Is there a difference between "Liberalism" and "Progressivism"?

[IndianaJoe]

I was thinking about it. Are Progressives simply "no-compromisers" while Liberals are more "pragmatic" and more gradualist and compromising (which would make Obama a "Liberal", I guess). Or is there more to it than that? I'm curious to hear what people think.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Another wedge issue? nt

[IndianaJoe]

3. Nah...I just want to know what people here think the labels mean.

Or, rather, if they mean anything at all.

When I get ticked at Obama, for example, at not espousing single-payer, I guess I'm "progressive" (at least Ed Schultz seemed to think so). But in pushing through something more modified, as things actually happened, it was a gradualist sort of improvement over the status quo (which the Repubbies called Socialism; which the proponents likened to the beginnings of Social Security (a "liberal" innovation from the New Deal) and which a lot of disappointed righties -- people calling themselves Progressives, mostly -- called "a watered-down accomodation to the Right).

We throw terms around a lot without giving them meaning. That's why I asked the question.

[PassingFair]

60. It's not just a label, we have a PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS in the House. n/t

[nomorenomore08]

2. Meh... not really. Most of the time the terms are used interchangeably.

But then again, there are those who choose the label "progressive" over "liberal," due to the latter term's negative connotations in recent years (largely thanks to loudmouth right-wingers). And likewise, there are those who quite deliberately still call themselves "liberals" in defiance of conservative spin.

Finally, and this is probably the smallest category, you have people who call themselves "progressives" because they see self-proclaimed "liberals" as too accomodating to the status quo. In essence, they're trying to place themselves more firmly on the left side of the political spectrum.

So I guess it is somewhat open to interpretation... :shrug:

[IndianaJoe]

5. I guess you're right about "Liberal" being turned into a sort of

dirty word by the Right...but I wonder how that happened. When you think about it, virtually everything good that has happened in the U.S. since The Great Depression were manifestations of what everyone then called "Liberalism" -- I'm thinking about civil rights, Social Security, more gender equality, environmental regulation, national parks, governmental regulation to curb the excesses of capitalism.

It's odd that an "ism" that accomplished so much could acquire such a pejorative connotation that it needed a new name.

[PassingFair]

10. I'm in that "smallest category".

I call myself a Progressive to distinguish my efforts
from those of the Clinton/Carville/Emanuel/Vilsack/Bayh
DLC-wing of the Democratic Party.

The corporate loving "New Democrats".

The ones who voted consistently along with
Bush in JUST enough numbers to enable his
war in Iraq and the Bankruptcy Bill and
banking de-regulation.

I became a "Progressive" the day I heard
Howard Dean's Sacramento Speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qcQ1XM-Oqk&feature=related

He struck terror into their hearts, and breathed
life into my political soul.

He was taken down, but the truth still simmers.

[nomorenomore08]

11. Okay, but granted, the Clinton/Carville types are only "liberal" compared to the raving righties.

Shows you how skewed things are in this country, I guess.

[IndianaJoe]

13. But there's something to be said for winning elections.

Right? I mean Clinton/Carville did finally get a Dem in the Presidency, even though they had to swing to the "center" in order to do it -- by sort of coopting some Republican themes and making them their own (Like, "crime" or "welfare" or a "balanced budget").

[PassingFair]

14. Don't forget the Perot factor.

He split the puglicans and made the
Clinton win possible.

[IndianaJoe]

15. True. But Clinton seemed to think he had to move to the middle.

Particularly after health care and "don't ask don't tell" cost him so much politically. When he left office, despite the impeachment attempt, he was hugely popular despite not really espousing especially liberal themes during his term in office.

[PassingFair]

17. So popular that Gore couldn't even speak his NAME.

Selective memory you have.

Clinton's personal activities doomed
the Democratic party to the devastation
that the Bush years would bring.

NAFTA and banking de-regulation during
the Clinton years tee'd things up for
Bush quite nicely.

