First:
I think the main idea that embodies a Progressive, should be Progressive Taxation. There are a lot of "Progressive" causes that hinge on this. You can't fund progressive policies without it. The other side wants to flatten taxes. So they can drown the progressive programs in the bathtub.

Second:
I think Clinton's cowardice is despicable. In fact, all of them. If the word "Liberal" has been unfairly twisted to mean something it doesn't, then stand up and proudly count yourself as someone who stands for what the word ought to mean. Steal our language back.

I remember when no one wanted to be called a conservative, until Alex P. Keaton made it cool again.

I wouldn't be so quick to put the nail in the coffin...stay strong Kevin...

I always thought, if you're homosexual, might as well call yourself a fag.

Wear it proud.

The tune is the same as Lily of the West and Lakes of Ponchartrain.
~~ ~ ~~ ~
Oh, I'm a good ol' liberal, Now that's just what I am;
For this "fair land of Freedom" I do so care a damn.
I'm sad I fight against it--I only wish we'd won.
Still I don't want no pardon For anything I've done.
I loves the Constitution, This great Republic too;
I hates the jingo patriot, who tells me what to do.
I hates the media zombies, With all their brag and fuss;
But the lyin', thievin' neo-cons I hates' em wuss and wuss.
We got one-and-forty-thousand troops fightin' in foreign dust.
They break and bleed and die for a war that isn't just...
I marched with all the millions to bring the landgrab to a stop
But the profiteering toadies got their contracts--good-n-hot!
So now they take my ballot? Yet I fight' em now still mo',
And I ain't a-goin'to love' em, Now that is sartin sho';
And I don't want no pardon For what I was and am;
And I won't sit down, be quiet, 'Cuz I still do give a damn.

Yeah, I've been trying not to give up on it for the same reasons. I usually just try not to use either word as a consequence.

On the plus side, it means that there's less confusion about "liberal" in transatlantic matters, since on the other side of the pond "liberal" tends to mean "free market".

There are so many people that I encounter who only support Bush or other Republicans because 'liberal' has been turned into a dirty word. You can't reason with them, they've been brainwashed and are beyond reason, so I do feel like 'liberal' is probably going to be retired for a generation or so whether we like it or not.

Personally, rather than trying to resurrect 'liberal' as a respected term, I'd rather we did the same number on 'conservative'. I'm sick of hearing people try to protect their political tag by claiming that Bush and his gang aren't 'really' conservative. To that I reply, "Conservatism is what conservatives do when they have power, and what they support when their leaders have power." So conservative means being in favor of wars of aggression, domestic spying, torture, and shredding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Joyce

Republicans, courtesy of Sean Hannity and his ilk have succeeded in demonizing the term "liberal," and I do not mind at all moving to the term "progressive"--and indeed have referred to myself in that way since the midterm elections.
It works. It feels like a natural progression. (no pun intended)
In fact, I feel they cannot control the way they label us if we are progressives.

It's curious - Republicans have slowly but surely managed to vilify so many things that one might otherwise associate with the American Revolution. They vilify the birthplace of the Revolution, New England in general and Massachusetts in particular. This administration has shown contempt for the Constitution, specifically the bill of rights which were the primary grievances we had against another not-so-different King George. They have even turned "liberal" (liberty, freedom) into a slander.

The problem isn't the term "liberal" but rather the effectiveness of the Republican slander machine and the continuing incompetence of the Democrats to fight back, yet alone actually frame the discussion in terms favorable to the Democrats.

So, yes, abandoning the term "liberal" is probably the most expedient solution to avoiding the negative associations with the word that the Republicans have managed to pile onto it. But it will only be a matter of time before they simply re-focus the same vile hatred on "progressive" or whatever other terms the Democrats get any positive traction on.

It's a shame - this would be the ideal opportunity to recapture the term and turn that Republican hostility against them. The nation as a whole is - at least for the moment - disillusioned by the Republican party and their insults, slanders, and attacks are looking more transparent than ever. It shouldn't be too difficult to start recruiting more people to the Democratic side, and having people adopt a label that is under constant attack might just make them more defensive and zealous in their willingness to refute that attack. (cf. derogatory slurs that were once hurled with impunity but will now expose that person for a hate-filled unthinking moron).

One of these days, Democrats are going to need to stick up for themselves and fight back. Because a continuation of the policy to retreat in the face of attack isn't going to end well for the party or this country.

I describe myself as a liberal Dem all the time. Often, for fun, I am a patriotic liberal Democrat and Navy brat. Liberal Democratic patriot works too.

Reverting to "Progressive" is giving in. And that's what Hillary did during the YouTube debate. She gave in and betrayed a tradition.

They're just messing with us, anyway, the d*mn nihilists. They'll mock any label, especially after we cave on liberal.

Words are arbitrary sounds/markings that represent things/ideas/what-have-you based on agreements among collections of people. Its out of these agreements that they get their meaning. They aren't real in and of themselves. If a majority of people agree that "liberal" is bad, then for practical purposes it is and we should abandon the term.

Sigh. Conceding the use of "liberal" merely puts our side further on defensive in the language/semantics debate and ditches a fine ideological label. The right will simply turn their guns more fiercely upon "progressive" in the event that liberal is forgotten, anyway. Fight back, reclaim its lost glory. This and the attempts to monopolize all great things "American" as conservative drive me batty, particularly since liberals have absorbed those hits pathetically for years without significant resistance.

So they smear the word "progressive" next, and then what? The problem isn't the word "liberal;" the problem is there are only about half as many people who have what used to be called "liberal" ideals in this country as there are conservatives. Any label you attach to such a minority is going to end up smeared, just as every minority has always ended up smeared.

I am aware, by the way, that many of the policy positions the left takes are quite popular with the country, but policy positions aren't the same thing as an ideology. This is a right wing country; the left is always going to have to deal with that fact, and hiding one's ideology by changing the label attached to it is like playing a shell game: eventually the mark figures it out.

I'll be happy to abandon 'liberal', if we can take our revenge by making 'Republican' the next taboo word. For me the term certainly conjures up images of war, incompetence, and child molestation.

I can't shake off the guilt that comes with sloughing off liberal in favor of progressive. Am I the only for whom the word "progressive" implies that I've got something to hide?

'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."' - JFK

I saw a highlights compilation over at TPM and that was one of the moments that struck me. I think we're going to have to abandon the word liberal - too much 'mud' has been slapped on it. (Whether you can actually call Hillary progressive is a whole 'nother argument.)

Progressive is a bit more attractive to me for several reasons - it implies something positive, and also that the user has a goal and is trying to get there - 'progress' obviously. It's a framing thing.

I'm also quite willing to see the label conservative heavily linked to things like reactionary, authoritarian, pathological, chauvinistic, sociopathic, and the classic troglodyte.

I like the tag "progressive", but I have no problems with being called a "liberal". I like to think that liberal ideas lead to progressive results whereas the "compassionate conservatism" is a proven failure
1. If you feel differently then try to convince the millions without health insurance. I have good insurance and I have just today learned that my co-pays have once more gone up!

Between my portion and my employer's portion of the monthly insurance bill the total is $755/month. The co-pays continue to go up and I fall further and further behind. I have a health savings account, but the savings are minimal. We are well past the time to boot the insurance companies and enact a national health care plan. I am closely watching each candidate hoping for someone to fully embrace a remedy to our dysfunctional medical system.

I'm a liberal. I'll give up the label "liberal" when they can pry it from my cold dead hands.

Republicans, courtesy of Sean Hannity and his ilk have succeeded in demonizing the term "liberal," and I do not mind at all moving to the term "progressive"-

Then they'll just do the same to "Progressive", and "Nice Person" and any other label anyone who opposes them cares to take up. Because that's what they do.

It's a shame - this would be the ideal opportunity to recapture the term and turn that Republican hostility against them.

Oh - I saw that moment in the debate as THE moment, THE golden opportunity. And Hillary Rodham Clinton did not just miss it. She gave it a pass. She has sold out. She is comfortable with this tactic - has accepted the loss, and is willing to use the same tactic on her enemies. The problem is - her enemies aren't necessarily who she's leading us to believe. Listen to Senator Gravel. Follow the money.

Reverting to "Progressive" is giving in. And that's what Hillary did during the YouTube debate. She gave in and betrayed a tradition.

