Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Has Obama-Era Politics Debased the Meaning of Being 'Progressive'?
The morning after President Obama's West Point speech justifying his commitment of more troops to the war effort in Afghanistan, "representatives of six major progressive organizations" held a press conference to back the President's policy. The effort was organized by Jim Arkedis of the Progressive Policy Institute and Rachel Kleinfeld of the Truman National Security Project.
This would not be surprising to anyone who follows Democratic politics and policy debates within the DC Beltway. The Progressive Policy Institute has long been a center for centrists and conservatives within the Democratic party doing ideological battle with those to their left. The Truman National Security Project is also a center for party centrists and conservatives to promote iconic Truman Cold Warrior "toughness" as the answer to the Democrat's oft-perceived "political weakness" on national security issues.
What this press conference may signal is that in American politics the label "progressive" is no longer a useful distinction. How did this come to be? Here is my narrative of the debasement of the term "progressive."
In early 1970's I learned to call myself "a progressive." Sixties left activists had a serious critique of the then politically dominant liberals. We wanted to distinguish ourselves from them, although at the time the media discourse only had room for two choices: liberal and conservative. Within the left we had some difference of opinion on whether we should call ourselves "progressives", "radicals" or "revolutionaries". "Progressive" was obviously a "bigger tent" and easily won out, especially after some those identifying as radicals and revolutionaries indulged themselves in marginalizing sectarianism or anti-state violence.
The political fortunes of progressives waned, especially after Reaganites came to power in Washington, but the strength of the label must have been enduring because conservative-centrist Democrats who founded the Progressive Policy Institute appropriated the term in order to challenge the left with their "third way" ideology.
Meanwhile most American leftists I know continue to call themselves "progressives." In 2008 after eight years of extreme right governance, leftists were ready to join liberals and centrists to oust the Republicans from control of the Federal government. I remember saying that "Obama is the most progressive of the major candidates for president", though I would usually add the caveat that, at best, he was a left-inclined centrist. As one Chicago friend later said to me: "If being a liberal Republican was a viable option for a politician in Chicago, Barack Obama would be one."
So left progressives gave their all to the Obama campaign for the presidency and I continue to believe that decision was tactically correct. He was our best option for defeating the rightists.
Along the way Obama was labeled "a progressive Democrat" by some in the press. When he won and established a centrist administration, his association with the term "progressive" had the effect of bringing it into the mainstream. Suddenly nearly everyone in DC wanted to be part of the progressive party.
Today the Progressive Policy Institute is celebrating that the conservative Democratic national security policy they favor is now ideologically associated with the Obama administration. Thus the meaning of "progressive" is more thoroughly debased, to the point of approaching uselessness.
Where does this leave the left? Human beings seem to be very fond of labels. They are part of our practice of politics. They are fundamental to how we sort out who are our comrades and who are not. We could spend hours talking to discover commonalities and differences between us, but very often we feel that we have make quick judgments about who we align with. Thus the ubiquitous question: Is he or she "really progressive"?
I think it may be time for a new term of use for left affiliation and identity. I don't have any suggestions for what that might be, but I do believe that "progressive" has been debased, probably irretrievably.
I do not blame Obama for this. His politics are what they are ... as for each of us our political identity is ultimately defined by our political choices. It is simply an artifact of political change that "progressive" is no longer a useful distinction.
112 Comments so far
Show AllWhat's a progressive?
"Progressive is the comparative of which we have not yet settled the superlative."
Being progressive is more than just politics. It is a mind set. It is a realization that something needs change to be better. To be more fair. To be more sustainable. These words will ALWAYS be tempting for the Global Elite to hyjack and twist and misuse. We need to realize this and not be fooled.
The Democrats hijacked the word "progressive" just as the Republicans hijacked the word "conservative".
In terms of taxation "progressive" was the Robin Hood model...take from the rich and give to working class and poor, while "regressive" meant take from the 99% and give to the 1% who already have more money than they could spend in a million years.