[IndianaJoe]

19. Well, a lot of people think Gore did win that election.

And Gore's ineptitude as a campaigner had a lot to do with making it as close as it was. I remember a lot of people saying during the final weeks that Clinton had to be "unleashed". He really never was. I'm not saying a lot of people weren't turned off by Clinton. A lot were, and those voters went for Bush. But I think a lot of people stuck by Clinton, loved him, and voted for Gore because of him too. He was a controversial guy.

But the more confrontational Dems -- the Progressives, if you will -- liked Gore and backed him, right?

[PassingFair]

35. Of course, but there wasn't really a "Progressive" movement within the party at that time...

That's why so many voted Green Party during that
crazy election.

I mean, when you look back on it...

COME ON...LIEBERMAN for VP?!

THAT'S how far to the center the party had been swung.

[IndianaJoe]

39. Well, we have the benefit of hindsight with Lieberman now.

Back then he was seen as the "conscience" of the party -- a leftie with good credentials and one of the first to take Clinton to task for playing around with Monica. There were Naderites around and some of them were "Progressives" in the sense that they bought into Nader's line -- that there were basically no differences between Bush and Gore, between Democrats and Republicans, that they were all corporate whores (I'm paraphrasing, but Ralph pushed that line pretty far). And Nader, of course, cost Gore Florida and ultimately the election.

I think some of Clinton's policies really alienated a lot of the left. You mentioned some of them - NAFTA. eliminating welfare, etc. I know that pushed some people to vote for Nader, but I don't recall any Democratic leaders bolting to him. I remember it more a sort of grass-roots thing with more of the more left-leaning voters going to Nader because they couldn't really stomach Clinton's compromising. Was that the origin of the "Progressive Movement"? Were the Progressives Naderites that joined the Democratic Party after the Florida debacle? I'm trying to think when left Dems started calling themselves "Progressives" and not "Liberals". I just can't really remember when that happened.

[PassingFair]

42. People realizing that we had been sold down the river.

With the help of collaborating members of our own party!

The "benefit of hindsight" is to see what is happening
right now.

Nader was obviously right, the lines between Democrat
and Republican HAD been blurred.

Progressives didn't want to risk splitting the party,
so they determined to try and change things from within.

We thought we were getting somewhere when Obama was lifted
over the DLClinton faction, but his immediate appointment
of Rahm as COS threw a bucket of cold water in our faces.

Hobson's Choice after all.

[IndianaJoe]

12. So for you, a "Progressive" is more confrontational

less compromising, more inclined to stick to principles than to, say, "triangulate" in order to win elections?

[PassingFair]

16. Progressives did not play enablers to the Bush administration.

You call it "triangulating",
I call it collaborating.

Lots of people on both sides of the aisle
had their hands in the military/corporate
till -- and many still do.

I'm for politicians who are not afraid to
tell the truth.

I'm for politicians who are there for the
betterment of "Main Street", not for the
perpetuation of "Easy Street".

[IndianaJoe]

21. Thanks for posting the link to Dean's Speech, BTW.

I like his pugnacity..."I'm here to represent the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party!"

[PassingFair]

37. Pleased to!

I like to refresh my memory on occasion!

He is still out there plugging away for
democratic values and the platform.

[scarletwoman]

4. Both are basically useless labels because there are no agreed upon definitions for either.

[The Second Stone]

6. I'm a liberal

meaning I am for personal liberty equally for everyone. Progressive has had a number of meanings over the years from corruption reform, to socialist to liberals embarrassed about being liberals. There's also something called "Progressive Rock", which is equally unclear in its meaning. I suppose it means people who want to make progress, but I don't know.

[IndianaJoe]

9. So, basically "liberal" to you means "equality of opportunity"

for all -- everybody getting an equal shot at the good life. That actually sounds pretty good to me, but I suspect a lot of consies would say they're for that too (whether they really believe it or actually strive to achieve that being another thing).