Hillary didn't just "give in". She took the "if you can't beat-em, join em" route. She *has* joined the dark side. I hope she does not get the chance - but if she's elected, I will be here, in 4 years, telling you all I told you so.

Just like I was here (well, different blogs, different handle) in 1999, telling you all that Bush was going to get us into a war in the middle east, drive up the price of oil, fuck the environment, and Lieberman would be a traitor to the Democratic party.

This just in: Troglodytes want nothing to do with Dubya, Cheney, and the rest of the neo-con possé....

Folks..., they (Rove, et al) attack our strengths. "Only timid girly-men serve in Vietnam and get wounded--he probably shot himself." Remember that shit?

We are strong because we are liberal. And even if the struggle consumes us, don't give up on your identity.

Be yourself.
Don't panic.

This is the ultimate cave-in.

Why accept their characterization of liberal?

Hillary missed a great opportunity to slam the GOP for assault on the language.

Liberal is not the opposite of conservative. The founding principles of the country are at once very conservative and very liberal. I don't see a reason to forget that just because Ditto Heads have.

I understand the varying views on it and your interesting takes. I just was turned by the divisiveness related to the term fostered by the creepy conservatives and felt free with 'progressive'... like moving forward is a good thing. And 'conservative' is like staying the course, staying the same, not moving at all.
I could be nuts too.

While progressives may hold liberal values, there is a technical distinction between the terms:

Said simply (perhaps oversimplifying), American liberalism is an ideology grounded in traditionally liberal American values: individual freedom, democratic government, freedom of thought and belief, and equal opportunity. Government intervention is generally seen as the solution to society's problem.

Progressivism, on the other hand, is far more flexible than any one ideology. Traditionally, conservatives see the world, especially human nature, as predictable and static. Liberals are often burdened with endless optimism - a belief that all problems can be solved through implementing utopian visions (especially through government intervention).

Progressives aren't simply liberals; progressives see the world for what it is, accept it as ever-changing and dynamic, and choose the best course of action in line with decidedly American values.

"Progressivism is an orientation towards politics," Halpin said in an interview with Campus Progress. "It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept ... that accepts the world as dynamic."

My guess is that most of the people who post on this site can rightly be described as progressives, given their pragmatism.

I'll be a liberal to the day I die. I will not let cowardly, fascist, moronic losers like Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove choose the words I use.

(grin) I've always thought somebody should run for office on a 'let's call things what they are' platform.

It doesn't so much matter if somebody is a "liberal" or a "progressive", as what the words MEAN. I'm inclined to use progressive, because folks we'd like to reach tune out liberal, but the larger point stands.

Our whole conversation about politics and our national identity is FULL of rank bullshit (stuff that might even BE true, but nobody cares cuz it's not about truth), and nobody speaks clearly enough.

Think about it. The reason the rich should pay more taxes isn't "a progressive tax structure". It's cuz they GET more from the government, so they should PAY for it.

And don't get me started on "immigrants" and "undocumented", etc. How about "citizen"?

And lord, the Right has so utterly debased the language they use to talk, it's a wonder they don't drool on TV.

So using 'progressive' instead of 'liberal' isn't much to huff about.

Progressive is doubleplusgood.

Between the Republican Vocabulary Putsch of the last 15 years and the DLC's attempt to define "liberal" as meaning anything but, I suppose it's time to give the poor word a rest.

my only comment would be that i associate liberal most strongly with a lot of garbage i don't care about and don't think people should prioritize. i associate liberal with a single-issue checklist, whereas progressive, for all its flaws, is more of a weltanschauung. basically, please, let us leave the dated political structures of Left america in the past. and why not use new (old) words to describe a new phenomenon?

Hillary missed a great opportunity to slam the GOP for assault on the language.
Posted by: gregor on July 25, 2007 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

I hope we can all remember this (especially those of you in the early-primary states, whose primary votes actually count!) on election day.

Hillary will NOT fight for Liberal values. Hillary will NOT fight for your rights.
Hillary will NOT fight for real change.

Hillary is afraid of change.
Hillary is afraid of the GOP smear machine.
(and she better be - because they've been tapping her phone for 6 years. . .
Q: what's the next best thing to having a Republican president in office (as far as Karl Rove is concerned)?
A: having a Democrat who is a lame duck the day after she's elected because a bunch of slimformation the GOP has been saving up gets released.)

My own personal term of choice is "pablum-puking, pinko-commie liberal" as an hommage to the late, great Morton Downey, Jr., the underappreciated trailblazer who, despite being cancelled, became the model to whom all the cable news personalities who followed aspired. May he Rest In Peace.

I'm a leftist and I've been trying all these years to learn to say I'm a liberal and now their calling it progressive. I'll change with the times, but I'm not putting on a backwards baseball cap (or is that so 10 years ago?)

I'm a liberal. I know what it means, and it doesn't bother me at all. I also remember when the word conservative was reviled, back in the days of legally enforced segregation. I think it would be a big mistake to continue to allow the R's to redefine every important word in the political language. It's true that it's late to start fighting back, but for many of us, liberal is what we are, and to deny it is just to make us look weasly and hypocritical.

We should be defining liberalism by what we want today, which certainly includes things like universal access to health coverage. Then we could simply reply, "liberalism is for universal health coverage, conservatism is against it."

There is another problem with the word progressive, in that it has been hijacked by hard lefties in order to pretend commonality with the vast liberal middle. This is also a mistake.

This is hardly new. Mo Udall was doing the same thing in 1984.

ps. we have a movement for a vote for contempt citations. . .
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070725/pl_nm/usa_prosecutors_dc_2

What's wrong with 'America-hater'?

Um, no. Liberal stays. Just change the meaning (more libertarian bent), and it increases its appeal. Liberal -> Liberty is not a bad connotation no?

I'm all in favor of relabeling as progressive, and of relabeling the so-called conservatives as 'throwbacks.'

Y'know as a dirty fucking hippie from the Viet Nam war days, I been wondering why we think the term Liberal is a positive term.

It was the DFH left after all that showed the liberal to be a patsy of and a member of the then called establishment. See Phil Ochs: "Love Me I'm a Liberal".

See also Lenny Bruce's Lyndon Johnson take down on LBJ trying to learn how to say Negro.

Take Scoop Jackson and Hubert Humphrey and many others. God love 'em all from any measure they were true and heart felt Liberals (whom I would gladly have around today instead of this bunch of wusses) but when push came to shove and they were up against a thug they Liebermanned. Until they couldn't, thanks to the Pentagon Papers and then Watergate being a front page local police blotter story. The political press of the day was AWOL on that one too.

It was a Liberal who gave us the Viet Nam War as
we know it for Nixon to perfect.

It was a democratic mayor - a liberal - in Chicago that incited the Chicago Police Riot of 68.

So, no, I am not that enamored of the term Liberal.

Liberal != Progressive. If you think it does you're just caught up in some weird form of tribalism.

I am a liberal: I think governments don't have the right to wage war just because they can.

I am a conservative: I think America should think twice before getting caught in land wars in Asia.

I am a progressive: I think we can build international institutions to help prevent aggressive wars.

I am a liberal: I don't think the government should be spying on it's people all the time.

I am a conservative: I think the government should obey the law.

I am a progressive: I believe we can improve security and liberty at the same time.

Also, Kevin, you're giving away the game at the point of victory. The blogosphere is making many Americans proud to be called liberals again.

paulo -
LBJ may have carried the Liberal label - but that was a false-flag operation. VietNam was a War Profiteering enterprise 100% (with a con-job on the anti-commie bedwetters).

The 1968 Dem convention? Still - that was a CONSERVATIVE instinct, to shut down the liberal voices trying to take back their party. (and they can't do that NOW, see? Because we have the internet SUCKERS!) Yes - the Democratic PARTY machinery is conservative. They don't want change. They haven't wanted change in a very long time. The impulse to tear-gas protesters, to silence voices, is fundamentally ANTI-LIBERAL.

What you're criticizing is a generation of opportunistic politicians who were calling themselves Liberals because it was a convenient and positive way to paint themselves to voters.

They didn't represent liberal values any more than today's conservatives represent real conservative values.

Actually - once they get into power, neither party seems to be interested in any values other than prolonging their hold on power.