Today "progressives" and "conservatives" are pandering to K Street lobbyists to glean as many bribes as possible, resulting in the entire economy becoming more regressive.
"Progressive"- It's just another weasel word.
"Progressive" is merely a term that was salvaged from the scrapheap of history, sorry but that's too great a metaphor not to steal, by the alleged "left" in this country because the Limbaughs,Kristols,et al had so demonized the word "liberal." That's basically it, plain and simple. The problem is, that in spite of the fact they were led by one of the biggest imperialists and warmongers, the original Progressives,were a bunch of Bolsheviks, compared to the hegemonic capitalists who wrap themselves in the "progressive" mantle today.
While some of us here know that modern-day liberalism was founded to be a capitalist-friendly "third way" between socialism,and conservatism, most people do not. If they did and truly understood this history they would not waste all of their time and effort into trying to make "liberals", and The Democratic Party in particular, into the socialists they might want them to be.
A "progressive" is someone who cannot admit to the systemic failure of the society. Through this stubborn blindness, they reveal their own fundamental loyalty to the social system as a whole. The solution to the "anti-democratic" turn in American politics is not to question its foundations but to proscribe "more democracy" or "real democracy", without evaluating for a minute whether the ""turn" is really an aberration. In economics, a "progressive" is one who blames an excess of greed, a deficiency of regulation, or the corruption of the state rather than the normal operation of capitalism. In this way, "progressives" are identical to Libertarians who, in the face of insurmountable evidence, continue to insist that it is "too little" and not too much "free enterprise" which is the problem.
We need a capitalism based on good intentions says the one, based on a strengthening of the "individual" claims the next, and one purged of racial corruption declares the last. Fixing capitalism is the highest and in fact the only slogan of all of the above, and this in the most trivial and unhistorical way possible. Those are the last and the only words of this brand of "radical" criticism which is actually a radical support for the society as it exists... if only that society could be "allowed" to achieve its "true" nature.
All too often "progressive" has come to mean someone who will offer unconditional support to The Democratic Party no matter what.
A progressive is someone who believes in the system.
Progressives and liberals are as ready as conservatives to support government interventions in our lives and on the world stage. The country in question may be Sudan, Afghanistan or perhaps Iran. The clarion call is the same. "We must do something” because “we” are superior, all knowing, and chosen by a divine force to make the world in whatever image we choose.
No one asks how “we” is defined, or if the presence of the United States is needed or wanted. No one asks about the history of past interventions and their usually negative outcomes. It is assumed that Americans are good and know what is best for the world, despite a long history of numerous brutalities carried out across the globe.
I guess by asserting things in an authoritative manner, some people will probably assume most of your premises are valid. They're not.
Centrists coopted the label to avoid being branded as the maligned "liberal".
I do think that Obama ran as a real "progressive" as opposed to a Centrist. That is how Obama managed the groundswell of grassroots support which has all but been forgotten in this revisionist history of late. Who ever talks about the records he broke from the small donor?
Truth be told, Centrists don't win because of their elitist disdain for the citizens.
Knight's mistake was opting for "progressive" over radical or revolutionary in the first place. "Progress" is an amorphous concept, too broad to be meaningful, as the article demonstrates. I suspect that behind the choice to identify with that category as opposed to the other options lay fear of being unpopular. In the US, who wants to expose himself by appearing to be radical or revolutionary? Well, I do for one. Look at what happened to the "conservative" movement. In the mid 1960s, despite its unpopularity, the Goldwater people stuck by their guns (in Canada they hedged by calling themselves, oximoronically, "progressive conservatives"). By calling a spade a spade, it paid off in the long run. I believe in honest self identification, regardless of what the corporate media deems proper. "Liberal" is useless, and now so is "progressive." Given the nature and depth of the political crisis in America, I say that both "radical" and "revolutionary" are both accurate and necessary. It's time to choose, Mr. Knight. Whose side are you on?
genicon
A progressive is someone who agrees with Kuccinich, but votes for Obama.