[Liberal Veteran]

7. Liberals tend to be more progressive and progressives tend to be more liberal.

:)

[Odin2005]

8. "progressive" includes both liberals and radicals.

Liberal = Evolutionary transformation of the system
Radical = Revolutionary overthrow of the system

I'm on the boundary between Liberal and Radical.

[IndianaJoe]

22. There must be a gradation between the Evolutionary

Transformers and the Radicals. I don't think many of the people who call themselves Progressives here would advocate revolutionary overflow of the American system of government -- at least not in the violent sense anyway.

[Odin2005]

29. Oh, of course.

And one can be "Liberal", or even conservative, in one area and "Radical" in another.

[IndianaJoe]

32. I get you...

I'm for simply closing up Gitmo, for example. I guess I'm "radical" in that sense.

Or, I'm fairly radical about just getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I'd just pull out.

But I don't know that I'm for "systemic change" in the sense of eliminating every aspect of the "ancien regime" and replacing it with a "soviet" or a "directorate" for example. I can't say I've seen anyone on Dem Underground like that. But I wouldn't label someone like that a Progressive either.

[bobbolink]

33. "Revolutionary overflow"....is that is what's happening in the Gulf?

Or is it simply a dysfunctional terlet?

[bobbolink]

23. Nit. "Radical" is from the word for "root" (like radish=root)

Radicals get to the root of the problem, so therefore, I am proudly a "Radical".

[IndianaJoe]

25. Yeah...Latin I think..Radix meaning "root".

But if you're a radical in the sense of wanting "violent" revolution, isn't being a Democrat kind of tame for you?

I mean, just by being a Democrat and going through the process of getting elected, aren't you sort of accepting or buying into the system? Or, as a "radical" do you mean you want a "revolution" in the sense of a paradigm but peaceful change to the system through participation in the system's electoral process?

[Odin2005]

27. Good point! I believe the Latin root is "Radix", IIRC

[bobbolink]

31. Yup, I didn't bring them Latins into this. I figured they should stay on their own side.

:rofl:

[Odin2005]

40. Oh, SNAP!

:rofl:

[bobbolink]

43. See? And all this time you thought I was on the fence.

:silly:

[FLAprogressive]

18. All progressives are liberal but not all liberals are progressive.

Esp. the DLC "liberals" like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, etc.

[IndianaJoe]

20. When you say that (and you aren't alone) what specifically

do you find wrong with the DLC "liberals"? Too enabling of Republicans?

[FLAprogressive]

63. Too pro-corporate/pro-war/etc.

[OHdem10]

24. This Liberal would say the Progressives are the compromisers

They were willing to lie down and change their name when
the GOP started the Liberal smear.

However, in Politics, Compromise is necessary. I just believe
that if our side gives up something, the other side must put
something of equivalent value on the table.

[PassingFair]

55. The GOP started the "liberal smear" over 20 years ago.

I have only heard people calling themselves "Progressives"
in the past five or so.

When I say I am a "Progressive", the local democrats know
exactly what I am saying.

I don't want to have anything to do with the "New Democrats"
and am unhappy with most "Blue Dogs".

There is, in fact, a PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS within the Democratic Party.
It is the LARGEST (82 members) caucus in the Democratic House.
If you support THESE House members, consider yourself
a PROGRESSIVE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

Arizona

* Ed Pastor (AZ-4, Phoenix)
* Raúl Grijalva (AZ-7, Tucson) - Co-Chair

California

* Lynn Woolsey (CA-6, Santa Rosa) - Co-Chair
* George Miller (CA-7, Richmond) - Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee
* Barbara Lee (CA-9, Oakland) - Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus
* Pete Stark (CA-13, Fremont)
* Michael Honda (CA-15, San Jose)
* Sam Farr (CA-17, Monterey)
* Henry Waxman (CA-30, Los Angeles) - Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee
* Xavier Becerra (CA-31, Los Angeles)
* Judy Chu (CA-32, El Monte)
* Diane Watson (CA-33, Los Angeles)
* Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34, Los Angeles)
* Maxine Waters (CA-35, Inglewood)
* Laura Richardson (CA-37, Long Beach)
* Linda Sánchez (CA-39, Lakewood)
* Bob Filner (CA-51, San Diego) - Chairman, House Veterans Affairs Committee

