using the word `entryist` - in the UK `entryism` was at the one time the preserve of Trotskyist groups who formed factions within the Labour Party specifically to move it to a `revolutionary` approach, eventually being expelled by Labour under Kinnock.

I hope that`s not too pedantic.

The term liberal doesn`t have the same meaning here as in the US, but I have no problem with it.

24BGP
Sept. 15, 2007, 7:58 pm

It's not at all! While I am by no means a Trotskyist, I was most certainly borrowing the term and concept from them. Of course, here in America, the only entryist party that I know of it is Democratic Socalists, USA, a party which is committed to moving the Democratic party leftward from the inside. The major difference rests in the fact that, as they have no historical or theoretical ties to Trotsky (short of their own annexation of the term in question), their ultimate objective is much closer to Old Labour than it is to the establishment of a radical party which will embrace and lead the reformed 4th International.

Upon consideration, you're right to dissuade my use of the term, as other social democrats and democratic socialists, from Brazil to Europe, will have the same reaction (or one that is far, far worse!) that you did.

25maggie1944
Sept. 15, 2007, 8:05 pm

I am having a hard time believing I am reliving a discussion about the Trotskyists, again. I fear being buried so deeply in the jargon that all connection with reality is lost. I think "liberal" and "progressive" are relatively frequently used terms, perhaps inexact, perhaps loaded with connotations as well as denotations, but discussing what the Trotsky partisans theoretically wanted in the early twentieth century is a bit much.

I am interested in the group for discussing what might be a liberal or a progressive take on health insurance, social security, tax equity, full employment, peace and justice. Help, I feel I am caught in a time machine and am back in the early days of Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee or the Students for Democratic Society or even the Weathermen.

26daschaich
Sept. 15, 2007, 8:35 pm

I think it's a reasonable tangent -- it concerns not what "Trotsky partisans theoretically wanted in the early twentieth century", but what Trotsky partisans were (and in some places probably still are) actually doing in the last 10-20 years. The result has been a good deal of suspicion and ill-will, so I agree that the tactic and the term should be avoided.

I tend to think of Democratic Socialists of America less as an "entryist" political party than as a socialist caucus within the Democratic Party.

27BGP
Sept. 15, 2007, 8:38 pm

Don't worry, maggie1944--that was only a minor digression regarding the political baggage tied to a specific word! And, as this thread regards the relative value of two other words, progressive and liberal, it is, without question, a thread dedicated to words and baggage!

Many of us are interested in discussing health insurance/national health care, social security, tax equity, full employment, peace, justice, and many, many other related issues, but this particular thread will only be useful to the degree that it explores how we, as left-leaning individuals, self-identify.

28wyrdchao
Sept. 15, 2007, 10:30 pm

>25 maggie1944:

maggie1944,
Which one would you like to discuss first (ha-ha-serious)? As you can gather, most of us here are perfectly happy to wrangle over just about anything; particularly those things. Start a thread new on one of them and let's get to it!

29nickhoonaloon
Sept. 16, 2007, 9:24 am

#25

Perhaps I should have explained myself better. The presence of entryist groups in the Labour Party, and the culture of violence surrounding certain individuals, was a key factor in Labour`s remaining out of office from 1979 - 1997.

That has to be seen in the context of the time, with large-scale disturbances at football matches, inner-city riots and violence on picket lines all frightening the voters and possibly leading them more towards the Conservatives, at that time seen as the party of `law and order` and `old-fashioned values`.

As a young job seeker I often found myself quizzed about my political views, on the basis that it was just a check of `reasoning ability` or some such. I personally believe some employers were reluctant to employ someone with left-wing views in case they were there as agitators.

However that may be, the desire to distance themselves from the far left was a key factor in Labour abandoning democratic socialism for social democracy.

That was the basis of my comments. If I hadn`t known BGP`s politics in advance, I`d probably have said something less diplomatic !

I do feel it was a reasonable tangent, but only a tangent.

Moving on then, do you feel that the US would benefit from a UK-style National Health Service ?

30maggie1944
Sept. 16, 2007, 9:37 am

Nickhoonaloon: I thank you for that explanation. It certainly brought the discussion into "modern times". I had some very tedious experiences in the 1960s of men arguing over semantics while anti-racism and anti-war actions were delayed.

As I understand the main "fear" north americans have regarding a universal health care system, similar to the "fear" of socialism, is that each individual's needs are completely overlooked in the bureacracy of too few trying to do too little for too many. I am curious if this issue is alive and well in UK and how is it addressed by the left?

