Am I "a progressive", "progressive", or niether?

"I" before "E," except after "C," or, apparently, the word neither.

A "progressive" is a "liberal" who doesn't want to be labeled "liberal", because of the negative connotations in the U.S. At least, that is the way it was explained to me by a "liberal", who was in the process of becoming a "progressive".

Dictionary definitions:

Main Entry: 1 pro·gres·sive Pronunciation: pr&-'gre-siv Function: adjective 1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression 2 : of, relating to, or characterized by progression 3 : moving forward or onward : ADVANCING 4 a : increasing in extent or severity b : increasing in rate as the base increases 5 often capitalized : of or relating to political Progressives 6 : of, relating to, or constituting a verb form that expresses action or state in progress at the time of speaking or a time spoken of - pro·gres·sive·ly adverb - pro·gres·sive·ness noun

Main Entry: 2 progressive Function: noun 1 a : one that is progressive b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action 2 capitalized : a member of any of various U·S. political parties: as a : a member of a predominantly agrarian minor party that around 1912 split off from the Republicans; specifically : BULL MOOSE b : a follower of Robert M. La Follette in the presidential campaign of 1924 c : a follower of Henry A. Wallace in the presidential campaign of 1948.

Ron Wyden, Nancy Pelosi, and Earl Blumenauer are liberals. Pete DeFazio, Dennis Kucinich, and Bernie Sanders are progressives.

Earl is NOT a progressive?

Now you take that back right now!!!!!!

My first response - the rural in me - is "Who Cares!"

I don't call myself liberal or progressive. I am a rural Democrat.

But for those into labels - I have one word for you - Lakoff.

The actual terms are slippery. If you are at all moderate in a conservative environment - you look like a radical liberal/progressive to some. On the other hand, in a very left leaning environment, that same moderate might well look very conservative. There are issues of context and perspective then in these terms.

But what we are doing here isn't really defining "liberal" and "progressive" - we are playing into the hands of the right-wing think tanks that want to keep us confused and divided. We might as well be debating how many angles can stand on the head of a pin.

I for one want new terms we define or to put our definition on existing words. Back to "democrat" - What follows is something my wife wrote a couple months back -

Democrats Stand for Democracy First

D * Democracy for ALL citizens (freedom, equal protection under the law, upholding ALL rights in the Bill of Rights [including the right to bear arms] and equity in our system no matter how much money someone has)

E * Education for ALL citizens (public education that reins in the parts of the No Child Left Behind legislation that takes away the local control; let professionals retain flexibility to educate children using methods that fit the unique needs of each individual community and child; eliminate the expensive cookie-cutter approach to education)

M * Medical care and the best possible health for ALL citizens (includes environmental protections and universal health insurance regardless of a person's age, employment status, health or income)

O *Opportunities for ALL citizens (good-paying jobs, housing, education, thriving communities, reducing the deficit to strengthen the economy)

C * Counting ALL votes (with a paper trail that allows reliable recounts)

R * Renewable energy and other innovations to reduce the need for foreign oil (affordable and plentiful energy for ALL citizens)

A * Accountability to ALL citizens (hold all public officials accountable when they act unethically, when they break the law and when they violate our trust – unlike Republicans, this is true even if those officials belong to our Party)

T * Taxation fairness for ALL citizens (eliminate unfair tax breaks to corporations and the rich and don't overtax poor or middle class citizens; eliminate off-shore tax shelters)

S * Security and safety for ALL citizens (use ingenuity, diplomacy and common sense to keep ALL citizens safe from terrorists, criminals, corporations selling harmful products or polluting the air – this includes avoiding wars that kill our soldiers unnecessarily and keeping citizens safe from government abuses of power and from an overly porous border)

Opps - I thought that the cut and paste I used on my wife's write up on the word "democrat" had her name on the bottom. It didn't. So proper attribution follows -

Jean Bucknum wrote that piece.

Steve and Jean, loved the spelling out of what Democrat means.