Colorado

* Jared Polis (CO-02, Boulder)

Connecticut

* Rosa DeLauro (CT-3, New Haven)

Florida

* Corrine Brown (FL-3, Jacksonville)
* Alan Grayson (FL-8, Orlando)
* Alcee Hastings (FL-23, Fort Lauderdale)

Georgia

* Hank Johnson (GA-4, Lithonia)
* John Lewis (GA-5, Atlanta)

Hawaii

* Mazie Hirono (HI-2, Honolulu)

Illinois

* Bobby Rush (IL-1, Chicago)
* Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2, Chicago Heights)
* Luis Gutierrez (IL-4, Chicago)
* Danny Davis (IL-7, Chicago)
* Jan Schakowsky (IL-9, Chicago)
* Phil Hare (IL-17, Rock Island)

Indiana

* André Carson (IN-7, Indianapolis)

Iowa

* Dave Loebsack (IA-2, Cedar Rapids)

Maine

* Chellie Pingree (ME-1, North Haven)

Maryland

* Donna Edwards (MD-4, Fort Washington)
* Elijah Cummings (MD-7, Baltimore)

Massachusetts

* John Olver (MA-1, Amherst)
* Jim McGovern (MA-3, Worcester)
* Barney Frank (MA-4, Newton) - Chairman, House Financial Services Committee
* John Tierney (MA-6, Salem)
* Ed Markey (MA-7, Malden)
* Mike Capuano (MA-8, Boston)

Michigan

* Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (MI-13, Detroit)
* John Conyers (MI-14, Detroit) - Chairman, House Judiciary Committee

Minnesota

* Keith Ellison (MN-5, Minneapolis)

Mississippi

* Bennie Thompson (MS-2, Bolton) - Chairman, House Homeland Security Committee

Missouri

* William Lacy Clay, Jr. (MO-1, St. Louis)
* Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5, Kansas City)

New Jersey

* Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
* Donald Payne (NJ-10, Newark)

New Mexico

* Ben R. Luján (NM-3, Santa Fe)

New York

* Jerry Nadler (NY-8, Manhattan)
* Yvette Clarke (NY-11, Brooklyn)
* Nydia Velázquez (NY-12, Brooklyn) - Chairwoman, House Small Business Committee
* Carolyn Maloney (NY-14, Manhattan)
* Charles Rangel (NY-15, Harlem) - Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee
* José Serrano (NY-16, Bronx)
* John Hall (NY-19, Dover Plains)
* Maurice Hinchey (NY-22, Saugerties)
* Louise Slaughter (NY-28, Rochester) - Chairwoman, House Rules Committee

North Carolina

* Mel Watt (NC-12, Charlotte)

Ohio

* Marcy Kaptur (OH-9, Toledo)
* Dennis Kucinich (OH-10, Cleveland)
* Marcia Fudge (OH-11, Warrensville Heights)

Oregon

* Earl Blumenauer (OR-3, Portland)
* Peter DeFazio (OR-4, Eugene)

Pennsylvania

* Bob Brady (PA-1, Philadelphia) - Chairman, House Administration Committee
* Chaka Fattah (PA-2, Philadelphia)

Tennessee

* Steve Cohen (TN-9, Memphis)

Texas

* Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18, Houston)
* Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30, Dallas)

Virginia

* Jim Moran (VA-8, Alexandria)

Vermont

* Peter Welch (VT-At Large)

Washington

* Jim McDermott (WA-7, Seattle)

Wisconsin

* Tammy Baldwin (WI-2, Madison)
* Gwen Moore (WI-4, Milwaukee)

Non-voting

* Donna M. Christensen (Virgin Islands)
* Eleanor Holmes Norton (District of Columbia)

