Isn't this a big part of the problem now in American politics....everyone concerned with labels and how they are defined.

I think we would be a lot better off if we focused on letting peoples/groups actions speak for themselves.

Lame. Why don't they just admit that they're the Green Party?

The Greens pulled this in Missouri already, but I don't know how it's worked there. Meanwhile, The only viable Progressive Party currently is the Vermont Progressive Party, and although there are platform similarities, I don't think it's a very honest match.

Their membership is going to be 90% confused new registrants: which I think speaks volumes about the hubris of the party leadership willing to lead that.

If your political party has to resort to nomenclature shenanigans... it's time to shut down and go home.

It's amazing how little the BO "progressives" can stomach of the sight of a real progressive. You were kinder this time, but one senses more than a bit of "them". So, closer to home, do you bother to try to tell people how you're not "Blue Dog" Dems? How they are? Best ignored. They are the missing link that shows the majority belong to a two-faced, one party system. Nader- yuck- makes your skin crawl. But the following from HP is just "politics"?

Besides leading anti-abortion Democrats in the House, Stupak, D-MI, is a longtime member of the mainly-Republican radical free-market, union-busting theocratic Washington fundamentalist group known as "The Family," which runs the "C Street House" registered as a church where Bart Stupak has enjoyed Christian fellowship and cheap rent for years. Stupak's former "C Street" housemate Senator James DeMint (R-S. Carolina) has vowed to make the fight against health care reform President Barack Obama's "Waterloo".

When I hear real debate about ending the religious exemption, from pretty much anything we identify with civility to taxes, I'll take your little "p" seriously.

I wouldn't worry that anyone would confuse BlueOregon with anything progressive or Progressive -- the party that promised great things if given the White House and both houses of Congress has spent nearly every minute since becoming worthless Sons of Bush, ramping up the war in Afghaninam, keeping on in Iraq, kissing Big Pharma's ass, conjuring up reasons that universal health care is a nonstarter and just generally doing everything they can to show that, no matter how many Democrats you elect, they cede control to Republicans every time.

Nick Wirth:

(Republicans made liberal a dirty word and we were apparently too lazy to reclaim it).

Bob T:

It was already claimed when the New Dealers stole it. I won't diss it because I use it for its pre-New Deal, 18th and 19th Century meaning (still understood in other parts of the world). There's a reason why Labor Party people don't call themselves "liberals" -- because they're not liberals. The Left is not the same thing as Liberal.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Now, Bob - that was a teasing tasty post worth reading. Semantics! Langwiches!

Seriously, please explain a little bit, for non-pols like me, the context understood by everyone else in the world but stupid Murricans. Sometimes I am stupified by the need to know every danged thing! Suspect what you are about to explain is as tasty as the hx of philosophy-cum-psychology.

Current Dems and Repigs are alike in their common core belief which appears to be "I will kiss the ass of anyone who hires me as a consultant or who gives me a large donation or gives me a job.". This is not necessarily bad, just reality. And since we all have mortgages to pay and children (and grandchildren) to get through college, I guess reality is, well, reality.

I do have a special place in my heart for Greens or Naderites or whoever that can forget the reality of commercial life and focus on pure ethical truth. I have no doubt that they are right in their beliefs and that they will all go to heaven, but as my bosses told me when I began my professional career those many years ago, "ethics don't feed the bulldog".

"While the OPP's positions certainly fit within the broadly-defined idea of "progressive", and while they're within their rights to name themselves whatever they want, I'll admit to a little irritation at the appropriation of the term "progressive". Like "independent", it's an adjective that a lot of candidates, organizations, voters - and yes, blogs - use to describe themselves."

The same can be said for Democrats and Republicans who aren't all that democratic or republican slopping at the troughs of Wall Street and the insurance-medical-pharmaceutical (IMP) and military-industrial (MI) complexes.

Political blogs = endless pissing matches.

Egad.

Kari, I was equally annoyed when I found out you could no longer register as an independent in Oregon because the Republicans and Democrats thought the word sounded too good and they were protecting their 2-party club.

 So they outlawed the word independent in voter registration, and forced citizens to call themselves non-affiliated. To call yourself an independent now you have to join the Oregon Independent Party.

 But that's okay. I'm still an independent no matter what the 2-party system does to protect itself. And I'm sure you feel the same way about not being in Oregon's Progressive Party.

  Besides for music fans, OPP will always belong to Naughty By Nature.

6897 registrants? Maybe they should call themselves the Oregon, Infinitesimal Piece Party.

