"Liberal" v. "Progressive"

The problem with "progressive" is simply that we haven't (4.00 / 1)

been clear about what we're moving towards.  Conservatives dismiss the notion out of hand, because they are convinced that men are born evil and not likely to be improved by evolution--a belief they have to hold on to because it justifies their inclination to rule.

But, getting rid of rulers is exactly what modern progressives are aiming for in asserting the primacy of individual human rights and the social obligation to promote the welfare of each person.

Conservatives don't want to be responsible for other people; they want other people to respond to the directives of those who claim to rule.

The Harper quote is an example of typical southern humor.  It's predicated on the perception that "this is what they think of us, so that's how we'll be."  It's not an expression of antagonism; it's an expression of disdain.

---

by: hannah @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 13:30:34 PM UTC

It's not that they think we won't be improved by evolution, (0.00 / 0)

They simply don't believe in evolution at all.

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 19:37:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Progressive (4.00 / 1)

I certainly don't think of "liberal" as a pejorative, and I think the word and certainly the ideology is gaining ground. However, I think I reluctantly prefer the word "progressive". It's more optimistic, and in a lot of ways more apt. It's certainly harder to frame an argument against since the opposite is regressive. There are certain elements of each word that make sense, but "liberal" comes with a lot more baggage. Conservatives, after all, favor the liberalization of the economy and so forth; but more importantly, liberalism, rightly or wrongly, also has connotations of Vietnam, of the not-so-good kind of big government as much as it does the war on poverty and universal health care. Progressivism is much cleaner--it implies a certain notion of efficiency, pragmatism, equality, and certainly of grass-roots activism. I think that last part is one big difference--liberalism for some reason seems like it implies top-down big government, whereas progressivism seems more like the best aspects of populism.

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 13:49:48 PM UTC

I've warmed to the term progressive (0.00 / 0)

I still prefer "liberal," though. As Hannah implies above, in theory one could be a conservative progressive. Jack Kemp used to call himself a movement conservative. They were trying to push the country in a certain direction (and they did).

To me, this is like religion. You're Catholic or you're Jewish, you're not Judeo-Christian. That's why independents drive me nuts, because (for many people, not everybody) "independent" is just a device to pretend they're above it all and not take sides.

You can't be neutral on a moving train!

---

by: JimC @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 14:16:12 PM UTC

Lamar and Judd doin' the conservative routine. (4.00 / 1)

Lamar, you'll notice, needs a script.  Judd seems to pull his bon mot out of the air.

---

by: hannah @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 17:39:51 PM UTC

Wow (4.00 / 1)

"They are the enemy of this country."

I don't know what to say.

Putting aside the question of whether it's good strategy for the moment: I liked hearing it.

---

by: JimC @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 18:03:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm pretty sure that when you go on national television and call someone a terrorist, (4.00 / 2)

That counts as "starting it".  Obama isn't picking a fight with Fox News; he's just run out of cheeks to turn.

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 19:42:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]