Senate members

* Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

Former members

* Sherrod Brown (OH-13) - Elected to Senate
* Julia Carson (IN-07) - Died in December 2007
* Lane Evans (IL-17) - Retired from Congress
* Eric Massa (NY-29) - Resigned in March 2010
* Cynthia McKinney (GA-4) - Lost Congressional seat to current caucus member Hank Johnson
* Major Owens (NY-11) - Retired from Congress
* Nancy Pelosi (CA-8) - Left Caucus when Elected House Minority Leader
* Hilda Solis (CA-32) - Became Secretary of Labor in 2009
* Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11) - Died in 2008
* Tom Udall (NM-3) - Elected to Senate
* Paul Wellstone (MN Senate) - Died in plane crash in 2002
* Robert Wexler (FL-19) - Resigned in January 2010 to become President of the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation

[KonaKane]

26. I am a liberal in the micro view, progressive in the macro view.

if that makes sense.

[IndianaJoe]

28. I'm not sure I know what you mean. Can you explain?

[KonaKane]

46. Sure.

To me progressivism is a more comprehensive world view. The motivation to advance, to be more educated, informed, and to develope better ways to manage our own freedom, prosperity and happiness of ourselves and our society. Liberalism is a facet within that, because it is an ideological perspective that favors a tolerance for the wide variety of human desires, needs, aspirations and tastes, and holds that it is a virtue to keep an open mind so that changing realities will allow us to create better solutions.

That's a bit verbose, but I hope it clarifies some things.

[IndianaJoe]

47. No...not verbose...I liked it.

It's interesting that you view both as sort of a compendium of values, rational, scientific, experimental, not change-averse, tolerant, seeking to maximize human happiness, altruistic. I agree with a lot of that as a good way to be. Because the Democratic Party essentially best represents that compendium of values to me (at least much more so than the Republican Party), that's why I vote Democratic and call myself a Democrat.

But the distinction between Progressive and Liberal is kind of blurry in your definition -- I'm beginning to see the two labels as basically the same. Maybe Progressives and Liberals essentially want the same things. The distinctions between the two groups are more about how to go about attaining them.

[Bluebear]

30. Not to the DLC.

[IndianaJoe]

34. So the DLC is basically non-ideological?

It's there to simply get Democrats elected whether they call themselves Liberals, Progressives, Blue Dogs, or something else?

[PassingFair]

36. No, they will actively work AGAINST Progressive candidates.

See Dean.
See Cegilis.
See Skinner.

And countless other Progressive
candidacies that have been nipped
in the bud (and beyond) by the
"DCCC" the "DSCC" and the "DLC".

[IndianaJoe]

45. I've heard that too. I think some of that's sort of going on now

with Sestak and Specter.

But why is that? Does the DLC see "Progressives" as being less electable and, therefore, less worthy of being the recipients of Democratic money? Or is it something ideological -- a moderate vs. radical sort of thing? Or is it both?

[PassingFair]

58. Mostly they are perceived as not Corporate "Made Men"...

Look for my posts containing the Progressive members of Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

There is a paragraph here entitled: Ideology

[Bluebear]

41. What PassingFair said.

[Stinky The Clown]

38. There is no agreement as to what these mean relative to each other

For some, "Progressive" was a cowardly rebranding when the right painted Liberals as bad.

For others, "Progressive" means being more liberal than Liberals.

I kinda see them as interchangeable, but personally prefer to self-describe as "Liberal".

[PassingFair]

44. I call myself a "liberal" when I'm talking to Republicans.

I call myself a "Progressive" within my party.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

48. I asked this question some time ago and got flamed big time for it. I do indeed believe

that there is a difference. I believe that one can have progressive ideals but is not necessarily liberal. Liberal, in the traditional, conventional sense of the word--that liberals see a role for the government in both economic and social spheres. I don't think progressives are also liberals, but I do believe that ALL liberals are progressive.