While the OPP's positions certainly fit within the broadly-defined idea of "progressive", and while they're within their rights to name themselves whatever they want, I'll admit to a little irritation at the appropriation of the term "progressive". Like "independent", it's an adjective that a lot of candidates, organizations, voters - and yes, blogs - use to describe themselves.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Sal,

I think the post is not "attacking" the minor party renaming. But he is making it known that he is not a Nader supporter.

Just for the hell of it, why don't we use this opportunity to explain what we mean by "progressive"?

I see a "progressive" as someone who believes in and works for life, the pursuit of happiness with liberty and justice (including economic justice) for all. We might add to that support for the U.N. charter and the Geneva Conventions.

Dunno, I think there's an issue with folks who profess to be those on the Further Left who ostensibly care so much, and I find little caring, tenderness or compassion much less camraderie in their demeanour as presented here.

"This isn't a definition, but these are the reasons given by the Peace Progressive Party for the name change:

"Progressive" more accurately reflects the party's positions on social justice, consumer advocacy, environmental protection, and worker's rights, in addition to its dedication to peace."

I can live with that.

Twitterfeed above appears to be fueled by bots or professional traffic-generators. Substanceless iterations of @s and names. The same comments rolling over repeatedly. I think I am an overstimulated curmudgeon - I do not find blaring TVs in the supermarket line and blasting away above the fruit displays to be a value-add. It actually creates a stressful, jarring experience.

The feed here is actually distracting, and when it's apparent it is empty of substance, it's annoying. Kari, are you fixed on having it, or against moving it around in placement? Perhaps you can put it below that purple banner with the warnings about the quirky functions of the posting? Place it someplace where a person who wants it can view it?

I think I'm a cranky old grandma.

Only in the U.S. can "liberal" mean the exact opposite of what it means every else in the world. (And only in the U.K. can a "public" school be a private school. Oh well.)

Hopefully this time out they will not accept money and support from the GOP to split the Dem. vote as they did in 2004.

Ok, Kari - I can give it a week, hoep you will NOT regard any updated comment as anything but feedback from your users.

It's vastly unentertaining and uninformative to see "4 days ago" after a set of "feeds" that are nothing but a string of none-words - clearly the work of a bot that seeks to maintain BO [assuming] profile active in some logarithm.

"That said, despite Bill's request for a discussion about the definitions, that's a conversation that is both heated and boring. Everyone has their own definitions - and will never convince anyone that their definition is wrong. As for me, I think "progressive" is a broad term that includes liberals, moderates, enviros, unionists, feminists, the Old Left, the New Left, the New New Left, whatever - let's call it anti-conservative. I know others prefer a narrow definition that means something much more specific. Fine by me."

Kari: Thank you for coming up with your interpretation of "progressive." I neither agree nor disagree with it, but we now know what you mean when you use the word. As for others who declined to follow suit I suppose we can assume they are in the bullpen with you.

In the 18th Century Voltaire admonished people to define their terms if others were to understand what they were talking about. The same applies to the 21st Century. Unfortunately, in the United States words tend to mean whatever a commentator attaches to them with the frequent consequence that they often mean anything and nothing.

Take my pet peeve "incredible." X came from an incredible family, became an incredible president and made incredible decisions. Now who would fit that description? Lincoln, Clinton, Dubya? Given the fact the word now means anything and nothing it could apply to and include any president from Washington to Obama.

Likewise the word "Awesome". That is a wonderful, powerful word and should be reserved for the generations. It means "awe and dread".

Believe me, we mortals have FEW situations wherein we are so privileged as to feel that sense.

Certain deep ceremonial situations. Realizing you are love, together, in real time. The breathless moment, holding, when you catch sight of a deep intelligence beyond emotion and masks, in a two month old infant - gazing levelly at you.

Awesome.

Kanye's last hit? Not awesome. A good thought well stated? Not awesome. A good meeting with lots done and feelings of bonhomie all around. Please: not awesome. Not even that diamond ring you just bought.

:)... it would be great if we would allow progressive to go back to doing its job for the greater good as well! In fact, I suspect that little old small "p" progressive has been pining in the corner since BO's inception, as it wanted to help us all see each other in its... erm... awesome little light.

What a surprisingly, pleasant discussion of the terms. Obviously Kari understands the concept. "Anti-conservative" is literally correct, as it's saying "things need to change", against "I've got mine, don't change anything". Just thought I'd mention that in case anyone heard it as anti-conservatives.