31maggie1944
Bearbeitet: Sept. 16, 2007, 11:20 am

I just saw in Friday's New York Times (I get the paper one here) an article on page 1: "San Francisco to Offer Care For Every Uninsured Adult".

According to the article San Francisco is betting that the money they spend on emergency room medical treatment could be redirected to care for uninsured and come out about even. Revolutionary idea, (-; - or perhaps it is a progressive idea.

I hope I'll be able to hear more about this. Anyone here from SF and give us some inside info?

32nickhoonaloon
Sept. 16, 2007, 11:32 am

How interesting. I`ve never heard that expressed, though you did at one time hear it said over comprehensive (state) education. I`m a product of comprehensive education, so you can be the judge of how well that turned out !

Having said that, a friend of mine was involved in the setting up of something called NHS Direct. This is a system where, if you`re undecided whether your situation is serious enough to go to casualty, you can phone a number and someone will assess your needs. If they are unsure, a nurse will call you back and advise you.

Part of the reason for that was to take pressure off casualty departments, so that they can concentrate on areas of greatest need.

However, I`ve never really heard of that being raised as a political issue. As you`ll appreciate, most non-casualty patients go either into an observation ward, or to a ward specialising in their particular problem, so the problem shouldn`t really arise.

There was a group of posh drunks, the Federation of Conservative Students, who at one point took to using the slogan `Smash the NHS`. Even Mrs Thatcher thought that went too far and the organisation was disbanded.

It`s probably worth remembering that in the UK, private and public health care and private and public education co-exist. Whatever the disadvantages, it does mean that alternatives exist for those who want them.

33maggie1944
Sept. 16, 2007, 11:57 am

About the co-existance of private and public health care and education: the north american complaint seems to be "I want my services from a private provider (private school, physician of ones choice, etc.) and I do not want to pay my taxes to support the public services for everyone else. Seems to me that if the overwhelming majority of people are OK with paying sufficient taxes to have good public education and health care those people who "don't want to pay" will have to bow to majority rule. Unfortunately, the "I don't want to pay" folks are much louder for their numbers than the people who enjoy good public services. And being louder they are capable of convincing the uninformed and rebellious, and bingo! we have majorities in favor of cutting the taxes paying for the good public services.

I think that may be the challenge before liberals and progressives. How can we be loud enough that the uninformed and rebellious believe we have a good idea or two.

34wyrdchao
Sept. 17, 2007, 1:01 am

>33 maggie1944: Yes, that is exactly what goes on here; rural Americans add insult to injury by screaming that either:

1 - the urban areas are taking all their public money.

or/and

2 - the rural areas should have a lower tax burden because they get less benefit from tax dollars.

These are both idiotic arguments:
1-Most urban areas USE that money more efficiently due to economies of scale/lower transportation costs;
2-Absolute BS! - most of the natural infrastructure is protected/maintained by taxes and most of the economic infrastructure was built and is maintained by tax dollars. A local communications company (to the tune of $6 million+) was ENTIRELY funded with state grants.

I am sure that if the historical as opposed to the current budget numbers were crunched, most rural citizens would be shown to receive MUCH more benefit per capita than the average city-dweller does. But this STUPID rationalization goes round and round with no one ever getting to the core issues.

35maggie1944
Sept. 17, 2007, 9:04 am

yes, Oregon and Washington both have that weird east/west split with all the urban development near the western edge. Should the oceans rise signficantly perhaps the dry eastern parts will have an opportunity of dealing with the urban masses. (-;

Squabbling over scarce resources never was pretty.

36geneg
Sept. 17, 2007, 4:01 pm

In my health care plan, people who do not wish to contribute, don't have to. They have to meet all their doctor/hospital/health care bills themselves. Oops, no insurance allowed!

37Nichtglied
Sept. 17, 2007, 6:08 pm

It reminds me of the people who opt out of union membership so they don't have to pay the dues but then still expect to get the same pay and benefits as union members.

38geneg
Sept. 17, 2007, 6:15 pm

But they must pay for it themselves. This can be quite expensive. Opting out ultimately would wind up being a mark of status or class. The quality of medical care would be the same because it would be from the same doctors, hospitals, etc. that those in the plan would use. Those who belong to the plan pay for it up front through a tax specifically designed to provide health care. In essence the government becomes the sole insurer, but without the same problems insurance brings with it.