We should ignore labels like liberal or even progressive. A friend who lives in a rural county is a fed up former Republican activist. He thinks there is no leadership in Oregon in either party (but lots of people who play games and are out of touch with real people's lives ). He has this to say about DeFazio :
"He doesn't fit stereotypes or play political games, and the voters love it which is why they continue to re-elect him".

How would you classify the former GOP friend of mine who registered NAV because he didn't want to be in any party that would have Russ Walker as vice chair, and contemplated running for office as an Independent against a Republican incumbent? Or the Democrats who encouraged him?

Or a veteran Republican state senator who teamed up with local law enforcement and others (incl. a former political opponent) to take a stand on meth in the county and state? Who quoted that former opponent on the need for community solutions in a way that almost sounded like "it takes a village"---but doesn't want to discuss how ending tax breaks might provide more funding for community problems like meth and the need for more law enforcement and foster homes?

Politics as we know it is coming apart at the seams, and there are more changes on the horizon. It is like the end of the Reagan years in some ways (scandal plus the Cold War which had been such an organizing principle for so long was ending).

A friend just sent me a recent Vanity Fair (current issue?) article titled "High Noon At Crawford", about how things have been going down hill for Bush and the Republicans in ways they could never have foreseen in June. Reading it reminds me of the book Sleepwalking Through History which I bought when it came out in paperback.

Here is part of what the Amazon review says:

Summarizing what he sees as Reagan's legacy, the "ethical wastland of the eighties," the author points to growing fractionalization, subversion of the constitutional system, corruption and ineffectiveness of government, and cynicism and inattention of the American people. First serial to Vanity Fair.

It is framing term intended to insult anyone who disagrees as regressive about anything, from nearly any perspective. It thus could have no meaning or purpose whatsoever other than to disrupt open debate on issues.

One of the very first things that people must do in debate is to acknowledge that each and every person and their ideas are intended, from their perspective, to achieve public good. (So says mother hen.)

Thus the definition is infinitely illusive. Good luck. No one is not progressive.

Another view is that it has all the power and force of someone saying god said this or god said that, for which no one could possibly refute the speaker's claims to have heard from god. I can only rebut by saying that god told me X, which contradicts the other's assertion and thus we have a stalemate and nothing more to discuss. Cute huh?

In some European circles it is synonymous with another term. But most folks who call themselves progressives know as much about that term as a capitalist knows about capitalism. Squat. Take free trade for example . . . rename it free trade for international monopolists that gain a further advantage by divide and conquer in like manner to trade between states before the use of child labor was limited at the federal level. (Too long, I know.)

Pat Robertson could claim to be progressive. How would that sound? He was happily organizing his little bands of loyalists south of the border back in the 1980's in the height of hostilities; in the name of progress, of course. The word makes me sick.

Oregon's Senator Wayne Morse was a Progressive with a capital P. He also considered himself to be liberal. His conscience eventually forced him to leave the Republican party. But while he was still a Replican, he wrote this:

The liberal, emphasizing the civil and property rights of the individual, insists that the individual must remain so supreme as to make the state his servant.

I like that definition of liberal. Progressive is a little easier because there was a Progressive party with a platform, candidates and everything. I've quoted from the 1912 Progressive Party Platform on BlueOregon before. But it is so wonderful I have to do it again:

The conscience of the people, in a time of grave national problems, has called into being a new party, born of the nation's sense of justice.

We of the Progressive party here dedicate ourselves to the fulfillment of the duty laid upon us by our fathers to- maintain the government of the people, by the people and for the people whose foundations they laid.

THE OLD PARTIES

Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people.

From these great tasks both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.

To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

The deliberate betrayal of its trust by the Republican party, the fatal incapacity of the Democratic party to deal with the new issues of the new time, have compelled the people to forge a new instrument of government through which to give effect to their will in laws and institutions.

Unhampered by tradition, uncorrupted by power, undismayed by the magnitude of the task, the new party offers itself as the instrument of the people to sweep away old abuses, to build a new and nobler commonwealth.

My personal definition of Progressive? "Not Right. Not Left. But Forward."