But because the word "liberal" has successfully been turned into a pejorative by the conservatives and even Democrats/liberals themselves, I'm seeing more people refer to themselves as "progressive" because they have an aversion to the word "liberal," and don't want to refer to themselves in that that way.

I think liberals should abandon the word "progressive" and start embracing the word "liberal." If we don't change our mindset about the word and what it means, then we'll continue to be marginalized and demonized by The Right, moderates and conservatives.

Just my view.

[PassingFair]

59. Put it in context with the House Caucuses....

There are "New Dems", "Blue Dogs" and "Progressives".

Hint: the "New Dems" get stuck with the "liberal" moniker in this game.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

62. Did that and still got crapped on. DU can get rough, even when you make sense. :)

[Marr]

49. A "Progressive" is someone who doesn't quite fit in the Republican Party, but...

...wants their Conservative pals to know that they aren't one of those dirty liberals.

It seems the term is open to interpretation, but the above description fits my own experience.

[PassingFair]

54. Then your experience is WWWAAAAAYYY different than mine.

Glen Beck has recently taken to painting
"Progressives" as communist-types within
the democratic party.

[Marr]

57. Of course.

Of course they're going to demonize the new label just like they demonized the old one. That's not surprising, and it demonstrates the futility of running from labels.

[miscsoc]

50. "Liberal" seems to imply "elite"

I'm in the UK, so I guess the connotations are different, but the word liberal to me reeks of the bourgeois and the patrician. Due to the history of the 19th c. Liberal party here etc. But it also seems to have those sort of associations in the U.S. too, though i'm not sure why. I'm sure I saw a poll where people in america were much more willing to identify themselves as progressives than liberals. I'd say, hell, call yourselves progressives then. No point in clinging to the word "liberal" if it's offputting.

[miscsoc]

51. words like these don't really have clear meanings

i think most people here mean more or less the same thing when they identify as "liberal" or "progressive".

"progressive" is a) more popular among voters iirc and b) a bit more pugnacious sounding so i'd say go with that.

[NJmaverick]

52. Swap that Progressives get things done so they are the pragmatic ones

while liberals simply have a set of rigid beliefs.

[bananas]

53. A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy: Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination

http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html

A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
Acceptance Speech of the New York
Liberal Party Nomination

September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

[IndianaJoe]

61. Wow, what a wonderful speech! Thank you!

[PassingFair]

56. Progressive House Caucus Members. This should answer your question...

Arizona

* Ed Pastor (AZ-4, Phoenix)
* Raúl Grijalva (AZ-7, Tucson) - Co-Chair

California

* Lynn Woolsey (CA-6, Santa Rosa) - Co-Chair
* George Miller (CA-7, Richmond) - Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee
* Barbara Lee (CA-9, Oakland) - Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus
* Pete Stark (CA-13, Fremont)
* Michael Honda (CA-15, San Jose)
* Sam Farr (CA-17, Monterey)
* Henry Waxman (CA-30, Los Angeles) - Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee
* Xavier Becerra (CA-31, Los Angeles)
* Judy Chu (CA-32, El Monte)
* Diane Watson (CA-33, Los Angeles)
* Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34, Los Angeles)
* Maxine Waters (CA-35, Inglewood)
* Laura Richardson (CA-37, Long Beach)
* Linda Sánchez (CA-39, Lakewood)
* Bob Filner (CA-51, San Diego) - Chairman, House Veterans Affairs Committee

Colorado

* Jared Polis (CO-02, Boulder)

Connecticut

* Rosa DeLauro (CT-3, New Haven)

Florida

* Corrine Brown (FL-3, Jacksonville)
* Alan Grayson (FL-8, Orlando)
* Alcee Hastings (FL-23, Fort Lauderdale)

Georgia

* Hank Johnson (GA-4, Lithonia)
* John Lewis (GA-5, Atlanta)

Hawaii

* Mazie Hirono (HI-2, Honolulu)