I'd argue that in their spending habits and in the way they are willing to shread individual rights in the name of a all watching uber-state, it is George Bush and the Republicans who ran Congress who became the liberals, or at least how Republicans liked to define the word liberal and not the Democrats. This of course follows that the word conservative doesn't mean what it used to anymore and most mainstream Democrats fit the definition generally associated with that word than do a lot of today's Republicans. So liberal, progressive.....whatever....just give us some public policy that works for the majority of Americans.

I'm all for calling a spade a spade.

Social conservatives, call them single issue Catholics and Evangelicals. Neoconservatives, call them single issue liberal Jews more loyal to Israel than to the United States. Include Joe Lieberman in this category. Republican conservatives of the supply side, call them borrow-and-spend liberals.

What can we do with some of the lib favorites like undocumented Americans, undocumented workers, illegal immigrants? How's about Plain English: illegal aliens.

Well, let's see, we have neo-liberal economic policy and neo-conservative foreign policy. This has given us disparity, pollution and war. The Christianists want to control social policy. I say we better hang on to the progressive label.

Even if it does have a vaguely Naderish, utopian, Alex Keaton's Dad feel to it.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
lib·er·al /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1325–75; ME

—Related forms
lib·er·al·ly, adverb
lib·er·al·ness, noun

—Synonyms 1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.
—Antonyms 1. reactionary. 8. intolerant. 9, 10. niggardly.

It was a democratic mayor - a liberal - in Chicago that incited the Chicago Police Riot of 68.

Well, I was sort of with you (even reluctantly spotting you LBJ) up to this point. Not only did Richard J. Daley not self-identify as liberal, no one else ever identified him that way, either, save for a very few old conservative pundits as out of touch with 1968 America as, say, Kristol Meth and Bobo and Broder are with its 2007 counterpart.

The Chicago machine is not and has never been liberal, most particularly during the reign of Richard I, who despised the civil rights movement and in several other ways was as much a social conservative as most Republicans of his day. His son is marginally better, but even now this is not a liberal town; it's a conservative Democrat's town that reliably delivers Illinois to the blue column.

I'm a liberal. Proud of it, in fact.

The term is dead until we get a president who calls himself a liberal. That won't be HRC but it'll happen.

But nepeta, it doesn't really matter what the dictionary definition is if the connotation that sticks in most Americans' minds is the FOX version.

I don't care what you call yourselves, as long as you stand for something. And that's been the problem for about 20 years now, hasn't it? You people don't know what you stand for. As near as I can tell, you stand for regaining power, and your positions will shift so as to make that happen. And, ironically, as long as that is true you will not attain power. Funny how that works. You have only yourselves to blame.

I'm quite pleased to see the number of commentators here who don't run away from the term "liberal." I'm not pleased to see progressives defining progressivism to mean "Liberalsm +" like in this example:

Progressives aren't simply liberals; progressives see the world for what it is, accept it as ever-changing and dynamic, and choose the best course of action in line with decidedly American values.

Also, progressives love puppies, rainbows and children.

Seriously, that's not a definition. That's because there is no coherent difference between progressive and liberal "ideology." Ask people who self-identify as one or the other about major issues and their answers could easily be the same.

The truth is progressives are people who've run away from the term liberal either because they've believe that right-wing pundits have tarred it forever or they don't like the people who are calling themselves liberals. The difference is tribal.

That being said, I'm a liberal, and I consciously choose to be called that and not a progressive because the word has a proud history and a proud tradition and I'm proud of it. And I'll be a liberal until the day I die, whatever the cool kids may be calling it at that time.

Hillary can do what she wants. I'm a liberal, and proud of it. If we let conservatives tell us what we can call ourselves, then we're as weak-spined as they always say we are.

shortstop,

Perhaps you're right. I also looked up the dictionary definition of 'progressive.' I like 'liberal' more and find it more descriptive, not only in its political sense but also in its 'definition of character' sense. I find the label 'progressive' to be a diminishment. Being progressive is just one part of being liberal.

"The Chicago machine is not and has never been liberal, most particularly during the reign of Richard I, who despised the civil rights movement and in several other ways was as much a social conservative as most Republicans of his day. ... it's a conservative Democrat's town that reliably delivers Illinois to the blue column."
Posted by: shortstop on July 25, 2007

And, it was probably THE archetype for Hillary Clinton's political view of the world.

It's only a word.

What would The Art Of War say? Let the corrupt braying donkey's of the right have their little victory. They are losing the wider war electorally.

Progressives need to keep their eye on the real battle: What do we do to keep GOP thugs from seizing power in ways not electoral.

As is their wont.

Hey, how about the liberals and the progressives form a coalition and call it the Democratic Party?

/snark

floppin' pauper,

What a great idea! I'm a Democrat! Of course, where would the DLC go then?

...and the Blue Dogs?

Two different cases can be made, each strong in its way, that "progress" is not possible and would not be a good idea even if it were.

Due to its familiarity, I will not trouble to rehearse the case that would be made by an honest traditional conservative--if any remained.

The case that I will make goes to the fundamental and irredeemable illegitimacy of all our institutions. There is no incremental way back from the place we have fallen into. A clean break and a fresh start must be made. "Progress" is not the right word for that; I am not sure what the right word is.

I'm late to this party...and the two things I thought immediately were already said. But I'll jump in anyway.

I describe myself as a liberal Dem all the time. Often, for fun, I am a patriotic liberal Democrat and Navy brat. Liberal Democratic patriot works too.

Damn! Nice to meat another one! Sometimes I follow up with "You know - the kind of rabble that gave you the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution." Sometimes I go so far as to point out that I am not a Liberal because I rebel against a military upbringing. I am a Liberal because I internalized values like equal access to healthcare, pay equity, social mobility, meritorious advancement and a social structure that (on paper at least - there is a ways to go before reality catches up) denounces and punishes social ills like racism and sexism. Just off the top of my head.

Hey, how about the liberals and the progressives form a coalition and call it the Democratic Party?

Exactly. WTF?

Oh yeah, and "Progressive" is a Liberal value, but it is not the only or defining value. IM(ns)HO.

I wonder if readers of right-wing blogs are sitting around arguing about what to call themselves, struggling over every nuance and potential implication. Huh. I wonder.

(And nepeta, please understand that I have no problem with the term liberal and am proud to call myself one. I also call myself a progressive. I laugh at anyone who informs me that I shouldn't be calling myself whichever term I'm using at that moment. I just wanted to observe that the dictionary definition of "liberal" is not necessarily useful, given that most of the people who think it's an insult are unlikely to recall where they last saw their dictionaries. Oh, yeah, I'm a progressive, liberal snarker.)

Ah, Kevin.

A liberal by any other name...

LBJ == Liberal Fascist

Richard J. Daley == Reactionary Fascist

Ronald Reagan == Reactionary Fascist Puppet

Geo Bush == Puppet

Dick Cheney == Pumphead Royalist

HRC == WannaBe (an incomplete personality at best...)

Conservative, Liberal etc == sooooo 19th Century

Post Political == soooo 21st Century

*yawn*

catch up children !

*yawn*

“Whenever two people meet, there are really six people present. There is each man as he sees himself, each man as the other person sees him, and each man as he really is.� - William James

In the battle over words, it might be wise to turn the tables. I think "illiberal" has a lot of potential for becoming a term of derision. M. Adams seems to have the idea here:
http://www.generousorthodoxy.net/thinktank/2007/04/adams_on_illibe.html

Well, 'progressive' can't be all bad since Howard Zinn named his zine 'The Progressive.' Still, I prefer 'liberal' and am in no mood to change because 'half' the American public have been brainwashed. Let them get rehabilitated. The best way to do that is to have a Dem president and a Dem congress in 2008 and 2012. At least I sincerely hope that will cure any misperceptions about the word liberal, although I am not exactly optimistic...mostly because there are only a very few 'liberals' running for the Presidency. We'll see about Congress in a bit.

I wonder if readers of right-wing blogs are sitting around arguing about what to call themselves, struggling over every nuance and potential implication. Huh. I wonder.

I would wager the answer is yes, but the arguments are going on among the disparate personalities in each persons head, and politics probably has little to do with these struggles. (Paging Dr. Wilbur, Dr. Cornelia Wilbur.)

