Posted on Feb 28, 2016
What is a "Progressive"? A "Leftist"? A "Socialist"? Do you really know? Bernie doesn't, does he?
3.64K
14
16
6
6
0
You can run but you can't hide these days. We're not just embroiled in a Presidential election, we're embroiled in an ideological debate, and the temperature is rising. People are so confused that they have elevated the clowns to ringmasters in this circus we call politics.
Much of the heat I see generated by these debates and rants is the result of the simple fact that most people are using the same words to mean different things. The Left claims that Fascism is on the Right while claiming that socialism is a child of the Left, but Fascism was socialistic. I've seen the right claim that “Liberals” are the fount of all evil, but “liberal” is the love of liberty. (Meanwhile, the Left has jumped all over this mistake and taken the title of “Liberal” even though they espouse strong central control and authority which is contrary to individual liberty.)
Thus, before getting lost in the weeds arguing over politics with friends and family, I highly recommend that you take the time to learn the terminology and make sure that you and your ideological opponents agree on the terms, otherwise you'll just waste your time while raising your blood pressure.
Hillsdale College is offering a free on-line course, The Presidency and The Constitution, which defines many of these terms and helps you understand the underlying conflict between the Left and the Right. Who knows, you may discover that you are on the other side. Are you certain?
http://online.hillsdale.edu/course/pres101/schedule
Much of the heat I see generated by these debates and rants is the result of the simple fact that most people are using the same words to mean different things. The Left claims that Fascism is on the Right while claiming that socialism is a child of the Left, but Fascism was socialistic. I've seen the right claim that “Liberals” are the fount of all evil, but “liberal” is the love of liberty. (Meanwhile, the Left has jumped all over this mistake and taken the title of “Liberal” even though they espouse strong central control and authority which is contrary to individual liberty.)
Thus, before getting lost in the weeds arguing over politics with friends and family, I highly recommend that you take the time to learn the terminology and make sure that you and your ideological opponents agree on the terms, otherwise you'll just waste your time while raising your blood pressure.
Hillsdale College is offering a free on-line course, The Presidency and The Constitution, which defines many of these terms and helps you understand the underlying conflict between the Left and the Right. Who knows, you may discover that you are on the other side. Are you certain?
http://online.hillsdale.edu/course/pres101/schedule
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Politics
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 6
2
2
0
CPT Jack Durish - Captain;
If you divide the world's political spectrum into seven general categories "Far Left", "Left", "Center Left", "Center", "Center Right". "Right", and "Far Right" then divide each of those categories into " - ", "neutral", and "+" so that your scale now runs from "Far Left -" [equaling 1] to "Far Right +" [equaling 21] :
• Canada’s “New Democratic Party” probably comes in around an “8” or “9” (sort of “[Moderate to Conservative] Center Left”) ; and
• Canada’s “Liberal Party” probably comes in around an “11” or “12” (sort of “[Center to Conservative] Center”); and
• the "Libertarians" probably coming in around "12" to "13" (on the "Center" - "Center Right" border); and
• Canada’s “Conservative Party” probably comes in around a “13” or “14” (sort of “[Progressive to Moderate] Center Right”); and
• the Democrats probably come in around "14" to "15" (sort of “[Moderate to Conservative] Center Right"); and
• the Republicans probably come in around "16" to "17" (sort of [Progressive to Center] Right"); and with
• the T.E.A. Party probably coming in around "17" to "18" (sort of “[Center to Conservative] Right".
The vast majority of world politics is probably in the "7" ("Progressive Center Left") to "15" ("Conservative Center Right) range.
[NOTE – “Kleptocracies” and “One-Man-Band” governments don’t really have “politics” as we generally consider them to be.]
On the other hand, you can always adopt the US system where anything that isn't staunchly reactionary and ravingly favorable to completely unrestrained capitalism is "Communism" and be done with it.
If you divide the world's political spectrum into seven general categories "Far Left", "Left", "Center Left", "Center", "Center Right". "Right", and "Far Right" then divide each of those categories into " - ", "neutral", and "+" so that your scale now runs from "Far Left -" [equaling 1] to "Far Right +" [equaling 21] :
• Canada’s “New Democratic Party” probably comes in around an “8” or “9” (sort of “[Moderate to Conservative] Center Left”) ; and
• Canada’s “Liberal Party” probably comes in around an “11” or “12” (sort of “[Center to Conservative] Center”); and
• the "Libertarians" probably coming in around "12" to "13" (on the "Center" - "Center Right" border); and
• Canada’s “Conservative Party” probably comes in around a “13” or “14” (sort of “[Progressive to Moderate] Center Right”); and
• the Democrats probably come in around "14" to "15" (sort of “[Moderate to Conservative] Center Right"); and
• the Republicans probably come in around "16" to "17" (sort of [Progressive to Center] Right"); and with
• the T.E.A. Party probably coming in around "17" to "18" (sort of “[Center to Conservative] Right".