Illinois

* Bobby Rush (IL-1, Chicago)
* Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2, Chicago Heights)
* Luis Gutierrez (IL-4, Chicago)
* Danny Davis (IL-7, Chicago)
* Jan Schakowsky (IL-9, Chicago)
* Phil Hare (IL-17, Rock Island)

Indiana

* André Carson (IN-7, Indianapolis)

Iowa

* Dave Loebsack (IA-2, Cedar Rapids)

Maine

* Chellie Pingree (ME-1, North Haven)

Maryland

* Donna Edwards (MD-4, Fort Washington)
* Elijah Cummings (MD-7, Baltimore)

Massachusetts

* John Olver (MA-1, Amherst)
* Jim McGovern (MA-3, Worcester)
* Barney Frank (MA-4, Newton) - Chairman, House Financial Services Committee
* John Tierney (MA-6, Salem)
* Ed Markey (MA-7, Malden)
* Mike Capuano (MA-8, Boston)

Michigan

* Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (MI-13, Detroit)
* John Conyers (MI-14, Detroit) - Chairman, House Judiciary Committee

Minnesota

* Keith Ellison (MN-5, Minneapolis)

Mississippi

* Bennie Thompson (MS-2, Bolton) - Chairman, House Homeland Security Committee

Missouri

* William Lacy Clay, Jr. (MO-1, St. Louis)
* Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5, Kansas City)

New Jersey

* Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
* Donald Payne (NJ-10, Newark)

New Mexico

* Ben R. Luján (NM-3, Santa Fe)

New York

* Jerry Nadler (NY-8, Manhattan)
* Yvette Clarke (NY-11, Brooklyn)
* Nydia Velázquez (NY-12, Brooklyn) - Chairwoman, House Small Business Committee
* Carolyn Maloney (NY-14, Manhattan)
* Charles Rangel (NY-15, Harlem) - Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee
* José Serrano (NY-16, Bronx)
* John Hall (NY-19, Dover Plains)
* Maurice Hinchey (NY-22, Saugerties)
* Louise Slaughter (NY-28, Rochester) - Chairwoman, House Rules Committee

North Carolina

* Mel Watt (NC-12, Charlotte)

Ohio

* Marcy Kaptur (OH-9, Toledo)
* Dennis Kucinich (OH-10, Cleveland)
* Marcia Fudge (OH-11, Warrensville Heights)

Oregon

* Earl Blumenauer (OR-3, Portland)
* Peter DeFazio (OR-4, Eugene)

Pennsylvania

* Bob Brady (PA-1, Philadelphia) - Chairman, House Administration Committee
* Chaka Fattah (PA-2, Philadelphia)

Tennessee

* Steve Cohen (TN-9, Memphis)

Texas

* Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18, Houston)
* Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30, Dallas)

Virginia

* Jim Moran (VA-8, Alexandria)

Vermont

* Peter Welch (VT-At Large)

Washington

* Jim McDermott (WA-7, Seattle)

Wisconsin

* Tammy Baldwin (WI-2, Madison)
* Gwen Moore (WI-4, Milwaukee)

Non-voting

* Donna M. Christensen (Virgin Islands)
* Eleanor Holmes Norton (District of Columbia)

Senate members

* Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

Former members

* Sherrod Brown (OH-13) - Elected to Senate
* Julia Carson (IN-07) - Died in December 2007
* Lane Evans (IL-17) - Retired from Congress
* Eric Massa (NY-29) - Resigned in March 2010
* Cynthia McKinney (GA-4) - Lost Congressional seat to current caucus member Hank Johnson
* Major Owens (NY-11) - Retired from Congress
* Nancy Pelosi (CA-8) - Left Caucus when Elected House Minority Leader
* Hilda Solis (CA-32) - Became Secretary of Labor in 2009
* Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11) - Died in 2008
* Tom Udall (NM-3) - Elected to Senate
* Paul Wellstone (MN Senate) - Died in plane crash in 2002
* Robert Wexler (FL-19) - Resigned in January 2010 to become President of the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation