Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:40 PM Dec 2012

Liberals vs. progressives: a progressive view

As I see it, the liberal viewpoint is to make minor tweaks around the edges of our existing system. Progressives look at the millions of Americans living in poverty, uninsured, hungry (er, I mean "experiencing food insecurity&quot and come to the conclusion that the entire system is broken and must be rebuilt, placing people above profits.

In concrete terms:

Liberals: Let's just get rid of the Bush tax cuts.
Progressives: Let's look at the capital gains rate and corporate taxes, too.

Liberals: Let's pass the HMO-friendly ACA.
Progressives: Single payer now!

Liberals: Let's take another look at that $100 billion fighter plane.
Progressives: End the war in Afghanistan, and don't start one in Iran or Syria!

Discuss.

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
8. wrongo
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:50 PM
Dec 2012

progressives want to get it done

but liberals actually do get it done by not letting the progressives bully them into being so absolute they end up losing everything

as they say
patience is a virtue

liberals know
10% of something is better than
the progressives who get 100% of nothing

abelenkpe

(9,933 posts)
9. great strategy too
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:54 PM
Dec 2012

My third way aunt and uncle would agree. It's been such a success if what you call success is moving our country to the right for my entire life leaving younger generations to work more for less.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
15. There is nothing about "moving" that requires that it be to the right. I know Third Way is used
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:42 PM
Dec 2012

exclusively to refer to DLC, but there is nothing about dialectics in and of itself that is necessarily DLC, right, or anything else.

1. Thesis -> 2. Anti-Thesis -> 3. Synthesis is an EMPTY process that can be applied to ANY content, and I do mean content, not just political labels. What a dialectic produces, the synthesis/the 3rd-thing or 3rd-term, depends upon the specifics of the interaction between the specific nature of the thesis and the specific nature of the anti-thesis, so since things/issues can interact in a variety of ways a variety of syntheses is possible.

A relatively useful model for what I'm referring to is to look at what goes on in courtrooms. Think of a that sort of thing in a larger, more complex environment with various levels or more or less public interaction and a wider variety of outcomes/third-things/syntheses.

In re DLC, and why some people hate the DLC, this translates to Dems interact with Reps and produce NAFTA, or DOMA, or the 2002 AUMF, or whatever.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
2. I think that's way too label dependent. I think you don't know exactly what's in the heads
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:45 PM
Dec 2012

of the millions of people you are talking about well enough to put ALL of them into these over-simplified abstractions.

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
12. Well, to be sure, they are generalized categories
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:14 PM
Dec 2012

just like, for instance, there are some repukes who are pro-choice. And even sane.

leftstreet

(36,111 posts)
3. Good discussion to have here
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:45 PM
Dec 2012

Some will agree with the descriptions, some won't

But everyone throws the terms around without describing them

DURec

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
11. Ralph Nader showed any vote for a third parties for President are a vote for the other side.
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:56 PM
Dec 2012

without Nader, the 4 electoral votes in NH would have gone to Al Gore and Bush would not have taken office.
Florida would not have mattered at all.
If Nader were a science project, he would have proven his own science test.

3rd party for Presidents and Republican/libertarian/teas are to paraphrase Nader,one and the same. No difference. Whatsoever.

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
13. Nader running for president was a horrible tactical decision
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 07:17 PM
Dec 2012

he could have been effective, rather than destructive, if he'd run for Congress, or in the Dem primary, like Dennis Kucinich.

edit: I never said anything about a third party. I'm a progressive Dem.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
5. I think liberals and progressives want the same things
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:46 PM
Dec 2012

Liberals are more pragmatic and progressives see the end but not how to get there.

msongs

(67,433 posts)
6. your false premises are pretty much not worth discussing. IMO liberal is a philosophy from which
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:47 PM
Dec 2012

comes action.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
7. Liberals Win. Progressives talk but don't win.
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:48 PM
Dec 2012

All the greats were liberals (Lincoln/FDR/LBJ/Obama/Carter/JFK/Bobby/Teddy/Jerry Brown/Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson/Allard Lowenstein/Harry Chapin/John V. Lindsay

Liberals know slow and steady wins the race

barrelling forward, being absolute and rigid with no compromise, gets nothing but
fractured parties and losses in presidential elections

people are impatient
if it took 40 years to break the system, you gotta give it time to reset and reboot itself

and no, it may not be complete in our lifetimes, but who said it was suppose to be?

It's all a work in progress(forward liberalism) not yapping and losing because it happened too quickly.

and it takes a seed decades to grow into a majestic redwood.

standingtall

(2,787 posts)
10. I always thought Liberals and Progressives were one in the same
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:55 PM
Dec 2012

while moderates are something else altogether.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
14. In Wisconsin at least, Progressivism was the prime mover of social change.
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 08:09 PM
Dec 2012
Although he was widely associated with the Progressive Movement, by no means were all of Wisconsin's progressive achievements the work of La Follette himself. Wisconsin's Progressive movement began as a small faction within the Republican Party that grew in strength by drawing support from a variety of constituencies. There were even factions within factions, each with leaders who were influential in enlisting different groups of citizens to Progressive causes. The complex program associated with Wisconsin progressive reform therefore required the efforts and support of many politicians and interest groups. Germans and organized labor, who had not supported the Progressive movement in its early years, became important later as the composition of the movement changed.

What did the Progressive Movement accomplish in Wisconsin? During James Davidson's terms as governor, from 1906 to 1911, considerable progressive legislation was enacted, including laws proving for state control of corporation stock issues, an extension of the power of the railroad commission to regulate transportation, a fixing of railroad fares, and stricter regulation of insurance companies. The most important and influential progressive legislation, however, was passed during the next (1911) session, under the governorship of Francis McGovern. The 1911 legislature created the nation's first effective workers' compensation program to protect people injured on the job. It passed laws to regulate factory safety, encouraged the formation of cooperatives, established a state income tax, formed a state life insurance fund, limited working hours for women and children, and passed forest and waterpower conservation acts.



By the 1930s, when depression and unemployment dominated American public life, the assumptions of the Wisconsin Progressives had penetrated deeply into national politics. Much of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal legislation was drafted by Wisconsin citizens, such as Edwin Witte (author of the 1935 Social Security act), who had been trained by Progressive Wisconsin economics professor John R. Commons. In fact, the momentum of La Follette and his allies rippled down through the decades into John Kennedy's "New Frontier" and Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs.


Source: The History of Wisconsin vol. 4 (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin); Kasparek, Jon, Bobbie Malone and Erica Schock. Wisconsin History Highlights: Delving into the Past (Madison: Wisconsin Historical Society Press, 2004); McCarthy, Charles. The Wisconsin Idea. Wisconsin Electronic Reader (online at http://www.library.wisc.edu/etext/WIReader/Contents/Idea.html)

patrice

(47,992 posts)
17. I tend to think of them as the same, but with different emphasis: Liberals emphasize inclusion,
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:18 PM
Dec 2012

while Progressives emphasize progress, i.e. change, but not just change for change's sake, but, rather, change that fundamentally improves elements that are part of a solution to some problem(s).

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Liberals vs. progressives...