I suspect where the venom comes from, Sal, is that we usually differ hugely on practical implementation, usually hoisted on the petard of expediency. Put simply, we understand "feeding the bulldog". We'd like to change the system first, though, and not be dealing with a bulldog, and if we must, not on the level of our being his meal ticket. All the Republican policies that we continue to suffer from today (well put Mr. Seldes) started during impractical candidacies, like George Wallace's and Barry Goldwater's. No one has ever advanced the politics of a nation by internally deciding not to try before ever being challenged.

On the other hand, I think another point of contention, particularly with those in power of either ilk, is that they want to be seen as cutting edge. When liberal did become a bad word, the most oft used phrase to deride it was "unable to break out of a 60s mentality". I think most real progressives say, "Yeah, so what?" To the posh politicos in power, that simply ain't an option. So our ideas get dismissed out of hand, and we get pissed. IMHO, that's where the attitude comes from.

Another problem with language in the United States is the tradition of so many people talking out of both sides of their mouths. A primary example in time and degree includes slave owners who affixed their names to the Declaration of Independence that included words about all men being created equal with a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

More recently, Eric Cantor (R-VA) talked, like many of his "Christian"/"conservative" supporters, about the sanctity of life oblivious to the fact that he and they apparently have no regard for the sanctity of lives other than their own when they promote wars.

But to get back on subject, thank you for this information about the Oregon Progressive Party. I'll change my status from NAV to help the party get its quota. Whether I stick around or not will depend on how "progressive" it is.

I am sure the Party is holding their collective breath awaiting your membership, Bob. Am certain they will jubilate their first good report card from you!

You surely do always stick to your topix: good show!

:)... it would be great if we would allow progressive to go back to doing its job for the greater good as well! In fact, I suspect that little old small "p" progressive has been pining in the corner since BO's inception, as it wanted to help us all see each other in its... erm... awesome little light.

Pretty awesome imagery. Pining and wasting away, and on ocasion plays the obnoxious Frenchman in Monty Python's "Search for the Holy Grail". When the establishment say "Hello", they yell back a name you've never heard, says, that they've already got the great benefit the Party is trying to interest us in, get to bickering about labels, are told to play ball or else, then end up getting quoted as saying "I fart in your general direction!"

Indeed, Bill, indeed.

Oh yah, and yer father smells of elderberries and such. :)... I think we have a dreadful connection to feudalism here, as, infallably, when we reference the Python, we are ALL quoting the castle scene! Branch out kids! How about the scene where the serfs are transferring mud to planks and are "OPPRESSED! HE OPPRESSED ME!"... hahaha... or the line of monks intoning and whacking themselves on the forheads in perfect rhythm. OR: the Knights of Nee! "Get. Me. A SHRUBBERY! [but not too expensive]"

Heh.

I'm tripping on how many levels that scene is a perfect metaphor for the Obama administration's dialog with progressives. From the overtones of hostile European influence, to the being in an ivory castle, to the feeling that they just want to mess up the works and snicker, to the retort, "what do you mean we're not as idealistic, we're searching for the Holy Grail!" You could even say that King Arthur echos the sentiment behind the original post. "Is there somebody else we could talk to"?

The "mother smelt of elderberries" could even be likened to the way that progressives usually start by revisiting a lengthy not-your-father's history, seen by the knights as irrelevant insults. Knights. What surreal temporal nexus must connect Obama, Camelot, and the Knights of the KKK? I could go on forever...

Say a little bird told me that in 2008 the Oregon Peace Party petition was carried by the Mannix et al petition machine and financed with Republican oriented funds- if anyone wants to follow up on the potential of this be accurate leave and email address and I will see if my source will spill the beans.

Sal: good one. Right on target. That makes me postively SHUDDER.

More DP progressivism?

Pittsburgh now belongs again to the people of Pittsburgh. The cement barricades were removed, the fences were taken down, the bridges and roads were opened. The gunboats packed up and left. The police packed away their ninja turtle outfits and tear gas and rubber bullets. They don't look like military commandos anymore. No more gunboats on the river. No more sirens all the time. No more armored vehicles and ear splitting machines used in Iraq. On Monday the businesses will open and kids will have to go back to school. Civil society has returned.

It is now probably even safe to exercise constitutional rights in Pittsburgh once again.

The USA really showed those terrorists didn't we?

(http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3995)

Nick Worth:

Bob - That's true but I'm not really sure how it's relevant to the point I was making. Also, it's the Labour Party, not the "Labor Party" (another thing they do differently over there)

Bob T:

Yes, thanks -- reminds me of when I needed a tire repaired in Dublin and it took me 15 minutes before I realized that their Yellow Pages listed it under "Tyre".

Nick Wirth:

and they don't call themselves Liberals because there was already a Liberal Party when Labour was founded.