39Nichtglied
Bearbeitet: Sept. 17, 2007, 6:21 pm

Opting out wouldn't make much sense, especially given the cost. It wouldn't so much be a status symbol as an indication of feeble-mindedness, especially if "the quality of medical care would be the same because it would be from the same doctors, hospitals, etc. that those in the plan would use."

What would seem more likely to me is that they would join the plan then pay extra in the form of bribes for special treatment.

40geneg
Sept. 17, 2007, 6:22 pm

Opting out opens a whole world of choice. What? You can't afford to opt out, you say? Welcome to my world!

41nickhoonaloon
Sept. 19, 2007, 4:00 am

#33

In fairness to Labour, their policy options do seem to be limited by an electorate who reject `tax and spend`.

In my experience, the right-wing press whip up anti-Labour feeling by attacking what they call stealth taxes (i.e. attempts to gain revenue other than by income tax). They don`t, of course, mention that their own campaigns against income tax caused that to happen in the first place. And of course, they didn`t attack the Conservatives for doing the same thing.

The Libdems have often argued that reluctance to pay taxes is another aspect of voter distrust ("I`m not giving them my money"). Myself, sadly, I think it is part of the decline of a sense of being part of society, and people not seeing why they should contribute.

As we`ve discussed before, I very much agree with Maggie on this.

42Akiyama
Sept. 19, 2007, 6:13 am

#1 abductee:
It might be splitting hairs, but most group members so far have expressed themselves as "progressive" and are not quite comfortable with the "liberal" moniker.

Should "Liberal" be dropped from the group name? I'm open to suggestions...


Perhaps someone should start another group, "Progressive & Illiberal!" ;)

Seriously, both words are rather vague and most people would understand them as synonyms for "left of centre". What's the problem?

43Stephen_Graff
Sept. 18, 2011, 5:32 pm

I'm neither progressive or liberal. Just anti republican. At least the republican party of today. Perhaps we could adopt the term "open-minded."

44lawecon
Okt. 1, 2011, 11:40 am

To revert to the original question: As to those numerous persons who have declared themselves to be both progressive and liberal in this thread, what, pray tell, do you mean by "liberal"? Traditionally, those who have declared themselves to be "progressive" have opposed and been opposed by those who have declared themselves to be "liberal," see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism Progressivism: A very short introduction

45jjwilson61
Okt. 1, 2011, 2:16 pm

I don't know the history of the terms very well, but I think when someone on a modern US political forum says liberal they mean a social liberal as described here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism.

46lawecon
Bearbeitet: Okt. 1, 2011, 7:35 pm

~45

While much of the piece you cite to is exactly correct, other parts are dead wrong. As an instance of each:

----- Is is probably correct to identify J S Mill as the founder of a "new liberalism" in the English speaking world. And, indeed, there are forerunners of progressivism in Mill. Take for instance his notion that production can somehow be separated from distribution, as expressed in the so-called socialism chapters of his Principles of Political Economy.

Mill, however, preserved the original liberal emphasis on, ah, liberty and the realization that the state is not a vehicle to enhance liberty. For instance, his On Liberty contains the view that:
'"Were the duty of enforcing universal education once admitted, there would be an end to the difficulties about what the State should teach, and how it should teach, which now convert the subject into a mere battle-field for sects and parties, causing the time and labor which should have been spent in educating, to be wasted in quarrelling about education. If the government would make up its mind to require for every child a good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing one. It might leave to parents to obtain the education where and how they pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the school fees of the poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire school expenses of those who have no one else to pay for them. The objections which are urged with reason against State education, do not apply to the enforcement of education by the State, but to the State's taking upon itself to direct that education: which is a totally different thing. That the whole or any large part of the education of the people should be in State hands, I go as far as any one in deprecating. All that has been said of the importance of individuality of character, and diversity in opinions and modes of conduct, involves, as of the same unspeakable importance, diversity of education. A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation, in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body."

Hardly a "progressive" point of view.

------------The article you cite to is even more ahistorical and just plain wrong in identifying persons like Charles Dickens, Thomas Carlyle, and Matthew Arnold as any sort of liberal. These persons were either reactionary feudalists or admirers of the resurgent Prussia with its militarism, emperor worship and all around tyranny. None of those traits are "liberal," albeit much might be made of the argument that they are "progressive." After all, the principal founders of "progressivism" in the U.S. were Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, both of whom had similar views about the virtues of war in a "great cause," "strong leaders" and the "necessary" abridgment of fundamental liberties.

Anmelden um mitzuschreiben.