But how does one identify a progressive from a liberal? Maybe this is me just shooting from the hip, but I can think of four approximate litmus tests to delineate the two in contemporary circles. They aren't law by any means, just my two measly cents.

1) Progressives have a willingness to not just say "we need to count votes," but to actually say, "yeah, I think those SOBs rigged the election."

2) Progressives read Thom Hartmann; liberals read Michael Moore.

3) Progressives (even if they voted for him) weren't afraid to criticize Kerry. More broadly, progressives seem less satisfied with the Democratic Party than do liberals. Doesn't mean they vote outside it, just that they're miffed. (Historically this is very much a common denominator of progressivism.)

4) Progressives seem likelier to oppose the drug war, or at least want to legalize marijuana.

Finally it's worth noting that how we define these terms regarding elected officials and actual voters would I think be very different.

Next question is, how does populism relate to all this?

Brandon: I have to agree with your delination between liberal and progressive.

It is also worthy to note the Liberal is more equated to Libertarian in Britian and Canada than here: Pro-Civil rights and Pro-Business.

I do find that most people that label themselves "progressives" tend to be open about criticizing the Democractic Party, but also see the need to widen the tent to be more inclusive of a larger group of people with common interests.

I have few problems with labels. It is a part of being human to compartmentalize concepts. As far as I know, Progressivism in its modern usage was coined my those of us on the LEFT, not by the RIGHT. I prefer to call those on the Right, "Regressive"... well, because that is what they generally tend to be more often than not. :)

As to populism, that is an excellant question. This has often been used by those "anti-tax", "no need for government" types to sway voters. However, if you get enough poor and middle-class people together to agree that we need a fairer tax system then populism can be turned the otherway around I would suppose.

Brandon's delineation between progressives and liberals seems a bit arbitrary to me. I read both Hartman and Moore. I have to think that to Brandon, a progressive is a liberal he likes.

Jean's spelling out of Democrat speaks to a previous article asking what Democrats should stand for. It's all right there.

It seems to me the main political divide these days is between rational people and those who go on purely emotional, religious or visceral binges. I suppose that makes me something of a centerist. As a member of the City Club of Portland for several years, I've seen research committees composed of people from all walks of life and all political persuasions come together and produce sound public policy. Some of their reports could be labeled "progressive" but I would prefer to call them merely pragmatic.

Gil Johnson said: I have to think that to Brandon, a progressive is a liberal he likes.

You might be on to something. ;)

~~~~~~~~~~

Still I think a progressive is someone who is comfortable with standing beyond the realm of the status quo, while still being liberal-ish on things.

Alternately, my friend Ethan said that a liberal thinks we should have universal public health care, while a progressive believes that everyone should have adequate medical attention.

Or to throw still another angle at it...

A conservative says the market can solve most problems. A liberal recognizes the shortcomings of the market, and advises that government programs ammend them. A progressive says that the market is broken, but that government is not necessarily the answer. (Wendell Berry's politics are a good example here)

How does tell between liberals and progressives?

Progressives are sufficiently forthright about the circumstances of class war that corporate interests will not contribute to their campaigns.

Liberals think Republican foreign policy is wrongheaded. Progressives realize that Democratic foreign policy has been only marginally less barbaric and occasionally even more deadly.

Who cares?

Seems that only those afraid to be identified as liberal go on making a big deal on being labeled "a progressive." Most don't look anything like the true progressives who founded civil service, council-manager government and the primary system.

The rest of us who continue the work of the true progressives through organizing labor, providing basic services for those without and fighting for a government of the people, do so without knowing or caring whether it is "progressive" idea or not. We just do it.

And we don't obsess with the question of who may be or who may not be a so-called "progressive."

We are comfortable enough to wear our political labels inside our clothes simply because, unlike both the far left and the far right, we are secure enough in our political well-being that we don't need to wear our political labels on our sleeves.

<h2>I think that words wear out and lose their power to convey meaning. We live in such a complicated world that I wonder how many, if any, specific individuals would consistently conform to anyone's definition of progressive.</h2>