Bob T:

Maybe - but that would be inconsistent with the term, because Labour is hardly liberal. If "liberals" in America were truly liberals, they would support liberal gun laws. But they don't. See what I mean? They (and Labour) support too many government controls over people to be liberal. Period.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Nick Wirth:

Bob is referring to classical liberalism, the philosophy stemming from Locke that advocates for greater individual freedoms and less government intervention.

Bob T:

Correct, but I don't even like the modifier of "classical" becasue it implies that the word has in fact been redefined when in fact it was merely usurped. It's still plain old liberalism to me, and should remain so because the word speaks for itself.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not engaging in name-calling here as in "You're really a socialist!" and so on. I'm merely pointing out my respect for the word "liberal", (and. I should add, that neither of our major parties has any liberalism left in them when they once had quite a bit).

Bob Tiernan Portland

KC, I tried registering as "independent" and learned that the Republicans and Democrats in Oregon had outlawed registering by that word because they objected to the positive sound of it.

   How very "Big Brother" of you. This is how those awful rumors get started that the 2 parties work together when it comes to maintaining their grip on power.

 Maybe the Democrats and Republicans should begin work on a new name for a certain document:
   "The Declaration of Non-Affiliation."

I always clarify when running a voter reg drive that "if you want to register as independent of any party, you need to register NAV; if you want to register as a member of the Independent Party, which has it's own platform, you need to register as Independent."

It is VERY confusing to the average citizen who doesn't follow all the ins-and-outs of how/why parties change names and thus the voter reg form, believe me.

Why it all came about that way is irrelevant to me, as we're now stuck with what we've got---at least until someone changes their name again.

Perhaps if the Democrats acted consistently progressive, this would not be happening.

Backbeat: Huh? Whut?

In politics independence appears to be limited to thought and that is probably limited for people affiliated with a political party or employed by certain corporations. If someone wants to run for office then he or she becomes dependent on others. Consider the following from the latest Tomgram: Arundhati Roy, Is Democracy Melting?

"So you, as a citizen, want to run for a seat in the House of Representatives? Well, you may be too late. Back in 1990, according to OpenSecrets.org, a website of the Center for Responsive Politics, the average cost of a winning campaign for the House was $407,556. Pocket change for your average citizen. But that was so twentieth century. The average cost for winning a House seat in 2008: almost $1.4 million. Keep in mind, as well, that most of those House seats don't change hands, because in the American democratic system of the twenty-first century, incumbents basically don't lose, they retire or die.

"In 2008, 403 incumbents ran for seats in the House and 380 of them won. Just to run a losing race last year would have cost you, on average, $492,928, almost $100,000 more than it cost to win in 1990. As for becoming a Senator? Not in your wildest dreams, unless you have some really good pals in pharmaceuticals and health care ($236,022,031 in lobbying paid out in 2008), insurance ($153,694,224), or oil and gas ($131,978,521). A winning senatorial seat came in at a nifty $8,531,267 and a losing seat at $4,130,078 in 2008. In other words, you don't have a hope in hell of being a loser in the American Congressional system, and what does that make you?

"Of course, if you're a young, red-blooded American, you may have set your sights a little higher. So you want to be president? In that case, just to be safe for 2012, you probably should consider raising somewhere in the range of one billion dollars. After all, the 2008 campaign cost Barack Obama's team approximately $730 million and the price of a place at the table just keeps going up. Of course, it helps to know the right people. Last year, the total lobbying bill, including money that went out for electoral campaigns and for lobbying Congress and federal agencies, came to $3.3 billion and almost 9 months into 2009, another $1.63 billion has already gone out without an election in sight. "

I'm not running for office but it was extremely annoying not to be able to go on being an independent voter. Incidentally, registering to vote - or changing your voter registration - often just means standing at a counter filling out a form - so there is definitely confusion with the Independent Party. As I understand it, that party was a reaction to politicians taking the word independent away. These legislators should be ashamed of themselves for trying to manipulate the language like that. It IS very Big Brother of them. Non-affiliated is one of those terms bureaucrats dream up. Eliminating the term "independent voter" sounds despotic. It's got that police state vibe. Wasn't that the big threat in some countries? That you'd be thrown out of the party? Politicians should stay out of the business of destroying words. Look what Bush did to "compassionate."

"I'm not running for office but it was extremely annoying not to be able to go on being an independent voter. Incidentally, registering to vote - or changing your voter registration - often just means standing at a counter filling out a form - so there is definitely confusion with the Independent Party. "

In 1996 (back before returns were online with access for most people) I was in line at County Elections to pick up the latest numbers a day or 2 after the election. While waiting in line, I asked the County Clerk "I'm fed up after some things that happened in a primary. How do I register Independent?". He said that there was an Independent Party somewhere, so to register without any partisan affiliation I had to check the box for Non Aff. Voter (NAV).