Shoot...guess that leaves me OUT.
"A progressive is someone who agrees with Kucinich, but votes for Obama." –(genicon)
As a 'stand alone' definition, shorn of all clap trap, this is a perfect encapsulation–a précis of what sadly constitutes the absurdity of progressivism.
It is also the reason for its ongoing and seemingly irredeemable incoherence and continuing abasement: It remains throughly incapable of nihilistically rejecting the dictums of the system it seeks to 'reform' and ends up–by virtue of its continuing participation–of ratifying said system. In effect it becomes a willing junior partner in its own self destruction.
Progressivism not only 'talks left' and 'votes right,' it steadfastly refuses to examine the reactionary tenets which constitute and continue to underlie its core philosophy. In fact, it is an apostasy to even countenance that this may indeed be true.
It is axiomatic that if there were a 'real left' in America, one would not be surprised that in a crisis of state and economy– progressives would group with the right to smash the left.
"The dictatorship is necessary because it is a case, not of partial changes, but of the very EXISTENCE of the bourgeoisie. No agreement is possible on this ground. Only force can be the deciding factor" –(Leon Trotsky)
It matters little– if at all– that historical conditions are not even remotely imminent for such a situation to materialize: It is the very thought that counts.
Now where do progressives stand vis a vis that little intervention? I will hazard a guess: They would reject it outright. Then they will proceed to tell you why. There lies the problem: They would be wrong on both counts.–(Jill Bains)
I wonder how shepard ferrie feels today?
Actually, even more interesting is the Independents. The assumption is always that they are centrist swing voters, but truth be told many are disaffected former Democrats who abandoned party identification increasingly with the rise of the domination of the DLC Democrats. That was why there was such a third party threat post Clintons who seek to monopolize control and find more common cause with the Right while marginalizing the base.
The Clintonistas are still in the seat of power and put greater effort into "liberal bashing" and coopting labels because the threat to their standing is just as great as it is to the Right.
The big failure is not in the choice of a name but the failure to completely disengage from the democratic party which is the enemy of real change. A third party even if it gets only 20 percent of the vote in a national election would have a hell of a lot more influence in national politics than being a small minority within the right wing democratic party.
Politics and progressivism don't mix. As a matter of fact, the same thing can be said of conservatism and politics when one distinguishes between a principled conservative and a political conservative. My dad used to be a big fan of the popular talk show/radio conservatives such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc... while my mom used to be just plain orthodox in nature. I can't forget the countless times my dad would sometimes irritate her by saying "oh, you sound a bit too liberal". I have noticed a similar annoyance on the progressive side. Between the Obama "progressives" and the true progressives, the former will call the latter "closet Republicans". Orthodox progressives are progressive just like orthodox conservatives are conservative at the heart. The problem is not the true conservatives, true progressives, or for that matter true moderates and independents.
The problem is politics gone out of control and poisoning people's minds. Obama shamelessly chose to play go along get along with his political cronies and play politics just to get elected as another celebrity similar to Raygun and Dubya which he supports. Nixon, Ford, and Goldwater despite their issues didn't go so far as to soil genuine conservatism unlike Ronnie Raygun and Dubya who turned it into neoconservatism. Similarly, JFK, Carter, and to some extent LBJ despite their issues didn't go so far as to soil genuine progressivism and liberalism unlike Clinton and Barry who turned it into neoliberalism at its worst. Actually, ever since 2000, we have been stuck with presidents who are the worst of both neoconservatives and neoliberals.
Therefore, the meaning of "progressive" and "conservative" has been crushed a long time ago and anyone such as Paul, Kucinich, Nader, Mckinney, etc... who tries to reverse that gets marginalized. :(
Isn't 'Progressive' a word that liberals use to pretend that they are actually Leftists when they go out and vote for the corporate Democratic Party again and again and again? So what's changed?
-"So left progressives gave their all to the Obama campaign for the presidency and I continue to believe that decision was tactically correct. He was our best option for defeating the rightists."