NUKE THE GAY WHALES!

BGRS,

Funny that you should mention the psychological component. Most of my refusal to accept 'progressive' as a synonym for 'liberal' comes from an obstinate, or should I say rebellious, streak in my psyche a mile long. (grin)

I refuse to abandon the term 'liberal'. We've conceded too much, and acting as if 'liberal' has become an unredeemable title just gives the game to the Republicans. Like been stated before, they'll just find a way to demonize whatever other term we use, be it progressive, populist, space monkey, whatever.

Wear your liberalism on your sleeve and define it yourself, rather than letting the right define it for you and giving up the ghost on it. Adamance is necessary, now more than ever. Keep pushing back, rather than giving up a front just to do the same thing under a new label. Because again, they'll do the exact same thing to the new label (hell, I've already seen people outright saying 'progressive = socialist' and the like). Take the language back from the right and stop letting them define us.

Instead of renaming ourselves, we should start naming them by their correct title: Reactionaries.

the problem here is not terminology; the meaning and history of the liberal philosophy are clear and robust. Nor is the problem that Democrats are too weak in defending their position, although they undoubtedly are. The problem is that all you real liberals out there are are bending over backwards to try to square the fact that the democratic party SIMPLY IS NOT LIBERAL. "The Politicans Who Are Not Quite Repugs" (TM) need a label to differentiate themselves from the real repugs, and they also need to retain support of the majority constituency of natural liberals, so they stick with the liberal label. But they don't really believe in the liberal ideal. They left that ideal behind years ago when they discovered just how seductive power can be, and just how antithetical liberal ideals are to really enjoying your power when you achieve it.
So you guys need to re-frame your analysis. You are not struggling to retain the meaning of the word liberal, you are struggling with the real existential issue of whether the democratic party really believes the same things that you do.

Instead of renaming ourselves, we should start naming them by their correct title: Reactionaries.

Outside the U.S., liberal has a decidedly different meaning (in the U.K., the Economist is a liberal magazine). And I grew up in a place where the Progressives could ally with the Conservatives to make a Progressive-Conservative Party! To point, progressivism has historically had far more of a populist element to it than liberalism (even within the U.S.) so I see a kind of irony with Hillary associating herself with this term (at the same time that populism seems to be something increasingly anathema to her crowd!) Both terms have a fine pedigree. Liberals are anti-monarchical and about meritocracy (and so generally opp. to classism, racism, sexism...) and about competition (and so generally opp. to crony-capitalism). Progressives, historically, have more of a focus on improving the life of the average man, often in terms of supporting measures. Neither are terms to run away from. Still, not sure if I would describe myself as either... maybe, left-wing libertarian?

anti-authoritarian, anti-elitist, anti-the-powerful-gaming-the-system, anti-nationalist, give-everyone-an-equal-shake kind of guy. Strongly-enforced, top-down regulations needed to level a field in which bottom-up growth can occur. Oh yeah, and that life is lived within a community and all that 'rugged individualist' tripe is for men who have never matured beyond adolescence. anti-'ism' except for pragmatism, whatever works to create the free spaces within which little people can live their lives with decent opportunity and relatively free from molestation from the powerful, private or public.

Problem historically is that most of the original Progressives at the turn of the twentieth century favored the restriction of suffrage rights, enabled Jim Crow, and were motivated by an evangelical moralistic streak which largely misinterpreted the oligopolisitic nature of corporate capitalism. But hey, whatever works.

It will be difficult for Republicans to smear the term "progressive." The term has a distinguished history in America. After all, Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive along with such staunch Republicans as William Allen White and Robert LaFolette. Many other prominent Americans, both Republican and Democratic, were Progressives. These include John D. Rockefeller Jr. and Andrew Carnegie.

It's good that this distinguished term is again taken up. Congratulations to Senator Clinton.

I see that snicker-snack has already beat me to the punch and done it more succinctly.

The distinctions between the historical usage of the terms "liberalism" and "progressivism" might be boiled down very simply to those who work for change within in the system and those who don't mind changing the system itself if that's what it takes. Another too-simple distinction is the difference to the extent that one group favors government intervention in the private sector over the other.

In the early and mid 20th century Progressives were those who strove for civil rights, workers rights, the elimination of corruption in government et alia, without giving undue respect to the social order. They demanded suffrage for women and they demanded it NOW, the tender sensibilities of old men be damned. If freedom and rights meant the breakdown of social conventions then so be it, for justice is urgent, transcendent, and not beholden to that accidental accretion of habits and outmoded ideas that we call society.

Liberals, on the other hand, were those who worked for change within the system using the economic and regulatory power of government as the great equalizer. Loosely speaking, self-defined liberals of this period were not as skeptical of government as progressives. Nor were they as quick to be critical of class structure per se, though they employed social programs to see that everyone had a chance to prosper, hence the steretype of the wealthy "limousine liberal" pulling over to the side of the road to toss a few coins to a homeless person.

The terms have since lost these historical connotations in common parlance, nevertheless there is still a distinction to be made between those on the left who agitate for rights and freedoms and equality without respect for conventions (like me) and those who agitate for rights and freedoms and equality in a way that is perhaps more organic.

Whatever name one choose for oneself and whatever attitude one takes toward their politics, the roots of these two similar philosophies lie in those great "liberal" ideas of western culture: equality, freedom, and merit, that stand in opposition to rule by hereditary status, the monied elite, authoritarianism, or appeal to custom.

Of course Hillary Clinton isn't a liberal.
She is a triangulator.

Jesus, reading this I feel like I am watching a private therapy session of Democratics Anonymous. shortstop, i have never seen a right wing blog conversation like this. Discussions like this give this conservative hope for the future.

But I have to admit to a bit of confusion in some of what i read here. Blue Girl, Red State says "I am a Liberal because I internalized values like equal access to healthcare, pay equity, social mobility, meritorious advancement and a social structure that...denounces and punishes social ills like racism and sexism."

I would argue most of those are conservative values also but that the way to get there is different. You seemed to have forgot the "Federal Government solutions to" part of that sentence. That aside, liberals are for Meritorious advancement? That's except for teachers or students or tenured professors or when applying for a school or job or anything else where it matters what your sex or color is or how long you have been doing it.

i have never seen a right wing blog conversation like this.

How much conversation do you honestly need about follow the big man?

But I have to admit to a bit of confusion in some of what i read here. Blue Girl, Red State says "I am a Liberal because I internalized values like equal access to healthcare, pay equity, social mobility, meritorious advancement and a social structure that...denounces and punishes social ills like racism and sexism."

I was talking about growing up a military brat. From whence springs your confusion?

Dave!, that's because most conservatives (tribal identification, not ideology) couldn't possibly admit what they really are.

They've all been trained Pavlovian style to hate liberals, but they've all openly subscribe to acting in an auliberal ideals: the founding principle of this country, that the people is sovereign and the rights and wellbeing of the people are superior to the government.

So most "conservatives", if they actually analyzed their beliefs, would have to either name themselves liberals in defiance of years of brainwashing, or change their ideals to authoritarian ones, which, being anti-American, is even worse.

Note that this hasn't stopped the "conservatives" from acting in an authoritarian manner.

Most, Dave!, can't have this conversation and remain part of the tribe.

I thought "liberals" were Neo Liberal on international economic issues and progressives were Democrats and Leftists with significant skepticism about the "free trade" agenda embodied in NAFTA, WTO, World Bank and IMF.

Well, not only has the word liberal become a code word for the pundits, which now, due to media idiotology means gay or welfare recipient, so has the word conservative become identified with the culture of corruption and neo-cons of nutty professor Straussian lie-o-con fame. The smart neo-cons such as Fukuyama bailed out long ago.

The pundits have reaped what they have sewn. A conservative today is linked to Shactmanite Trotskys. The conservative movement is nothing more than Orwellian BS cloaked under the guise of Christianity. The Centrist media is too blame for much of this.

Conservative suffers the same fate as liberal.
Centrism is also now a dirty word

Ironic isn't it?

I'm a liberal. I was raised in a nation that adopted what were radically liberal ideas in a radically revolutionary document called the Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal.

I believe in individual rights and equality of opportunity.

I believe that the only limits to individual freedom are those which are required for the healthy working of the nation.

I believe that governments are organized to promote the common welfare.

I oppose the Republican Party because it fosters bigotry against blacks and gays for political gain.

I oppose contemporary social conservatives because I was raised in that part of the Christian religion which sees the Sermon on the Mount as being the essence of Christian morality.

I am a liberal because I think the government has a role in providing educational opportunity to the poor, in regulating business without destroying it, and in promoting the best in us while guarding against the worst.

Paris Hilton a wealthy conservative, a misnomer if ever there was one, spent some 23 days in jail for being a 'liberal'.

The fact is Capitalism creates Liberalism. We see it in Rush Limbaugh. Noelle Bush. Lindsey Lohan. The world is full of hypocrites who want to be seen as something they are not. Conservative, such as with Haggard, means nothing more than I am a hypocrite.

A feel good word of group think means. If I say I am a conservative, it means I am part of the moral majority, I am a value voter. I feel good when I cloak myself in a word..even though I drove drunk and did drugs! I can now point a finger because I am cloaked in goodness!

Yet the cloak is but only hypocrisy. We teach our children to hide behind a word.

Benjamin Disrael said it best.
A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy. -Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons, Mar. 3, 1845

We see much of that finger pointing hypocrisy today. What a shame. What a society of finger pointers we have become. What an irresponsible group we are. We point fingers while ignoring the fact that in our hand three fingers point back at us. I am so dissapointed in mankind.

Boronx,
Note that this hasn't stopped the "conservatives" from acting in an authoritarian manner.
A big aspect of liberal ideology is to redistribute wealth (have the government take from people deemed rich by liberals and give to people deemed poor by liberals) and conservatives are authoritarian? If liberals believe that "the rights and wellbeing of the people are superior to the government", it seems illogical, to me at least, that the liberal solution to social problems is to give the government more power and control over people. But then, after reading all these posts, i'm still not sure what it is that liberals actually believe.

Blue Girl, Red State,
I was talking about growing up a military brat. From whence springs your confusion?
I guess it's the part where the ideals from that upbringing that you internalized made you a liberal. In my mind, that should make you a Red Girl.

A big aspect of liberal ideology is to redistribute wealth (have the government take from people deemed rich by liberals and give to people deemed poor by liberals) and conservatives are authoritarian?

Posted by: Dave! on July 26, 2007 at 1:15 AM
-------------------

Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you (on much, I am sure):

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by
the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

"It becomes expedient for promoting the public happiness that
those persons, whom nature has endowed with genius and virtue,
should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and
able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of
their fellow citizens; and that they should be called to that
charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental
condition or circumstance." --Thomas Jefferson: Diffusion of
Knowledge Bill, 1779.

---------------

Jefferson clearly favored redistribution of wealth to promote the public good, including providing for a good education for all people, and a better education for talented people.

it seems illogical, to me at least, that the liberal solution to social problems is to give the government more power and control over people.

Is this the liberal solution? I don't see it. Government as a countervailing power against private coercion, yes, but what are you specifically thinking of? It seems like the social conservatives you run with are the ones wanting to wield this government power in the way you talk of. And who are the ones suspending habeus corpus and supporting arbitrary arrest? Freedom doesn't mean freedom to fuck with other people; it means freedom from being fucked. In other words, the focus is on freedom for the little guy. The powerful will always make their way.

A big aspect of liberal ideology is to redistribute wealth

It's not redistribution. It's about using government to correct a market failure. Namely that people otherwise don't get payback for their collectively creating the environment in which wealth can be made. In short, wealth is not created in a social or political vacuum, Bill Gates would never have made his fortune in Mozambique. Kudos and wealth to Mr. Gates for his acumen but make sure that those who in part (how much of a part is for haggling) helped create the conditions where he could do this get their share. In other words, take, sure, but don't screw me out of my share. Government is the only prism I can see through which such collective payment can be made (unless you have another mechanism to mind).

I probably share your wariness of too much governemnt power (though you don't seem to have expressed too much concern about the power the Bush regime has claimed for itself, perhaps it's just your checkbook you care for). Too much and you have the freedom of the U.S.S.R. But too little and you have the freedom of Somalia. ie. coercive curbs on freedom can come from either public or private sources. The point is the coercion, not the source and that a system that maximizes freedom is not found at the extremes but in a system of countervailing power creating the spaces where we can live out our lives. Keeping the balance right is the trick and takes vigilance.

Nick,
Jefferson also offered up the following:

"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others."

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

The other thing is that it's imperative that the system remain meritocratic. Which is exactly why Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are firmly in favor of estate taxes. Otherwise, you have the development of an economic elite bent on pushing the system in a direction that benefits their own needs (until the system collapses and the elite fails; there is a natural corrective to this process but it's a far uglier corrective to go through than trying to stop or slow the system's natural drift in this direction).

... might as well be hanged for a sheep as lamb.

I use the term progressive because I think conservative and liberal have become such low mileage vehicles, as politico-speak words go. Too much baggage, too much semantic bickering, too much blogosphere wrangling. They just don't adequate sum up my policy beliefs or anyone elses anymore.

The fundamental driving force behind policy decisions and society as a whole, in my book, should be efforts at improving the human condition. My policy opinions are a bit too vast to fit inside the term liberal, and I wear the P-word with pride.

That said...why the false dichotomy? Why not use both terms where appropriate? We can defend the L-word from the AM Radio barbarians and neanderthals and still embrace what progressivism is really about (which is, to my mind, an understanding that the real dichotomy in society isn't liberal vs. conservative but authortarian *cough cough* Dick Cheney *cough cough* versus true liberalism--the widespread embrace of freedom of choice, diversity, and acceptance).

The funny thing is that, traditionally, a "progressive" is distinctly further to the left than a "liberal."

Leftists (who have always liked the label "progressive") have historically sneered at liberals--see especially the cliche "*bourgeois* liberal."

BTW, snicker, pretty good summation of the moral case for economic progressivism.

There is such a thing as a failed brand; for example, I own an Oldsmobile. But I vote for reclaimimg liberal. It should be possible after the abject failure and destruction of the conservative brand to remind people that liberals were the ones against them. But what do I know? I call myself a pinko.

Jefferson also offered up the following:

"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others."

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Posted by: Dave! on July 26, 2007 at 2:17 AM |
------------------

Your initial complaint was against redistribution of wealth as a primary tenet of liberalism. I showed unequivocally that Jefferson approved of the redistribution of wealth.

snicker-snack,
The other thing is that it's imperative that the system remain meritocratic. Which is exactly why Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are firmly in favor of estate taxes.

It seems to me that that should be left up the the individual to decide what to do with their money. If Buffett wants to not give any of his billions to his kids but instead give it to Bill and Melinda, that is his perogative. Likewise, if Bill and Melinda want to donate it all to charity, that's great. That is their choice. But realistically speaking, if you are young and your last name is Buffett or Gates (or Kennedy or Rockefeller), you're not going to have any problems whatsoever with getting along in life due to your connections, regardless of the money that is left to you. If your last name is Schmo, some inheritance to help you along in order to compensate for the lack of name recognition might be useful, if your parents (or whoever) choose to leave it to you. Either way, the government should keep its hands out of dead peoples pockets and honor the wishes of that person. The problem is not too many rich or well off people, its not enough.

It seems to me that that should be left up the the individual to decide what to do with their money.

And for more than 99% of Americans it is (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities). And so Mr. Schmo should be fine (but if he falls in that under 1% group, he should be especially fine!!)... And, as you admit, Ms. Hilton, doesn't need all her money; no, here the danger of the development of an aristocratic class which would pretty soon start to impede the freedom of ordinary folks is the thing to keep your eye on... but we're getting OT here and I suppose I should keep my eye on that.

Nick,
His quote "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." seems to suggest that he may have been ever so slightly conflicted on the redistribution of wealth or at least had some caveats. That said, your only quote that really directly addresses redistribution of wealth is "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
rise." I'll grant you the quote is Jefferson's and that it suggests his belief in redistribution but i am curious as to what the other way to address inequality was (since this starts off with "Another means of ...")

I see the preference for "progressive" over "liberal" as a good thing, as the phrase "liberal" has lost its meaning. In other countries, it means that which Americans call libertarian, and it used to fit as meaning using politics to ensure personal liberties. Liberal was also never free from connotations of looseness, though. After all, De Sade wrote his scandalous books to be fantasies of what Libertines would really do.

