R U Progressive?

[ViperOverLord]

Okay. So, progressives are people who support eugenics, segregation, and governmental control, and who spout contradictions that have been thought up by someone who disagrees with them? Is that the definition we're working with here?

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and wager that no one exists today fitting that description, and that anyone who may have labelled themselves as such were either lying, or working from a different definition from the one put forward in this thread.

That's some fine demented reality/revisionist history.

[Woodruff]

perhaps you should keep looking, until you get to the parts where they reversed all progress made in slaves realizing freedom, or maybe the part about how they wanted to force black people and mentally ill people have abortions, or maybe the part about re-segregating our military, or maybe even the part about how the progressive party is constantly trying to tear apart our constitution. Maybe when you come to realize that progressivism is the complete opposite of freedom, you can get a little deeper understanding.

I must say...You don't seem to really understand what a progressive is at all. Where do you get this crap? It's certainly not from reality.

A progressive is NOT someone who just wants to move the country forward and to make progress. That's apparently what you believe it is, and you're dead wrong (literally in some cases).

I consider myself a progressive, and that is absolutely what I am trying to do (move the country forward and make progress). Just because someone has told you lies about what a progressive is doesn't mean you have to believe them, Night Strike...you don't have to let their poison work on you. A progressive has nothing at all to do with trying to keep slavery, forcing anyone to have an abortion, trying to re-segregate our military OR trying to tear apart our Constitution. Frankly, I have to question your sanity when you make statements like this.

See, this is the same crap that has resulted in the use of the term "liberal" as a negative. These alternate definitions are created by hateful, spiteful people whose only real interest is in gaining and maintaining power, and they're repeated by people who are unwilling (or unable, but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt as a scientist) to think and learn for themselves.

[Woodruff]

Okay. So, progressives are people who support eugenics, segregation, and governmental control, and who spout contradictions that have been thought up by someone who disagrees with them? Is that the definition we're working with here?

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and wager that no one exists today fitting that description, and that anyone who may have labelled themselves as such were either lying, or working from a different definition from the one put forward in this thread.

That's some fine demented reality/revisionist history.

Do you deny the truth of his statements? I notice you didn't really address it.

[Timminz]

Okay. So, progressives are people who support eugenics, segregation, and governmental control, and who spout contradictions that have been thought up by someone who disagrees with them? Is that the definition we're working with here?

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and wager that no one exists today fitting that description, and that anyone who may have labelled themselves as such were either lying, or working from a different definition from the one put forward in this thread.

That's some fine demented reality/revisionist history.

Are you trying to say that there actually are people calling themselves "progressives", who also support the definition put forward by this thread?

Who are these crazy fucks?

[Woodruff]

Okay. So, progressives are people who support eugenics, segregation, and governmental control, and who spout contradictions that have been thought up by someone who disagrees with them? Is that the definition we're working with here?

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and wager that no one exists today fitting that description, and that anyone who may have labelled themselves as such were either lying, or working from a different definition from the one put forward in this thread.

That's some fine demented reality/revisionist history.

Are you trying to say that there actually are people calling themselves "progressives", who also support the definition put forward by this thread?

You see, only the conservapuppets know the REAL definitions for things.

[BigBallinStalin]

The thing for me is that the label "progressive" seems almost exclusively a term used by the US right at the moment as a way to somehow denigrate opponents....

Hmmm__ There was a time 15 years ago in which people proudly wore the progressive label while peddling their own line of corruption.

I really don't know. BBS posted a few definitions of what it meant in another thread, but they were from right wing sites that weren't exactly sympathetic to whatever progressivism is supposed to be.

Is it just a conservative pejorative for liberals?

lol, Tyler Cowen's definition was very generous. I'd be surprised if you could find a "left-winger's" definition of libertarianism, free markets, etc. that has as much generosity.

When you use the term "right-wing," that doesn't accurately describe econlib.org or MarginalRevolution.com. "Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like. In Intellectuals and Society, Thomas Sowell makes a good case for this.



Anyway, aside from your prejudice for perceived right-wing authors, what exactly do you find wrong with their definition of progressivism?

Is it just a conservative pejorative for liberals?

Of course not. It applies to conservatives and Republicans as well.

[Night Strike]

perhaps you should keep looking, until you get to the parts where they reversed all progress made in slaves realizing freedom, or maybe the part about how they wanted to force black people and mentally ill people have abortions, or maybe the part about re-segregating our military, or maybe even the part about how the progressive party is constantly trying to tear apart our constitution. Maybe when you come to realize that progressivism is the complete opposite of freedom, you can get a little deeper understanding.

I must say...You don't seem to really understand what a progressive is at all. Where do you get this crap? It's certainly not from reality.

A progressive is NOT someone who just wants to move the country forward and to make progress. That's apparently what you believe it is, and you're dead wrong (literally in some cases).

I consider myself a progressive, and that is absolutely what I am trying to do (move the country forward and make progress). Just because someone has told you lies about what a progressive is doesn't mean you have to believe them, Night Strike...you don't have to let their poison work on you. A progressive has nothing at all to do with trying to keep slavery, forcing anyone to have an abortion, trying to re-segregate our military OR trying to tear apart our Constitution. Frankly, I have to question your sanity when you make statements like this.

Didn't you say somewhere that you were a history teacher? Have you never studied Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, Teddy Roosevelt (who ran for president as a Progressive), and others from the first 3 decades of the 20th century?

[Woodruff]

When you use the term "right-wing," that doesn't accurately describe econlib.org or MarginalRevolution.com. "Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like.

No it isn't, any more than "left-wing" is a term that describes anything that conservatives don't like. Or is your use of "left-wing" above meant as a pejorative?

"Right-wing" typically means "conservative".

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeesh, I just scrolled through this thread... it was scary.


Here's some working definitions:

The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal." Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies and should not be used interchangeably. In the US in particular, the term progressive tends to have the same value as the European term social democrat; which is scarcely used in American political language.[citation needed]

The reason for this confusion in the US might partly be rooted in the political spectrum being two-dimensional; social liberalism is a tenet of modern progressivism, whereas economic liberalism (and its associated deregulation) is not. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress, "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics. It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressives see progressivism as an attitude towards the world of politics that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, and as an attempt to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy.

But that's wikipedia, so it leaves much to be desired.



Here's Tyler Cowen from MarginalRevolution.com:

Arnold Kling asks this question, so I thought I'd try a stab at it, but trying to cast progressivism in the best possible light. Of course my answer is not exclusive to Arnold's, as we might both be right about the elephant. From an outsider's perspective, here is my take on what progressives believe or perhaps should believe:

1. There exists a better way and that is shown by the very successful polities of northwestern Europe and near-Europe. We know that way can work, even if it is sometimes hard to implement.

2. Progressive policies offer more scope for individualism and some kinds of freedom. Greater security gives people a greater chance to develop themselves as individuals in important spheres of life, not just money-making and risk protection and winning relative status games.

3. Determinism holds and tales of capitalist meritocracy are an illusion, to be kept only insofar as they are useful.

4. The needs of the neediest ought to be our top priority, as variations in the well-being of other individuals are usually small by comparison, at least in the United States.

5. U.S. policy is not generally controlled by egalitarian interests, So it is doing "God's work" to push for such an egalitarian emphasis at the margin. At the very least it will improve the quality of discourse, even if the U.S. never actually arrives in "progressive-land."

6. Limiting inequality will do more to check bad governance than will the quixotic libertarian attempt to limit the size of government.

7. Skepticism about the public sector is by no means altogether unwarranted, yet true redistributive programs are possible and they can work and be politically popular; we even have some here in the United States.

8. We should support free trade, more immigration, and more foreign aid, but the nation-state will remain the fundamental locus for redistribution. That means helping the poor at home more than abroad; a decision to do otherwise would destroy political equilibrium and make everyone worse off.

9. State and local governments are fundamentally to be mistrusted (recall segregation) and thus we should transfer more power to the federal government, which tends to be bluntly and grossly egalitarian, when it manages to be egalitarian at all. That is OK.

10. The United States has to struggle mightily to meet the progressive standards of western Europe and we should not equate the two regions in terms of their operation or capabilities. Yet there is an alternative strand in American history, if not always a dominant one, showing that progressive change is possible. Think Upton Sinclair and Martin Luther King and the organizers of early labor unions.

11. The evidence on economic growth is murky and so it is not clear that doing any of this carries much of a penalty in terms of future growth. In some regards it will enhance the especially beneficial sides of economic growth, even if it does not boost growth overall.

In due time I'll be writing more systematically about why those views are not, on the whole, my own. But not today!

It would be interesting to see a progressive try to sum up an intelligent version of libertarianism.

[BigBallinStalin]

When you use the term "right-wing," that doesn't accurately describe econlib.org or MarginalRevolution.com. "Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like.

No it isn't, any more than "left-wing" is a term that describes anything that conservatives don't like. Or is your use of "left-wing" above meant as a pejorative?

"Right-wing" typically means "conservative".

Judging from the way I've seen "right-wing" used, it tends to lump together monarchy, conservatism, "right-wing" libertarians, fascists, and "right-wing" dictators. As we've seen, Symmetry simply lumped a libertarian website into the "right-wing" term.

The above dichotomy shouldn't really be used because it doesn't accurately describe the source. Symmetry appears to use it on the libertarian website, because he doesn't like it; it's not left-wing enough for his tastes; therefore, it becomes "right-wing."

"Or is your use of "left-wing" above meant as a pejorative?"

No. I don't really care if someone labels himself as left-wing.

[Woodruff]

perhaps you should keep looking, until you get to the parts where they reversed all progress made in slaves realizing freedom, or maybe the part about how they wanted to force black people and mentally ill people have abortions, or maybe the part about re-segregating our military, or maybe even the part about how the progressive party is constantly trying to tear apart our constitution. Maybe when you come to realize that progressivism is the complete opposite of freedom, you can get a little deeper understanding.

I must say...You don't seem to really understand what a progressive is at all. Where do you get this crap? It's certainly not from reality.

A progressive is NOT someone who just wants to move the country forward and to make progress. That's apparently what you believe it is, and you're dead wrong (literally in some cases).

I consider myself a progressive, and that is absolutely what I am trying to do (move the country forward and make progress). Just because someone has told you lies about what a progressive is doesn't mean you have to believe them, Night Strike...you don't have to let their poison work on you. A progressive has nothing at all to do with trying to keep slavery, forcing anyone to have an abortion, trying to re-segregate our military OR trying to tear apart our Constitution. Frankly, I have to question your sanity when you make statements like this.

Didn't you say somewhere that you were a history teacher?

Nope. I teach Air Force Junior ROTC. It has some history elements, but those are mostly regarding the history of flight itself.

Have you never studied Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, Teddy Roosevelt (who ran for president as a Progressive), and others from the first 3 decades of the 20th century?

Historically, the "Progressive Era" is considered to have ended at World War I. As to a definition, progressivism (forward thinking) in the United States is a broadly based reform movement that reached its height early in the 20th century and is generally considered to be middle class and reformist in nature. It arose as a response to the vast changes brought by modernization, such as the growth of large corporations and railroads, and fears of corruption in American politics. In the 21st century, progressives continue to embrace concepts such as environmentalism and social justice.[1] Social progressivism, the view that governmental practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves, forms the ideological basis for many American progressives.

And finally...Would you consider it fair for me to point at certain historical Christians and state that's what Christians are? Because I promise you...it will look a lot worse than your view of "progressives" if I do. Are you really so unable to remove yourself from historical definitions in order to deal with today's reality, or is it just so very convenient for you not to do so?

[Woodruff]

When you use the term "right-wing," that doesn't accurately describe econlib.org or MarginalRevolution.com. "Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like.

Or is your use of "left-wing" above meant as a pejorative?

No. I don't really care if someone labels himself as left-wing.

But you clearly stated that "right wing" is a term for anything the left-wing doesn't like. Therefore, your use of "left-wing" must be similar in nature, or you couldn't use it. Or are you going to claim that "left-wing" is somehow a different terminology than "right-wing" or that perhaps YOUR use of it should be excluded from your definition (but not anyone else's use of it)? You're being very inconsistent here.

[ViperOverLord]

I consider myself a progressive...

Baby steps. One day, you'll finally admit that you're a liberal.

[Woodruff]

I consider myself a progressive...

Baby steps. One day, you'll finally admit that you're a liberal.

I consider myself to be somewhat of a social liberal. I am not even remotely a fiscal liberal. But don't let that stop you from trying to apply labels to me...I know it's the only way you can view this world.

[ViperOverLord]

I consider myself a progressive...

Baby steps. One day, you'll finally admit that you're a liberal.

I consider myself to be somewhat of a social liberal. I am not even remotely a fiscal liberal.

Fair enough. That's how I see it. Though I question your commitment to fiscal conservatism__ but that's not necessarily all on you. Sometimes social liberalism and financial conservatism are competing principles.

[rockfist]

Woodruff does not fit nicely into a label. I would not label him a Liberal. I do not and will not agree with him on everything.

Viper 20% of what the Republican party puts out is utter garbage. 90% of what the Democrat party puts out is utter garbage.

Its a matter of what you value most. I value fiscal Conservativism above any social policies. If it costs money and isn't for a meaningful system of commerce or national defense I oppose it.

[Woodruff]

I consider myself a progressive...

Baby steps. One day, you'll finally admit that you're a liberal.

I consider myself to be somewhat of a social liberal. I am not even remotely a fiscal liberal.

Fair enough. That's how I see it. Though I question your commitment to fiscal conservatism__ but that's not necessarily all on you. Sometimes social liberalism and financial conservatism are competing principles.

That's true that sometimes social liberalism and fiscal conservatism are competing principles...and in those situations, I would make a "choice" based on the individual circumstances as to what position I would support. Again, the idea that someone must be "one or the other" seems ludicrous to me.

[Lootifer]

Isn't a progressive, in the context of this website, someone who is sympathetic to government redistribution?

I dont think we quite need Tylers slightly weird take on things (seeing as most of it isn't relevant).

[Woodruff]

Woodruff does not fit nicely into a label.

I consider that a high compliment - thank you.

I do not and will not agree with him on everything.

But I'm clearly the smartest guy in the room! <grin> I don't believe I've ever met anyone who agrees with me on everything, and I'm not sure what I would think if I did.

Viper 20% of what the Republican party puts out is utter garbage. 90% of what the Democrat party puts out is utter garbage.

I would put it as more 90% for both, to be honest.

Its a matter of what you value most. I value fiscal Conservativism above any social policies. If it costs money and isn't for a meaningful system of commerce or national defense I oppose it.

See, I don't like hardline positions like that. I like to view each situation independently. I probably TEND to view social issues as more important than fiscal issues, but it will always depend on the specifics involved.

[Night Strike]

Historically, the "Progressive Era" is considered to have ended at World War I. As to a definition, progressivism (forward thinking) in the United States is a broadly based reform movement that reached its height early in the 20th century and is generally considered to be middle class and reformist in nature. It arose as a response to the vast changes brought by modernization, such as the growth of large corporations and railroads, and fears of corruption in American politics. In the 21st century, progressives continue to embrace concepts such as environmentalism and social justice.[1] Social progressivism, the view that governmental practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves, forms the ideological basis for many American progressives.

And finally...Would you consider it fair for me to point at certain historical Christians and state that's what Christians are? Because I promise you...it will look a lot worse than your view of "progressives" if I do. Are you really so unable to remove yourself from historical definitions in order to deal with today's reality, or is it just so very convenient for you not to do so?

Except I don't claim to be like the Christian government (because that's what they were at that time) of the middle ages. Heck, that whole period was dominated by the Catholic church and their beliefs and teachings, which are mostly things that I don't subscribe to. However, when it comes to today's progressives, some of the current ones, like Hillary Clinton, clearly and definitively refer to themselves as modern progressives similar to those progressives of the early 20th century. If I can't compare the two groups (according to you), then why can they compare themselves to the past group? The better question is, if they are comparing themselves to progressives of the past, why can't we look to see the policies and beliefs those groups actually supported and passed?

[BigBallinStalin]

When you use the term "right-wing," that doesn't accurately describe econlib.org or MarginalRevolution.com. "Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like.

Or is your use of "left-wing" above meant as a pejorative?

No. I don't really care if someone labels himself as left-wing.

But you clearly stated that "right wing" is a term for anything the left-wing doesn't like. Therefore, your use of "left-wing" must be similar in nature, or you couldn't use it. Or are you going to claim that "left-wing" is somehow a different terminology than "right-wing" or that perhaps YOUR use of it should be excluded from your definition (but not anyone else's use of it)? You're being very inconsistent here.

I don't follow.

By ""Right-wing" is a term which describes anything that the left-wing doesn't like" I'm referring to the weird lumping of very different political systems and philosophies under one term. That's how I've been exposed to the left-right dichotomy. The "right-wing" seems to range from right libertarians to monarchies, military dictatorships, theocrats, etc. The rationale to me which explains this odd lumping is this: "left-wing doesn't like these systems; therefore, lump them in the 'right-wing'; makes the left-wing seem so much better."

For clarification, I like using Donald Snow's categories of political stance: radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, reactionary. But for conversations focusing on state intervention, I'll use the (classical) liberal v. progressive spectrum.

This may be most relevant to your response (Tommy Sowell puts its so well for me):

A rough summary of the vision of the political left today is that of collective decision-making through government, directed toward-- or at least rationalized by-- the goal of reducing economic and social inequalities. There may be moderate or extreme versions of the left vision or agenda but, among those designated as "the right," the difference between free market libertarians and military juntas is not simply one of degree in pursuing a common vision, because there is no common vision among these and other disparate groups opposed to the left-- which is to say, there is no such definable thing as "the right," though there are various segments of that omnibus category, such as free market advocates, who can be defined.

Intellectuals and Society, p 91

[BigBallinStalin]

Isn't a progressive, in the context of this website, someone who is sympathetic to government redistribution?

I dont think we quite need Tylers slightly weird take on things (seeing as most of it isn't relevant).

I want to say "Yes," but it might depend on the reasoning behind the "government redistribution," so being more specific would help.

Extreme progressives are at odds with extreme classical liberals, free market libertarians, liberal constitutionalists, etc.

[Lootifer]

Isn't a progressive, in the context of this website, someone who is sympathetic to government redistribution?

I dont think we quite need Tylers slightly weird take on things (seeing as most of it isn't relevant).

I want to say "Yes," but it might depend on the reasoning behind the "government redistribution," so being more specific would help.

Extreme progressives are at odds with extreme classical liberals, free market libertarians, liberal constitutionalists, etc.

Yeh I guess im looking at it from the 4 point compass (Lib/Auth, Left/Right). Extreme progressives are in the top left? So they dont really count (I mean really who is left leaning AND authoritarian... were talking like some of the worst people in history who fall into that category). This board has very few (0?) extreme progressives I would have thought.

[rockfist]

Its a matter of what you value most. I value fiscal Conservativism above any social policies. If it costs money and isn't for a meaningful system of commerce or national defense I oppose it.

See, I don't like hardline positions like that. I like to view each situation independently. I probably TEND to view social issues as more important than fiscal issues, but it will always depend on the specifics involved.

In "normal" circumstances I would agree that hardline positions are not good. I just believe that our current political system and budgetary system is so far beyond what I would deem necessary that a reduction in spending currently trumps everything else. That may change over time.

[BigBallinStalin]

Isn't a progressive, in the context of this website, someone who is sympathetic to government redistribution?

I dont think we quite need Tylers slightly weird take on things (seeing as most of it isn't relevant).

I want to say "Yes," but it might depend on the reasoning behind the "government redistribution," so being more specific would help.

Extreme progressives are at odds with extreme classical liberals, free market libertarians, liberal constitutionalists, etc.

Yeh I guess im looking at it from the 4 point compass (Lib/Auth, Left/Right). Extreme progressives are in the top left? So they dont really count (I mean really who is left leaning AND authoritarian... were talking like some of the worst people in history who fall into that category). This board has very few (0?) extreme progressives I would have thought.

Hm. I'd take that 4-point compass and give it to someone else.

Donald Snow has these 5 categories for political stance: radical, liberal, moderate/centrist, conservative, reactionary.
For issues with state intervention, I invoke the "(classical) liberal v. progressive" spectrum.


Radicals tend to implement their ideal end through violence.

Liberals tend to view government as a tool of positive change.

Moderates are kind of like "this is where we're at, so what can we do, given our current constraints." (I guess they tend not to be too idealistic).

Conservatives tend to distrust the government, or adopt a "leave me alone/get off my yard" attitude.

Reactionary are guys who want to go back to some previous state. I guess many free market libertarians could be considered reactionaries. During Mao's rule, "reactionary" describe anyone who rejected applied socialism (i.e. Communism) and wanted a previous time where private property was respected slightly more.


(classical) liberal v. progressive
To be way too simple, classical liberal is like "less government; more reliance on human action for problem-solving" and tend to adopt a long-run view; whereas, progressives are like "more government; I want my ideals applied in the short-run because people can't get there quick enough or could never do it quick enough."