The vast majority of world politics is probably in the "7" ("Progressive Center Left") to "15" ("Conservative Center Right) range.
[NOTE – “Kleptocracies” and “One-Man-Band” governments don’t really have “politics” as we generally consider them to be.]
On the other hand, you can always adopt the US system where anything that isn't staunchly reactionary and ravingly favorable to completely unrestrained capitalism is "Communism" and be done with it.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Jack Durish - Captain; Actually it's more like describing a spectrum rather than pretending that each and every "political ideology" is totally separate from every other.
Another way of looking at it is that you have to have the "Liberals" to make the changes that the changes in society have made necessary AND you have to have the "Conservatives" to make those changes work. Where you often run into problems is [a] making changes for the sake of making changes OR [b] NOT making changes for the sake of NOT making changes.
Another way of looking at it is that you have to have the "Liberals" to make the changes that the changes in society have made necessary AND you have to have the "Conservatives" to make those changes work. Where you often run into problems is [a] making changes for the sake of making changes OR [b] NOT making changes for the sake of NOT making changes.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
COL Ted Mc - Another great example of what I'm talking about. Thank you. This was not a challenge to defend your ideology or attack another. It was a challenge to understand the terms of the debate before making assumptions and becoming defensive or offensive. Based on your construct, I would say that you need to recheck your terminology.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Jack Durish - Captain; I agree that people should at least attempt to ensure that they are working off the same map.
Of preference, I'll stick with the "traditional" definitions for the simple reason that they aren't likely to change from day to day depending on the mood of the person using them.
From your own definition, an "American Progressive" differs from a "Progressive" (please not the use of the quotation marks to indicate that a defined term is being used rather than a looser and more generic definition). To use "Progressive" to describe an "American Progressive" is no more accurate than using "American Progressive" to describe a "Progressive".
Once you start confusing terms because they have a word in common, then you will get off into some serious errors. After all "Stalinist Communism" and "Christian Communism" both have the word "communism" in them but they really aren't the same thing at all are they? And Pol Pot's Cambodia was a "People's Republic" while the United States of America is a "Democratic Republic" and they both have the word "republic" in them but they really aren't the same thing at all - are they?
Of preference, I'll stick with the "traditional" definitions for the simple reason that they aren't likely to change from day to day depending on the mood of the person using them.
From your own definition, an "American Progressive" differs from a "Progressive" (please not the use of the quotation marks to indicate that a defined term is being used rather than a looser and more generic definition). To use "Progressive" to describe an "American Progressive" is no more accurate than using "American Progressive" to describe a "Progressive".
Once you start confusing terms because they have a word in common, then you will get off into some serious errors. After all "Stalinist Communism" and "Christian Communism" both have the word "communism" in them but they really aren't the same thing at all are they? And Pol Pot's Cambodia was a "People's Republic" while the United States of America is a "Democratic Republic" and they both have the word "republic" in them but they really aren't the same thing at all - are they?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I heard about the lecture series on Mark Levin's radio show. I've got it bookmarked and have already completed the first of the series.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
You are correct. The labeling of parties ideology has gotten all mixed up. You are correct for the TRUE meaning of a "Liberal" but in the late teens/early 20's of the 20th Century the "Progressive" party so corrupted the "progressive" moniker that they had to look for a new "label" and took "Liberal."
That led to the term "CLASSIC LIBERAL" which actually espouses the ideals of "Liberal"
In Europe the ideologies between "Liberal" and "Conservative" are reversed in their meaning when compared to the US.
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom. Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States."
That led to the term "CLASSIC LIBERAL" which actually espouses the ideals of "Liberal"
In Europe the ideologies between "Liberal" and "Conservative" are reversed in their meaning when compared to the US.
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom. Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States."
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
"Progressives" is how liberals choose to self-identify after the term "liberal" acquired a stigma. It doesn't change anything though.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Just as there are differing opinions regarding the efficacy of different approaches to economics, social policies and social justice, there are also competing opinions on history and how certain words should be defined. I agree that it makes sense to understand someones definition of socialism, before arguing socialism with them.. however it doesn't make sense to get all wrapped up in the definitions debate instead of discussing the issues.