This is where change promises to fall on its face once again next election.
Yeah! You defeated the "rightists". God knows what "they" might have done...expanded the wars?, paid off their banker backers?, limited health reform to what was acceptable to the lobbyists writing the legislation? I shudder to think.
Leftists, liberals, progressives, you are as far away from real change as you ever were because you haven't yet supported a party that is made up of like minded people. You are scattered and confused, some of you cling to the Democrats, most don't bother voting, a few sprinkle their votes on lone wolf outsiders. You are not going to get traction that way.
Excellent comment!
Especially on what the rightists "might have done"
Thank you Henry8. Look in most countries, I myself, would be considered slightly right wing, maybe a little left wing, but in the US it is clear, there is for all intents and perposes, the far right wing, and the very far right wing. I hear the media in the US call Obama "a liberal". That is just crazy.
I can't believe how out of touch your neigbors are with what is happening in the world. Some in the media were asking why aren't the other nato countries more "grateful" for what the US is doing in Afghanistan? Grateful? Why should anyone be grateful? The opinions range from :
"my God those poor stupid soldiers are getting their legs blown off so that Obama can do well on the post presidential rubber chicken circuit. I hope their veterans pensions will pay for the war debt."
to:
"Bravo America! Make us all safe from those illiterate villagers. And don't forget to buy from our companies when you are shopping for bullets and boots!"
You can see that I'm no fan of Obama's conquer and pillage routine. What about you? How have your views changed since you started pontificating here?, how long has it been? my lone star state anonymous ip address friend?
You bring up the dilemma of the Left. Even though we work our hearts out for a good candidate, when it comes to the general election our good candidate is gone. We are left with a Centrist and a Right Winger. What do we do?
1. Support a third party candidate who is a good choice but has no chance of winning, and by doing so we deny support to the Centrist and make it easier for the Right Winger to win.
2. Give our support to the Centrist because the Right Winger will be much worse, (ie bombing Iran and a land war in Venezuela as well as escalating Afghanistan vs. escalating Afghanistan,) but in doing so we compromise ourselves to the point of powerlessness.
This is not a issue about how Leftist we are. It's an issue about how idealistic vs. pragmatic we are. The idealist see little difference between the Right Winger and the Centrist because neither one is close to our ideals. The pragmatist sees that no matter how far they are from our ideals there is a difference and that difference is a difference of how many people die.
Our system creates this lose-lose situation.
There is only one solution. We need to change our electoral system. We need to devise a way to vote our conscience without it empowering the worse of the two major candidates. A lot think that IRV does that. It does, but ALL it does is satisfy our conscience, in the end it leaves us in the same place as if we just voted for the Centrist. I propose Vote Transfer (VT) that will not only satisfy our conscience but will empower our movement by giving those good candidates power. In VT only a candidate with a majority of the votes win as in IRV, but instead of the voter transferring her vote in case her candidate loses, the candidate keeps all her votes and she decides whom to transfer them to. Suddenly a McKinney has power even with 5% of the vote and the Centrist realizes he has to move to the Left to win. This way we can build our movement as well as satisfy our conscience.
Nicely stated. Although the problem with your idea of having the losing candidate pick who to deliver their votes to seems to create a problem of corruption and/or cronyism, and an easier way to purchase votes outright.
Not if it is part of the system and all above board. This is how Parliamentary systems work and VT would allow our system to have the same coalition governments.
jlocke123:
They could also have suppressed photographs of torture, re-affirmed the Patriot Act, granted telecoms retroactive immunity, and refused even private insurance coverage for women's health services, so it is good we don't have "rightists" running things.
"Progressive" is a very slippery word. Business groups use the word to refer to business-friendly govenment policy, at the expense of the living standard of wage earners.
I call myself a "leftist" myself. This word has always meant one who promotes economic empowerment of the worker, solidarity over "every man for himself" and extending the social contract of rights to include the right to material necesities of a meaningful life - food, shelter, education, healthcare, and leisure.