The authoritarians have also conflated liberals with socialists, another loaded term. But the most important thing to remember is that "liberal" was never a positive term, but was adapted as a defiant badge of honour.

So go ahead, use progressive. It's much harder to make progress seem negative.

Oh, and one more thing: don't be afraid to call Republicans authoritarians. They aren't conserving anything, but are only interested in domineering and patronising. Call them Flat-Earthers, tinpot tyrants and arrogant dogma-peddlers, but not conservatives. Instead, call the Sierra Club and Greenpeace conservatives, and watch the fun.

We've already let the GOP rename our party, so "liberal" is small potatoes.

Just watch any of the Dem/GOP talking heads (Begala and Brazil Vs. Watts and Bennett on CNN, for instance). The Dems never (never...even once!) interject the word "Democratic" when they use "Democrat Party", so Republicans continue to do it with impunity. It has slowly seeped into MSN reporter's vocabulary over the years and, unless challenged, will soon become my party's defacto name.

There's something else mentioned, worth exploring: most politics is about identifying WITH a larger group, a movement.

Broadly speaking, there are four movements in the Republican party. The oldest one, the paleo-conservatives, are folks with a view like Amity Shlaes has in her book attacking FDR, repeating GOP criticism from the 30s and 40s: he didn't really end the Depression but made it last longer, etc. If only we had let the market work it out.... There was an isolationist streak to those guys, which is mostly gone (if only because the Pentagon is big business.) These are the high church types, "the Republican Party at prayer."

Then you have the Goldwater guys and their kids (I'd include Alex Keaton), who are more ideological and less class-based: they aren't isolationists, they love defense spending but want the rest of the Federal government small enough to drown in the tub. The purpose of government is basically to buy tanks and ships so that they can make money.

When LBJ and the Democrats (with the support of that extinct species, the liberal Republican) killed Jim Crow, you got Dixiecrat crowd: starting with Thurmond (who always claimed to have become a Republican cuz of Goldwater), and epitomized by Trent Lott.

Finally, you have the neo-cons, like Kristol, Perle and Wolfowitz. All of these guys (well, not Kristol himself: his dad) were originally Democrats -- Scoop Jackson Democrats.

What has held 'em together is a sense of identification: they are FOR something like the same things, epitomized in Reagan, and AGAINST the same enemies -- first Communism, now radical Islam abroad, and the "liberal Democratic coalition" within the US.

Notice what's missing? The social issues -- abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, etc. Those feed into these movements, but they are NOT these movements -- issue activists may SUPPORT the Republican Party, but they really are separate from and independent of it. Even tax cuts are something the GOP does, not what it IS. And what they do is how they hold together who they are, e.g., Reagan did not originally run on tax cuts (it was Kemp and Roth's bill long before it was Reagan's).

Progressives have the opposite dynamic: what we want to do DEFINES who we are, as a political movement. Hell, look at how folks here are all upset cuz Senator Clinton used this word, rather than that one. Imagine if as President she, like FDR, decided that some major program didn't work -- and simply abandoned it?

Reagan realized his adventure in Lebanon was a disaster -- and he promptly cut and ran (with a nicely timed alternative in Grenada): did Republicans attack him for it? Of course not -- because ultimately, the parallel movements that make up "conservative" Republicans have a different reason to identify themselves as part of one big tent.

Progressives don't. The umpteen interest groups and issue advocates that would make up a progressive movement are not separate from or independent of the Democratic Party, they ARE the party.

Want a simple answer why the immigration bill failed? Cuz the immigration lawyers wrote it.

Why do we have a dysfunctional legal system? Cuz lawyers write the laws.

Why is Edwards the candidate who talks the most about the poor? Cuz he used to sue big companies.

Why did Nader cost us the 2000 election? Cuz HE sues big companies.

Why did the Supreme Court put Bush in the White House? Cuz OUR lawyer (Warren Christopher) played by the rules, while THEIR lawyer (James Baker) played to win.

Where is the theme that would unite progressives into identifying with a movement, the way "conservatives" do? Where's the dynamic that would allow a Clinton to act like Reagan did, doing a 180 on some policy -- without a breath of criticism from his own side? I'm not talking about IOKIYAR: something is missing from our side.

Suggestions?

Sociologist Paul Starr's historical distinction between "Progressive" and "liberal" (in his "Freedom's Power" is perhaps useful. According to Starr: "Liberals" in the 1920s were progressives who sought for the government to maintain the responsibilities it had assumed from 1900-1918, but wished to distance themselves from the idea of undemocratic, big government. Hence they called themselves "liberals" to connect with the element of classical liberalism that resists state power.

I don't think we should permanently drop liberal. We should give it a vacation, though, and let Progressive have its day.

I mean, who can argue with progress, or the notion that we need a hell of a lot of it?

I'm a proud liberal. I have always disliked "progressive;" I see it as a euphemism - as you say, Kevin, I don't think we should let the other side define us. I'm a liberal, like Studs Terkel, like Paul Wellstone, like Thomas Jefferson.

The point for Dems isn't to have a label liberals can be proud of. It's to have a label that independents don't mind identifying with. Liberal is a damaged brand. Thanks to Bush, conservative has taken some serious hits, though they seem to be stuck with it. Luckily for Dems, progressive is a natural alternative brand with none of the negative connotations. Dems would be idiots to forsake such a wonderful, all purposes, positive label.

The point for Dems isn't to have a label liberals can be proud of. It's to have a label that independents don't mind identifying with. Liberal is a damaged brand. Thanks to Bush, conservative has taken some serious hits, though they seem to be stuck with it. Luckily for Dems, progressive is a natural alternative brand with none of the negative connotations. Dems would be idiots to forsake such a wonderful, all purposes, positive label.

theAmericanist: "Where is the theme that would unite progressives into identifying with a movement, the way "conservatives" do?"

100 comments in, and wow, I was blown away by theAmericanist's comment and the challenge which he or she presents. I'll put the following theme on the table: Liberals defend the Constitution. As long as our candidates are proposing policies that are consistent with the Constitution, we will not criticize.

I am a liberal. Progressive sounds to me too much like change for change's sake. Liberal to me communicates tolerance, individual responsibility, generosity, respect, and breadth of understanding. It is not a specific outcome or policy, but an approach to government. For me, what it means to be liberal is embedded in the Preamble to the Constitution: it means striving for a government of, by and for the people in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

In other words, a government of, by and for the people that is just, competent, strong, pragmatic.

Conservatives have screamed for years at what they perceive as the liberal/progressive violations of the Constitution, but the effectiveness of those charges was based primarily on outcomes that conservatives hated--resistance to equal rights for African Americans, resistance to the income tax, resistence to a separation of church and state as well as their defense of the 2nd amendment. And after seven years of Bushco assaults on the Constitution, I would like to believe that liberals would defend the Constitution and the vision of government embodied therein.

Ideas have consequences, but so do labels. They are like brand names, or flags. Why else would the Conservative Movement spend so much time and money trying to destroy the liberal lable by re-defining it as Leftism. They know that people think in broad categories and are much more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to ideas that are labeled as they label themselves, regardless whether there is any logical connection between those beliefs or not.

The problem is, that by destroying the liberal label conservatives have been able to appropriate the greatest values of liberalism for themselves (freedom, liberty, democracy). That wouldn't be so bad in itself except that by equating these values with "conservatism," and thus making that lable respectable with a larger segment of the "liberal" population, the real hard core Right has been able to slip in some of its favorite (though unpopular) values into the mainstream -- such as strong, central leadership, concentrated political and economic power, the union of religion and politics, class privileges and the like.

The reason for protecting the liberal label and not giving way to the temptation to rebrand it as progressivism, is that it obscures the truth that the American political tradition is a liberal one, and that most of the values we identify as American are liberal, not conservative. We are who we are because of a centuries' long movement toward political and social liberalism. I'm a Republican, but liberalism is American and "conservatism" as it has come to be defined today is not.

I was going to comment on the advantages of painting Republicans as regressives, but I think I'll just say that that was really nice, PTate.

Clinton may be using the excuse of what Republicans have done, but the reason she is abandoning the term has nothing to do with that, but rather what activists in the left-of-center party base, who have abandoned the term to differentiate themselves from "liberals" (largely, center-right Democrats like Clinton), and she's doing it to blur the distinction between herself and the competition.

Of course, the idea of her doing it merely to cede rhetorical ground to the Republicans would nicely symbolize exactly what is most wrong with Clinton.

A big aspect of liberal ideology is to redistribute wealth (have the government take from people deemed rich by liberals and give to people deemed poor by liberals)

Ah, it's always amusing to see that the ridiculous obsession with Comminunism is alive and well in the so-called "conservative" movement.

"Redistributing wealth" is a canard, and it's frankly disappointing to see Dave! resort to it after a fairly promising start. Any time the government spends tax revenue -- which is its undisputed function under the Constitution -- it's "redistributing wealth;" whether it's spending taxes on roads, an aircraft carrier, or welfare. The only difference is the perceived benefit of that spending, and, evidently, Dave!'s objection to who ("the poor," it would seem) receives the money. One wonders if the salaries of private soldiers -- who are probably not "rich" by the standards of either lierals or conservatives -- is included in this nightmaris "redistribution of wealth" scenario. But by implication Dave! would seem to be just fine with "redistributing wealth" to the already wealthy -- defense contractors, say.

That said, I'm curious: Would "conservatives" have different definitions of who is "rich" and "poor" than liberals, as Dave! seems to imply?

There's a serious discussion to be had on the size and reach of the Federal governemnt, but those who use phrases like "redistribution of wealth" disqualify themselves as serious participants in it.

and conservatives are authoritarian?

Yes.

I remember when no one wanted to be called a conservative

I do too, as a young boy in Dallas Tx no less...

Want a simple answer why the immigration bill failed? Cuz the immigration lawyers wrote it.

That's a simple answer. Not particularly accurate, of course, but simple.

Why do we have a dysfunctional legal system? Cuz lawyers write the laws.

Uh, no. We have a dysfunctional legal system because the narrow moneyed interest that have the most to gain at the expense of broad interests tend to write (or at least, set the goals for) the laws. If that continued but non-lawyers actually drafted the text, the system would be even more dysfunctional (as it would be equally malign in orientation, and even more capricious in effect).

Why is Edwards the candidate who talks the most about the poor? Cuz he used to sue big companies.

Or maybe Edwards, of all the career courses open to a well-educated, skilled young lawyer, took a course that resulted in him suing large companies on the behalf of the little guy because that's where at least some of his natural inclination was, which is also why he talks about the poor on the campaign trail.

Why did Nader cost us the 2000 election? Cuz HE sues big companies.

Inasmuch as "Nader cost us the 2000 election" is even accurate, the fact that he "sues big companies" isn't particularly relevant to the reason, except insomuch as that that is why he has a public following at all. Unless your contention boils down to "He was well known enough that people actually were willing to vote for him", which is a kind of vacuous explanation, you are heading up the wrong tree here.

Why did the Supreme Court put Bush in the White House? Cuz OUR lawyer (Warren Christopher) played by the rules, while THEIR lawyer (James Baker) played to win.

First, the Supreme Court didn't put Bush in the White House, the Congress did. Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines the appropriateness of electoral votes. It wasn't a cabal of lawyers that decided to end resistance before that judgement was made.

Further, I don't think there is any support for or substance to the idea that the reason the Supreme Court issued a blatantly partisan, ends-oriented, decision is because Warren Christopher, et al., didn't fight as hard as James A. Baker III, et al.. I think it is both simpler and more accurate an explanation to say that the members of the Supreme Court, faced with the opportunity to choose the President, abandoned their responsibilities and dove into the temptation offered.

Where is the theme that would unite progressives into identifying with a movement, the way "conservatives" do? Where's the dynamic that would allow a Clinton to act like Reagan did, doing a 180 on some policy -- without a breath of criticism from his own side? I'm not talking about IOKIYAR: something is missing from our side.

No, actually, what you are talking about is precisely IOKIYAR: the subservience to authority and tribal unwillingness to hold the designated leaders of your tribe accountable for anything. And, yes, it is missing from our "side", and since it is inherently a conservative impulse (one that reinforces the narrow authority, rule by traditional 'right' of a select group, exclusionism, and irrationality that liberalism, from its genesis in classical liberalism, opposes), it is something our side will never have to the degree the opposing side has unless we cease to be meaningfully different from them.

Suggestions?

Setting aside the definitions of liberal and progressive I like progressive because it "sounds" more forward thinking. It's an active word and liberal (e.g. a liberal dose of...) reminds me of excess. Just in day to day language without all the political connotations progressive plays better in my view.

progressive conditions
progressive disease

and, and

progressive rock

I like the tag "progressive", but I have no problems with being called a "liberal". I like to think that liberal ideas lead to progressive results whereas the "compassionate conservatism" is a proven failure.
Posted by: Tommy Harper on July 25, 2007 at 7:30 PM
------
I agree. I think "progressive" is becoming more favorable because it implies concrete policy actions and results, whereas "liberal" is more of an attitude or a philosophy that is in sympathy with progressive policies. It could simply be that the public is wanting some concrete action. "Progressive" implies a more activist and populist tone. Get 'er done! Get out of Iraq, Enact Universal Health Care!, Change trade policies!, etc.

Hillary can run from the liberal label and try to triangulate herself all she wants, but she will still be labeled "New York liberal, elite, pro-amnesty and against the working guy, war flip-flopper without convictions manipulator" by the Republicans.

Dave writes:

"I am a Liberal because I internalized values like equal access to healthcare, pay equity, social mobility, meritorious advancement and a social structure that...denounces and punishes social ills like racism and sexism." I would argue most of those are conservative values also but that the way to get there is different.

No, those are absolutely not conservative values, but it is nice, I suppose, that conservatives are paying lip service to them. Whenever conservatives say that they favor X, but just disagree with the means to achieve X, what they really mean is: We're not going to do a damn thing about X. There is no conservative path to end racism and sexism. There is no conservative path to health care for all. There is no conservative path to equal access to education for all. There is no conservative path to environmental protection, to alleviating poverty.

I believe that there can be fruitful means versus ends discussions in politics, but the means favored by conservatives are completely incompatible with the ends favored by liberals (as well as those that some conservatives claim to favor).

Does it matter what we call ourselves, as long as Talk Radio mocks and labels those who do not toe the GOP line without rebuttal re refutation?

And those with national airtime provided to air their caustic views seem to garner a sizeable listening audience who gets no alternative viewpoint to counteract the malicious intent of what they are hearing, and so get brainwashing to believing that anyone not toeing the GOP line is as bad as they are being told.

What we call ourselves is the very least of our problems. And the pale showing in Congress after the nation called for action in 2006 reinforces the negative stereotypes about liberals.

Dice really is too stoopid to bother with, but since it exemplifies my point: Yeah, as it happens, it IS spot-on accurate that the simplest explanation for why the comprehensive immigration bill failed, was that immigration lawyers wrote it. Start with that accurate understanding, and follow how the bill actually stumbled, fell, and cratered, and you get a damned good insight into what's wrong with "liberal", as opposed to progressive.

F'r one thing, if Senator Kennedy isn't a liberal, the term has no meaning.

F'r another, the immigration bill was HIS baby. So it's a pretty fair test, no?

Last year, the McCain-Kennedy bill was a genuinely bipartisan, if badly flawed bill, and as such was a reasonable starting point for a bill this year.

Yet it was not the starting point THIS year: there was NO Republican support for Kennedy's initial bill in the Judiciary Committee. (Technically, this was all to be done as a series of amendments, but let's not get too technical.)

Both supporting sides (Kennedy on the one hand, McCain and Specter and Graham and Hagel and Martinez on the other) understood that new Democratic majorities in the House and Senate meant the bill wouldn't be identical, and ALSO -- significantly -- that the legislative dynamic would be different. Instead of a generous bill passing the Senate and being cut back by the House, whatever passed the Senate would likely be made MORE generous by the House.

So Republican Senators who felt comfortable being more generous than their party last year, had a reason: the Republican House. Naturally, to keep 'em on board might have required allowing 'em to, yanno, PARTICIPATE?

So what did the liberal icon do? He acted like a liberal. How can you tell? Look at what he wanted, and what he was willing to give up, look at how the process worked, and who his allies were: Did he draft this year's bill with last year's Republican sponsors, with McCain and Spector and Graham and Hagel and Martinez?