I'll site as an example the title of this thread. Sanders definition of progressive, leftist, and socialist may not align with what Hillsdale college has accepted as definitions but dollars to donuts they do align with how large segments of the population and other (most) educational institution define those words. The important thing here is to understanding what they mean when they use certain words, accusing them of not understanding the "correct" meaning of those words (because they are not using the definition that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside) doesn't move the discussion forward.
I'll site as an example the title of this thread. Sanders definition of progressive, leftist, and socialist may not align with what Hillsdale college has accepted as definitions but dollars to donuts they do align with how large segments of the population and other (most) educational institution define those words. The important thing here is to understanding what they mean when they use certain words, accusing them of not understanding the "correct" meaning of those words (because they are not using the definition that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside) doesn't move the discussion forward.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
SSG (Join to see) - Wow! You are the perfect example of my point. You say "I advocate social reform, and the implementation of liberal ideas such as liberty and equality. Therefore I am a progressive." That is not the definition of a progressive, not in anyone's book except your own. You are adorning yourself with high-sounding principles without any understanding. The progressives who defined progressivism, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, exemplified the ideology by their Administrations. They deliberately set themselves above the Constitution to espouse the view that they had visions of what needed to be done and exercised plenary powers to achieve their goals. That is progressivism. You may invent whatever definitions you want to make you feel good about yourself, but when you announce you are a progressive, expect that others will apply the commonly accepted definition and not your own. Now, keep in mind that nothing I have said thus far implies any judgment. I haven't said whether progressive is a good or bad thing. You cannot tell if I am a progressive or not. I am simply defining terms using those generally accepted among political scholars and progressives themselves. Insulting me won't change the truth. Being rude and a bore won't change it. Yes, you are the perfect example. Thank you for your assistance.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Jack Durish - Captain; When you remember that Kant saw "progress" as "a movement away from barbarism towards civilization" and the Marquis de Condorcet said that "progress" would involve the disappearance of slavery, the rise of literacy, the lessening of inequalities between the sexes, reforms of harsh prisons and the decline of poverty (both of whom were "progressives" long before Presidents T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson) it's pretty hard to say that SSG (Join to see) is completely wrong in his definition of "progressive".
Now if you want to use the term "Late 19th Century American Progressivism" I won't disagree with you when you refer to the "ideology" of the administrations of President T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson. (I might not even bother to dispute whether their actions were based on "ideology" or were simply the "methodology" which they used to implement their "ideology".)
Now if you want to use the term "Late 19th Century American Progressivism" I won't disagree with you when you refer to the "ideology" of the administrations of President T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson. (I might not even bother to dispute whether their actions were based on "ideology" or were simply the "methodology" which they used to implement their "ideology".)
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - Let's start with how the dictionary defines the word:
4. Favoring improvement, change, progress, or reform, especially in a political context; - used of people. Contrasted with conservative.
http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/progressive
Just in case you don't like Websters, here is the Cambridge definition
"a person who supports new ideas and social change, especially one who belongs to a political party"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/progressive
My definition is not just my own, it's how most people define the word.
4. Favoring improvement, change, progress, or reform, especially in a political context; - used of people. Contrasted with conservative.
http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/progressive
Just in case you don't like Websters, here is the Cambridge definition
"a person who supports new ideas and social change, especially one who belongs to a political party"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/progressive
My definition is not just my own, it's how most people define the word.
Progressive - Definition of Progressive by Webster Dictionary
Progressive - Definition of Progressive and synonyms of Progressive are presented by online Webster's Dictionary. Includes dictionary browser, morphological search by meaning of Progressive, thesaurus, related words, and dictionary browser. Provides Progressive usage examples
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - You stated: "The progressives who defined progressivism, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, exemplified the ideology by their Administrations. They deliberately set themselves above the Constitution to espouse the view that they had visions of what needed to be done and exercised plenary powers to achieve their goals."
First there is the preamble, which includes "promote the general Welfare"
Then there is article 1, section 8 which tells us that congress has the ability to provide for the General Welfare.
There was still some question about the extent of governments ability to tax and spend in order to promote the general welfare... however that was settled by US v. Butler. Roosevelt and Wilson were not setting themselves up above the Constitution even though they understood the Constitution differently than you.
First there is the preamble, which includes "promote the general Welfare"
Then there is article 1, section 8 which tells us that congress has the ability to provide for the General Welfare.
There was still some question about the extent of governments ability to tax and spend in order to promote the general welfare... however that was settled by US v. Butler. Roosevelt and Wilson were not setting themselves up above the Constitution even though they understood the Constitution differently than you.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google