Not a new issue.

Yo Garage Wine: English "public" schools are called that because at one time they were the only real alternative to schools run by the established Church. From the Wikipedia entry:

"The English usage can be traced to the Middle Ages, an era when most education was accomplished by chaplains or monasteries. Some schools (often called 'grammar schools') were sponsored by towns or villages or by guilds, others by cathedrals for their choir. 'Private schools' were owned and operated by their headmasters, usually clergymen, for their own profit, and often in their own houses. The landed classes educated their children in their households, with a visiting or resident clergyman — that is, privately, away from the hurly-burly of the towns.

"Public schools were charities that often started by offering free education to a few pupils. The term public then distinguished a school open to public applicants...from the schools in private households which were then more usual....

"As time passed, such schools expanded to include many fee-paying students alongside the few charitable scholars. From the 17th century and the Age of Enlightenment, it increasingly became the fashion to send boys to mix with their contemporaries, that is, to be educated publicly."

Bob Tiernan: You know, I really can't get too worked up about the original meaning of "liberal" being lost. Good gawd, the political usage of "liberal" arose in Britain at a time when there was NO public assistance to the destitute; when the franchise was limited to a few percent of the male population; when people were imprisoned for debt; when hanging was routine as a punishment not just for murder but for all sorts of crimes, including property crimes. If you want to associate liberalism with those good old days, you can have it.

Personally I want to register with the Alternative Party, shoudl it ever come into existence. I mean, "alternative" is HOT: alternative medicine, alternative rock music, and so on. I have no idea what alternative the Alternative Party will represent, but who cares?

KC, I don't disagree with anything you say about the Independent Party and the confusion, but to suggest the Dems and Republicans didn't have anything to do with it is ridiculous. They outlawed candidates from calling themselves Independent and voters from calling themselves independent. By doing that the Dems and Republicans put the whole Independent Party thing into motion with their small-minded sneaky ways.

Heh. Ack. "Overwhelming bitterness"?

That is the primary entry attribute FOR blogging, dearie! That, and "metabolically angry and irritable" as a diagnosis.

And here I am trying to join the ranks of the Recovering Metabolic.... sigh.

That is what I am deeply afraid of, dear KC: the unremitting temptation to - Carry ON!

Ehhhhhh. :)

"Just for the record, here's what BlueOregon's "About" page has said since Day One:

What do mean, "progressive"? Well, ideology is always in the eye of the beholder. Contributors to BlueOregon will likely disagree with each other a lot. That said, we generally believe in the power of people to organize themselves for the improvement of society, through government and other institutions.

Like I said, anti-conservative. In favor of, y'know, progress."

Perhaps it would behoove all of us engaging in debates to avoid using "progressive," "liberal," "conservative," etc. where possible and switch to language that is more specific. For example, instead of saying that opposition to torture is a progressive or liberal issue we would be better to say something along the line of, "Torture is wrong because it violates the Geneva Convention on Torture" or "We are opposed to torture because causing pain to others offends our sensibilities." These examples are offered for illustration. Let's net get off on a tangent and change the subject as worthwhile as it might be in one respect.

However, let me suggest a topic for another thread. The use of language in current political debate in which we might consider such absurdities as people calling others socialist-fascists, a contradiction in terms if ever there was one.

A "progressive" manifesto: Time for Citizens to Convene. That seems to apply worldwide

"However, let me suggest a topic for another thread. The use of language in current political debate in which we might consider such absurdities as people calling others socialist-fascists, a contradiction in terms if ever there was one."

A Glossary of Terms in Foreign Affairs and The War on Language.

Anyone up for creating a Secession Party?

Duckie, we might end up in the same Boats... er... boat!

:).... I think we should do it. It is a worthy whim.

joel dan walls:

You know, I really can't get too worked up about the original meaning of "liberal" being lost. Good gawd, the political usage of "liberal" arose in Britain at a time when there was NO public assistance to the destitute; when the franchise was limited to a few percent of the male population; when people were imprisoned for debt; when hanging was routine as a punishment not just for murder but for all sorts of crimes, including property crimes. If you want to associate liberalism with those good old days, you can have it.

Bob T:

But those aspects of the period had nothing to do with liberalism. No one ever said it was a liberal period. I've seen you stretch before, but never this far. I know you can do better than this.

Bob Tiernan Portland

<hr/>