Nope.

As late as mid-spring, Specter was bitching that HE won elections, and represented the Republicans on the committee -- yet the immigration lawyers' lobbyist could see the draft bill and make changes, but HE could not.

(smile) Learned anything, Dice?

That's why there was no "McCain-Kennedy" bill this year. Desperate to get SOMETHING out of the Committee with the Republican support he had dissed earlier in favor of lobbyists and those groups I note ARE the Democratic party, Kennedy went to.... Kyl, an opponent of everything Kennedy's 42 year record on immigration had achieved. Family and employment immigration was to be cut and crippled. Kennedy was willing to give up the folks who obey the law, to favor folks who break it: anybody wanna explain to me how this is NOT the epitome of modern "liberalism"?

What, Kennedy isn't a liberal? This wasn't a paradigm for contemporary legislation?

And yet, the 'dozen in every color' legislative dynamic favoring folks represented by... well, not by people who win elections, the dynamic that is typical of Democratic bills continued: look at how the legalization kept getting more elaborately generous (no tiered system this time), even as LEGAL immigrants were to be screwed.

Yet every damn day the bill was on the floor it lost political support. Anybody wanna remind me why liberals are supposed to be good at policy AND politics?

You could do the same analysis with Clinton's health care plan, or the missed opportunity of DEMOCRATS -- progressives! -- writing welfare reform.

LOL -- no, Dice: oddly enough, knowing something about a subject actually helps inform opinions. I commend the practice to you -- perhaps you could take a sabbatical from law school, cuz I'm sure they don't offer a class on it.

You might working at a deli until you know a ham sandwich from the horseshit on which you base your opinions.

Admit it folks, "liberal", as a brand, was defined in the 60's and 70's by the movements concerned with racism, sexism, anti-war, and relaxation of social mores on sex, drugs, and religion. Rush and the republican machine are just using the existent bias to their advantage.

The boomer generation, who lived through those changes, will never forget the social upheavel associated with the "liberal" causes, most of which we accept today without issue.

The brand "liberal" needs to die with the boomer generation. The label is irrelevant, it is the ideas that matter. In another 10-20 years "liberal" can be proudly resurrected.

Liberals Wearing Crosses
Imagine a handful of mostly older women handing out toothpaste, razors and toothbrushes at a homeless shelter.
Imagine a group of mostly older women in the basement kitchen of a church cooking up chicken, peas and mashed (lots of coffee) for their weekly soup kitchen for the poor.
Imagine thousands of mostly older women volunteering and performing acts of charity all across America.
Some of the ladies have crosses in their lapels; are they not liberals?
Some of their brethren are altruistic agnostic or atheist volunteers; are they not serving the morality engendered in the world's god based religions.
It may serve Karl Rove's vision of political dominance to set these kind faced Americans upon each other over implications of being a 'liberal' but it really isn't the American way.
And it's not a word that anyone should remotely shy away from.
--cognitorex--

That's very progressive of you.

ah yes, framing.

It's time for us "progressives" to start calling the rabid right "reactionary" instead of "conservative."

After all, "conservative" has the same root as "conservation," and they're not for conserving anything other than their power and their dollars.

They are reactionaries, I tell you, reactionaries.

Plus, I don't think you can really CALL the Clintons "liberal." When Bill was President, what liberal positions did he advance? Ending sexual orientation discrimination in the armed services or in marriage? Protecting American jobs? Remember welfare "reform"?

So Hillary isn't liberal, but I don't think she's progressive either.

I'm fine with both liberal and progressive. Though "liberal" has been purposefully obfuscated and maligned, I kind of like it as a bridge to the historical excesses of Stalinism, Pol Pot and others, in that the Right can fear that the dictatorial powers they are seizing and apologizing for the executive, can, in certain hands, be turned in directions that could scare the absolute shit out of them.

President Gavel uses the Patriot Act to seize Bush et al as material witnesses, and water boards their asses for 8 years in accordance with the quaint Geneva conventions. Let's fire up the internment and re-education camps, do some serious wealth redistribution and draft war mongers into the front lines. Liberals can be wingnut authoritarians too, if we could just remember how. I kinda like the idea of keeping that fear alive. So, you guys really wanna have an executive that can start a war against anyone for any reason, detain anyone indefinitely for no reason, render, torture, seize property, deprive rights, steal elections, ignore congress, rig the courts, spy on everyone? OK. President Sharpton, let's see some pushback, baby. We don't have to call it "reparations," we can call it the "Glorious Reappropriation of the US Treasury, Detention of Profiteers, and Social Welfare" Executive Order. Right in line with the Bush legacy. In tactics anyway. I think a liberal would be better at that sort of thing than a progressive. Keep hope alive!

hey Cal Gal. Let's call the radical right, "fundamentalist insurgents," "traitors," and "enemies of America," shall we? Maybe "fascists" and "criminal elements?" I seriously think "reactionary" is understating the case at this point.

Totally agreed that the Clintons are neither liberals nor progressives in substance if not sentiment. They are opportunistic, self-perpetuating middle-of-the-roaders.

"It seems to me that that should be left up the the individual to decide what to do with their money."

OK, then, Dave. I suppose you DO want police and fire service? Well, then, you can spend your money to pay for private security and for a private water main to delive the amount of water necessary to fight a fire at your home. I would bet you want some security against terrorists, too. OK, then, you can spend more of your money on troops to invade Iraq.

Me, I want health care, and I ALREADY have to spend my money on it, but I don't want WAR, and I don't think the armed services are effective at preventing terrorism, so I'll just not pay for the Defense Department, OK?

You're right, Trypticon, but I think your alternates are a bit to obvious to catch on. I did like the suggestion above of "reactionary authoritarians." Or maybe just "authoritarians."

Instead of renaming ourselves, we should start naming them by their correct title: Reactionaries.
Posted by: RonG

I prefer "Regressives." Or "Tories."

Or "Confederates."

One reason to prefer progressive is that "liberal" means something quite different in Europe. The more left wing French all abhor those Anglo-Saxon liberals.

Another point: if we're gonna re-brand ourselves, and them (the progressives vs the regressives), it'd be most effectively done with an event, and a theme.

F'r instance, let's just say Clinton wins the White House with roughly the same Democratic majorities in the House and Senate that we have now, so the Republican minority (which is very good at tactics) in the Senate can slow or even stop legislation, while in the House, much will be politically damaged if it isn't "bipartisan".

The event might be her Inaugural, where she INVITES Republicans to be 'progressives with us, inspired by Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, as this Goldwater girl was raised to be inspired', and contrasts those who don't want that as 'regressives, who don't understand ...'

The theme would then be to use the branding when the Republican minority DOES try to stop action in the Senate, or votes in lockstep against Democrats in the House.

It always helps to identify the other side with a pejorative when you can say: "There they go, acting like liberals...." cuz they DO.

Wanna make progressives and regressives stick? An event and a theme.

I have a friend who calls himself a "progressive", and it's funny to watch wingnuts when he says it. Their faces slowly register a light bulb as they translate this into "liberal -- and an easily cow-towed one at that".

Stick to "Liberal". Don't let other people define who you are.

I'm a liberal. My grandmother was able to stay out of the poorhouse because of liberals. Liberals will bring us national health care. Liberals (not progressives) were against the Iraq War. Liberals are against torture. And so on....

Born and raised a Liberal and will die one too! I guessed I always just took it for granted that being a Liberal also meant being progressive so to relabel myself Progressive seems redundant.

Well, I call myself a "liberal progressive moderate" :)

I'm a liberal. Pure. Simple. I don't care what the Reps say.

Rasmussen poll 2007, political labels
Progressive outpolls liberal, conservative, and moderate. "Like Reagan" out polls them all, although it's a mystery to me why anyone thinks being like a flinty hearted, senile old goof is a positive.

Liberal is one thing and progressive is another. FDR was a liberal while today Hugo Chavez is progressive. While liberals may be “left”, progressives are “extreme left” or closer to communist ideology altogether. If you consider yourself a traditional liberal, you ought to distance yourself from the progressive label. If you believe in the constitution, especially the first amendment right to free speech and religious freedom, then steer clear of the progressive label.