I don't see it being re-defined any time soon.
That first paragraph you mentioned is part of why I sometimes find myself struggling to figure out if I really am a progressive, liberal, or conservative. Sometimes, I get just as upset with people cloaking themselves under ideological labels as I do with people cloaking themselves with party labels. My mother was and still is a principled conservative and yet she is strongly against Big Business. You could say that she is a working class liberal in principle.
To convey a specific idea one needs specific words. If you believe that a harmonious society, or simply human decency, includes a social contract containing material rights like employment at a living wage, or basic food and shelter if one cannot work, healthcare, education, etc. Then you re a leftist. Quit being so wishy-washy.
The term "progressive" was already debased, and has been for at least a century. It was the political label of folks like Theodore Roosevelt who believed in busting trusts, public parks, women's suffrage, but also 100% in capitalism, US imperialism, and the rule of the few over the many.
Those of us who are 0% for capitalism, US imperialism and the rule of the few over the many should start calling ourselves something else, like socialist, communist, radical, revolutionary...
Unbelievable -- are you a Republican trying to discredit the Left?
Say what? you are the right-wing imperialist troll I encountered yesterday.
How about Democracy Leftist? I am not sure Socialist is a good term because a lot of us support a mixed system where small business is not socializes and may feel that Socialism implies a fully socialized system (which it actually doesn't.) Instead of fighting the battle to re-educate the meaning of Socialism, we can use the broader term of Leftist, which allows us to include more Third Way folk who are strongly anti-corporation.
I think we need to emphasize not only that we are Leftists but that we want true grassroots democracy, not the fiction of the Soviet Union's "centralized democracy" where party apparatchiks controlled the system nor the fiction of the current U.S. two party democracy where big money controls the system.
"I am a Leftist, a Democracy Leftist."
The underlying problem is articles like these only hasten the demeaning of words.
We are allowing one group to dictate meaning to another group and "Searching for another word" to define where we feel we sit as far as ideology goes only plays into their hands.
I am "Liberal" and I am "A Progressive". The meaning of those labels the one intended and not the one an Obama or a "Progressive action group" chooses to dictate to me.
I also believe in "Socialism" and feel no need to distance myself from that "Label" just because some groups either do not understand the meaning of the word or choose to distort the meaning of it.
That some people will justify intervention in the business of another nation with a Military or justify "Capitalism" under the progressive label does NOT MEAN THAT this is what Progressives believe in.
Confucious said that when words lose their meaning we all lose our freedoms. I think it foolish for us to simply SURRENDER the meaning of words. It akin to asking to be put in chains.
GwNorth, you wrote:
". . . "Searching for another word" to define where we feel we sit as far as ideology goes only plays into their hands."
You are precisely right. Others are going to try and co-opt OUR identity. To allow that is surrender, exactly as you suggest.
Defining "progressive" in the sense of Cindy Sheehan used "true progressive" is quite easy.
- One word: love
- Two words: cooperative worldview
- Three words: cooperation, not domination
- Four words: law instead of war
- Three domains: Domestic policy—making security for and investing in the least amongst us; Foreign policy: global rule of law instead of the lawless global rule of force; Electoral and constitutional reform policy: the will of the people shall be the law of the land.
- Operational definition: the platforms of the Green Party in 2004 and 2008; the platform of the presidential campaigns of Dennis Kucinich; the public record of Noam Chomsky's talks, articles, books and interviews; Dr. King's sermons, and those of late Malcolm X; the stated policies of the 19 State Progressive Caucuses; and the highest ideals of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
- Global Mission: Earth community not empire
- Biological origins: the bond of love, caring and responsibility between parents and helpless infants
- Historical roots: the life of the cooperative hunting and gathering band, and the life of the cooperative village
- Clearest description of the progressive worldview in contrast with the conservative worldview: The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler
For an example of a short progressive set of ideals, (one that I co-authored) see the mission of the Kansas Progressive Caucus in the state Democratic Party at:
http://www.kansasprogressives.org/Mission
There are no liberal caucuses in state Democratic parties. This website is not "the home of the liberal, socialist community," or "the home of the left, radical, revolutionary community," but is the "home of the progressive community".
Polls for decades have offered this spectrum of American politics: liberal-moderate-conservative.
In 2006 Gallup did a poll asking for support for this: progressive-moderate-conservative
"progressive" caught up with "liberal" and has now likely exceeded it.
Those who self-identified as progressive got 28 percent. (Liberal at 32 percent when compared.) Progressive policies as defined above have a clear majority on major progressive policy issues.
In contrast, "socialist," "left," "leftist," "radical," and "revolutionary" do not get above one percent in any poll.
Ours is the battle for independents and the great middle of partial progressives. Let us hold our identity high and advocate for true progressive policies and true progressive politicians like Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee.
Let's reject Charles Knight's absurd conclusion that we need a new identity. Let us instead defend it against all imposters such as President Obama, and groups that debase and demean our identity.
The writers on this website are true progressives. Those like those Charles cites in his articles are co-opters, fake progressives, and frauds.
I'm proud to be a progressive and will let no one get away with watering down or debasing my political identity.
'Progressive' for Obama means 'progressively worse, nastier, and more of a war criminal, a liar, a demagogue, a deceiver, and a stooge of the military-industrial complex'.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
To answer the question posed by the title of the article, "Has Obama-Era Politics Debased the Meaning of Being 'Progressive'?"
Only to the degree that authentic progressives do not organize to effectively resist various non-progressives (who continually try to debase and blur the historical and contemporary meanings of progressivism), in order to reassert and revitalize the proud original legacy of early 20th century progressivism and the spirit of progress embodied by the earlier Bill of Rights.
Progressivism in the U.S. began at the local level in New York City and spread to other northeastern cities as a movement to improve sanitation, public health and other basic living conditions in densely populated urban areas and slums. Compared to the general pack of neanderthal candidates at the time, Theodore Roosevelt was progressive with respect to many domestic policies, including national parks. But belligerent or imperialistic foreign policy was considered a regressive European habit until certain nitwits in the press and political class started using the same adjective that described his more enlightened domestic policies to misapply to his admiration and, sometimes, glorification of war.
I am proud to be a progressive and I think progressivism is an idea worth fighting for on principle. The test of a whether or not a politician or policy idea is progressive is common sense: Does this politician or this policy achieve actual PROGRESS that is beneficial for the common good? If not then said politician or policy is not progressive, period. Other more suitable labels apply.
Unfortunately in this postmodern era all terms like "progressive" and "rightest" are going to be co-opted and lose meaning quicker than Bush can snort a line. Some of the posters here have gone to the trouble to define, in their own words, what being a progressive really should mean (I personally like the ones from pjd412 and metal.)
So that means the mainstream narrowminded punditocracy have total control over the soundbite method, which is what this is really all about.
How else could it be so? Yeah, it'd be nice if it meant "progressive" when people use the word "progressive", but it clearly depends on the source and intent. "Our" positions as leftists, progressives, or what have you, will have to be constantly explained and fleshed out if it is be to communicated at all. As Chomsky says so clearly, you can't effectively challenge conventional wisdom in 2 minutes. You can certainly reinforce it though.
We must fight the desire for soundbite methodology. Progressives will need to always to do the hard work of being more specific and disciplined than the commissars of conventional wisdom in politics.
"Centrist," also needs to redefined. The first two organizations named here that have a close relationsip with the Democratic Leadership Council are funded by corporations (as is the DLC) and have an absolute pro-permanent war, pro-business orientation. To me, that's pretty far right of the "center."
Jim Hightower of Texas used to say the "middle of the road" (the old phrase for "centristrism") is populated with yellow lines and dead armadillos.
You'd think that the label progressive would actually involve a devotion to PROGRESS or at least improvement. But, NOoooo ... only "change" and that, merely of presidential colors.
Well, I'm comfortable enough referring to myself as a "principled progressive," which happens to be the title of my blog: http://sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/ and I don't mind referring to others of like mind, including many who post on these CD pages, in the same terms. Of course I mean to distinguish myself (ourselves) from the progressives of convenience like the Obama supporters who will compromise any "principle" in order to come down on the winning side of political struggles. That rather begs the question of WHAT principles and I don't like the idea of "progress" as a reliable principle, if it implies change as a good thing in itself, which I do not think to be the case. As to the nature of this principle, I would think of its somewhere between "populist" and "humanist," although those terms have historical baggage of "no-nothingism" for populism and militant atheism for humanism, as these terms, like progressivism, have been "debased" by particular groups using the terms. But the "principles" of sovereignty of the people over the power of the elites; and the primacy of humane over corporate and technocratic social conditions are the "principles" which define my political perspective whatever label---progressive, populist, humanist---might be used. If I and others adhere to THOSE principles, you can call me anything as long as you remember to call me when the peace and justice bells ring.
Since you are also from Florida just like others I have met on this site, I take it that you have run into various conservatives. Most of them I take it are conservative only because of the politics that poisons their minds. However, like my mother there has to be principled conservatives who are non-political. What do you think of non-political principled conservatives who actually have a lot more in common with principled progressives compared to the Obama supporters?
P.S.: Sometimes, I don't know if I am really a progressive, conservative, liberal, etc... and stick to just being known as an independent. Sometimes people associated with one ideology end up showing having a different position in odd cases. For example, I have run into social conservatives who prefer single payer health care over Obama care just like I have run into so-called "progressives" who defend Obama's decision to stay the Dubya course in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Jennifer: from what I have read of your posts, it doesn't matter whether you call yourself a progresssive or not. Yours are the principles of a progressive, as I tried to define those principles as "somewhere between" populism and humanism or, as otherwise put, in the realm of advocating peace and justice. By this definition, progressives who "defend Obama's decision to stay the course in Afghanistan and Iraq" are not progressives: by their fruits shall ye know them.
Nicely put sir!
Today's Democratic party is not the Democratic party of my youth.
JFK & LBJ were the torch-carriers of FDR's New Deal back then.
Today, the Democrats are Republican Lite. "Compassionate Conservatism" with a smile.
I did not leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me by betraying its own ideals.
For TRUE progessive programs, one must now go to the Green party.
Political discourse in general in the US is so distorted, most people don't know what terms like Progressive, Liberal, Libertarian, Socialist, Anarchist really mean. Like the term democracy, they have been reduced to meaningless buzz-words or transformed into meanings quite different than the definition one finds in pol. sci. texts or encyclopaedias.
A good, quick intro into the political spectrum can be found at: www.politicalcompass.org
Obama-Era politics has not debased the meaning of being progressive--THE LEFT and your "do-nothing just complain a lot" tactics have debased the meaning of being progressive. I mean, Obama was just elected. How many years has this country gone without healthcare? The ERA has not been passed. The Hyde Amendment is on the books. Racism and sexism still rule the boardrooms and society, religious fundamentalism is still rampant and causing suffering here and everywhere, gays are discriminated against and can't get married. I mean, wake UP! The only thing the Left is good at is complaining. And you're so good at it you would even align yourself with the Taliban a tyrannical government that would execute a woman over an accusation of adultery. THE SO-CALLED LEFT IS WHAT HAS DEBASED THE MEANING OF BEING PROGRESSIVE.
"Obama-Era politics has not debased the meaning of being progressive--THE LEFT and your "do-nothing just complain a lot" tactics have debased the meaning of being progressive."
Vanessa, either you are totally unaware of this administration or you are trying to desperately defend it. Either way, what you wrote shows that you have been severely poisoned by politics.
"I mean, Obama was just elected."
Yes, Obama was elected but so was Ronnie Raygun.
"How many years has this country gone without healthcare? The ERA has not been passed."
Yes, plenty of years have gone by without the desperately needed health care reform with more years to come. If you really want health care reform, you would be supporting HR 676 and opposing HR 3962 just like most of us here. An Obamabot would dishonestly call HR 3962 "reform". The ERA of lack of health care reform for the better will never go away as long as YOU choose status quo and act like another two-party apologist.
"The Hyde Amendment is on the books."
The Hyde Amendment passed because the Democrats allowed for it to pass.
"Racism and sexism still rule the boardrooms and society, religious fundamentalism is still rampant and causing suffering here and everywhere, gays are discriminated against and can't get married."
And you voted for the weasel sprinkling his "change you can believe in" pixy dust, didn't you? How do you like your chump change and your hope for the better getting further CRUSHED ?
"The only thing the Left is good at is complaining. And you're so good at it you would even align yourself with the Taliban a tyrannical government that would execute a woman over an accusation of adultery. THE SO-CALLED LEFT IS WHAT HAS DEBASED THE MEANING OF BEING PROGRESSIVE."
You need to stop drinking the Obama Koolaid and grow up. We have every right to complain when dishonest leaders cloak themselves as "progressive" and then SOIL the progressive movement and see to it that true progressives are framed as "Republicans". Well let me tell you something missy. This administration is already empowering the Taliban by sending troops into Afghanistan and ruining the lives of the Afghan sweethearts who have nothing to do with the Taliban. The Afghan people will HATE THE US after the damage the US/NATO troops do to their lives and country. The fake "progressives", aka Obamabots, are continuing to hurt true progressives just like Ronnie Raygun hurt true conservatives. Put down the political koolaid and please learn to distinguish between being principled versus a political clown !
JenniferBedingfield
Nice comment.
Thanks Henry8. You just reminded me of what I asked Jerry Rose of FL and I thought of asking the same from you on the issue of principled conservatives vs political conservatives especially since you are from TX and know the whole state better. I always thought that rural Texas had more principled conservatives compared to the suburbs in that states filled with politically oriented ones. I was looking up more information about the political nut cases in TX and FL and was not too surprised to find out that unlike MO, I read most of those cases going on in the suburbs in those two states than I do in the rurals.
JenniferBedingfield
Rural Texas is much more like Texas has been through the years as far as values and principes go. Most of the folks living in our rural areas are Texans. The Suburbs are a bit mixed and the urban areas are predominately transplants now.
We've got plenty of nuts across the spectrum like any other state, but I can say from experience that it is different from most other states in most of our areas. The contrasts are most evident now and the difference in philosophies (not left vs. right per se) show financially.
Our conservatives are more principled in rural areas I believe, even in the suburbs, but there are some real political hacks and "nuts" there for sure.
Best example I can give is that many of us can still go to our local banks and credit unions in rural areas and do business on a handshake basis.
I am somewhat surprised of what you said of the urban areas of Texas. I could watch a typical western movie of the 60s and 70s showing the clear blue skies and open land and tell myself "That's not Dallas anymore" but what exactly do you mean by transplants? Is it immigrants or just that the culture is so different or what?
Yes, a rural handshake for a business would be nice. I'm sure that there are still some honest business handshakes even in suburbs and urban areas in my state. Thanks for sharing your take on the makeup of that state. It will take a superdepression before rural TX and MO go deep blue just like the 1930s though I wished it wouldn't have to come to that.
" but what exactly do you mean by transplants? Is it immigrants or just that the culture is so different or what?"
Dallas and Houston consist of many folks that have moved here from other states and other countries, few native Texans live there any more. San Antonio not quite as much. Austin is a very different city, very liberal, very young and is a pretty good mix of Texans and transplants. Ft. Worth probably has more native Texans than the others while Tyler is the most Texas City left I'd say. We have many immigrants from all over the place, but unlike California, Texas tries to assimilate them to avoid Californias mistake.
The illegal immigrants are a different thing altogether.
Frankly, at this point, Obama and this Congress are painting people red, thanks to them big blue is recedeing.