In Defense Of ‘Progressive’
In Defense Of ‘Progressive’
[Our guest blogger is John Halpin, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress focusing on the foundations of progressive thought, communications, and public opinion analysis.]
Matthew Yglesias and Duncan Black have initiated a dicussion about the meaning and use of “progressive” and “liberal” as ideological labels. I’d like to offer 2 quick points based on work I’ve done recently on the intellectual history of progressivism:
1) Ideological terms are notoriously fluid and hard to pin down. This is true whether discussing progressivism, liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, populism, socialism, social democracy, or Christian democracy.
Looking back at the period from 1890-1920 — what is broadly described as the Populist and Progressive Era — you find that people who called themselves “progressive” or were labeled as such frequently held divergent views on a range of important philosophical areas including the role of the state, attitudes about business, views of human nature and social progress, the importance of faith versus empiricism and reason, and isolationism or internationalism in global affairs.
These intellectual divergences often reflected different sources of thought (Jefferson, Hamilton, obscure Europeans, or the Gospels, for example); different personal backgrounds and origins (city or rural, Midwestern/Western or Eastern, middle class or worker); and different political contexts (the progressivism of Midwestern Republicans like Bob La Follette or Al Cummins versus the Democratic populism of William Jennings Bryan and the Democratic progressivism of Joseph Folk).
Similarly, progressivism developed in unique institutional and intellectual settings. Muckrakers like Lincoln Steffens promoted progressive ideas through pioneering investigative journalism. Historians, economists, sociologists and philosophers like Richard Ely, Charles Beard, or John Dewey developed unique lines of progressive thought at places like the University of Wisconsin, Johns Hopkins, and Columbia. Activists like Jane Addams and others inspired by social gospel teachings created the settlement movement at places like Hull-House in Chicago.
In sum, there was never a uniform understanding of progressivism but rather varieties of progressivism that together put forth powerful moral arguments for reform; challenged special privilege; increased executive authority and oversight; created new institutions to more effectively manage the economy; implemented political reforms to enhance representative democracy and challenge corruption; and developed far reaching social legislation to address the excesses of capitalism.
2) We should embrace the full range of reform traditions — populist, progressive, and liberal — as part of a common project with philosophical distinctions that enhance the overall progressive movement.
Progressivism and liberalism, in particular, are built on distinct but complementary histories and ideas. Rather than trying to eliminate one tradition or another, or combine them into one label, it makes more sense philosophically and strategically to build on the positive aspects of each tradition and fight about other things we disagree on.
Liberalism has a rich philosophical tradition dating to the Enlightenment that we should embrace. Its historical focus on human liberty and autonomy, individual rights, and economic opportunity and security is critical to the progressive project today.
Similarly, at a time when liberalism in the U.S. was locked in retrograde laissez-faire notions, populism and progressivism arose to aggressively challenge concentrated economic power and the corrupting influence of business. Both traditions offered serious political and economic reforms that were later solidified at the height of liberal government during the New Deal. Modern liberalism would not exist without the groundbreaking efforts of the early populists and progressives.
To build a real case for modern reform efforts, we should draw on and defend all three traditions: Liberalism (liberty with economic opportunity); Populism (a stand on the side of the people and “equal rights for all, special privileges for none”); and Progressivism (honest government and a commitment to the common good).
– John Halpin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
surely the details vary and can be debated forever, but the basic precepts of progressive and liberal are the same:
helping others through action.
this is in complete contrast to everything conservative/republican which are basic social Darwinism, dog eat dog, every man for himself, screw thy neighbor in every way shape and form possible.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:44 pm.
And, yes, I DO take it personally
February 7th, 2008 at 6:59 pmProgressive, liberal, conservative. Those are labels that the media and political wonks want America to prescribe. You are a non-thinker if you place yourself among these.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:09 pmTo define is to be defined.
The worst thing, perhaps, the Democratic Leadership and “front runners” like John Kerry did from 1999 on was to shirk away from labels, and specifically from running away from the term “Liberal.”
Face it. The Republican/Conservative leadership and pundits jammed language down our throats, used language to hijack much of the populous, while people like John “Sometimes I’m Liberal, Sometimes I’m Conservatve” Kerry let them ruin his image by not fighting back.
Liberals got beat by words. They can win back the country — because Republican/Conservative ACTIONS have been REALLY BAD.
But Democrats/Liberals can blow it all over again by November with their typical wishy-washy use of language.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:12 pmComment by Tracy2
My Conservative repukian neighbors are the most hateful SOBs on the planet, I have never met a converative worth a hill of manure.
Buck fush
February 7th, 2008 at 7:17 pmIf GWB and his administration and the GOP members of congress represent what Conservative means, than color me anything else. If I had to choose between this current brand of Conservative and communist, I certainly could not choose Conservative. Many much more appealing choices are available today.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:19 pmI’ve read your posts many times Justasking and yes you are a vile freak.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:20 pmAll moderate Republicans have either been driven from the party or are wishing they had changed their affiliation in time for the primary. I know many decent people still registered as Republican, but they shake their heads and are as eager for change as the Dems or independent. GOP has brought our country so low that most thinking people are jumping ship or feeling shame.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:24 pmActually Tracy2, it is my Christofascist neighbors who everyone on the block dislikes. I on the other hand am very well liked, I help my neighbors and organized block parties and stuff.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:25 pm#5 Comment by Tracy2 — February 7, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
Only someone who doesn’t think that personal responsibility and liberty is important would make such a blanket statment.
Of course, you don’t make blanket statements. Do you?
February 7th, 2008 at 7:27 pmRoot word in Progressive is Progress. But, then root word in Conservative is Conserve. Conservative have not been about conserving anything for a long time. Progressives must stand for Progress for everyone, not just a few, like the GOP crony capitalism of the past 28 years.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:30 pmI usually don’t respond to trolls Justasking, but I am getting sick and tired of the trolls slamming us progressives and well, am having a bad day to boot.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pmRaygun lead the GOP astray and they are too dumb to even realize how far to the extreme right wing they have swung.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:36 pmSadly the Republican party of old, that actually stood for something of value, whether you agreed with it or not, is no longer in existance.
The neoconservatives, like the worms that they are, ate the party from within and essentially destroyed the good in it. As jb states:
All moderate Republicans have either been driven from the party…
Those who back the GOP today are either true neocons or don’t have a clue what has been going on in their party for the last 50 years. Those who defend today’s rotted out neocon cabal “GOP” are either evil, or fools.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:37 pmleftcoast: “Progressive, liberal, conservative. Those are labels that the media and political wonks want America to prescribe. You are a non-thinker if you place yourself among these.
To define is to be defined. ”
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Thomas Paine and other Founders, on various occasions, described themselves as “liberal.” Would you call these men “non-thinkers?”
February 7th, 2008 at 7:37 pmMy born again evangel neighbors are hated because every time anyone on the block has a party and they can hear the music, they call the police, they think music is satans music and dancing is a sin, that is why everyone hates them. Plus when you say hi or wave they turn away and won’t respond.
And I have read your posts enough justasking to know that I certainly don’t like you in any way shape or form.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:37 pmGay bashing, brown skin fearing, anti-abortion bigots that want to tell others how to live….that is what conservative means nowadays.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:39 pmIs there anything remotely resembling conservative ideology in today’s modern republican party? (other than a short list of divisive socially-conservative wedge issues used primarily to garner votes)
I would say no.
Similarly, where are the liberals and progressives in the democratic party? With the exception of a depressingly short list of individuals, they practically don’t exist in the party today, and are almost completely absent in the Senate.
We need more and better democrats that are proud to identify with the progressive and liberal terminology.
I embrace the terms, but that’s because I was able to learn their meaning a long time ago by picking up one of them there dictionary thingies. Ask a staunch republican what “liberal” means to them the next time the word is lobbed at you as some sort of lame slur. The facial expression and the wacky inconsistent definitions they’ll give you (if they can) is priceless.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:40 pmReally?
Why?
You should go back and read your posts here for the last couple of months, I believe most of the people here disapprove of you.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:41 pmCol Jack- you miss my point. Read my posts.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:43 pmYes, the block parties pull the community together, with food, and games for the kids, the new people get to meet everyone. Brings out the Asians too, who seem to be very shy most of the time also.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:45 pmIf this Congress were attempting to write the Constitution it would never be completed.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:45 pmYou’re wasting your time Buck Fish. You’re trying to have a conversation with someone who wants an argument. Enjoy.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:46 pmYeah, Bobwurst, you’re right, I made the mistake of responding to a troll.
My bad, sorry.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:48 pmThose that make the most, benefit the most from our system and should be responsible for paying their fair share. The recent policies are leading to an unhealthy and unsustainable concentration of wealth and power to the very very few at the top. I think we need to value human qualities beyond greed. The aeronautical engineer will of course make more than the Wal-mart “associate”, but all should have the chance to develop to their potential, not just rich kids who can afford private schools and fancy medical insurance.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:50 pmIt happens to the best of us. We get pissed off at some stupid comment and and respond. I have the same problem with my dog sometimes, I take him for a walk in the woods, he sees a deer and takes off and I stand there yelling “Bear, get back here!” I know he’s gone, but I can’t stop myself…
February 7th, 2008 at 7:52 pmOur government is now owned by corporate America. There is no way in god’s green earth that our ForeFathers would have survived the taint and purchase power of today’s corporate lobbying to write the document that we have let die. We take it back or we will perish as a nation.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:52 pmNope, only use on log on name. No need to use others, unlike trolls.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:52 pmDemocrats have drifted to the right of many former moderate Republicans. I think Dems would benefit by returning to their former values of representing the interests of WORKING PEOPLE.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:53 pmBobwurst, nice, yeah it happens sometimes. My jack terrier is named Dart, because if he gets out, he darts.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:54 pmRoot word in Progressive is Progress. But, then root word in Conservative is Conserve. Conservative have not been about conserving anything for a long time. Progressives must stand for Progress for everyone, not just a few, like the GOP crony capitalism of the past 28 years.
Comment by jb — February 7, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
Actually: Progressive-the root is gres, which means degree, pro means forward, and the suffix ive means characterized by. So progressie means characterized by moving forward in degrees.
Conservative: con means “to take your $hit by means of falsehoods, serv means to feed you BS, and ative means nothing…thus your definition.
Or something like that….
February 7th, 2008 at 7:55 pmleftcoast: “Col Jack- you miss my point. Read my posts.”
leftcoast, the only post of yours I saw above my response was this:
“Progressive, liberal, conservative. Those are labels that the media and political wonks want America to prescribe. You are a non-thinker if you place yourself among these.
To define is to be defined.”
I responded by pointing out that many of our nation’s Founders proudly embraced the label “liberal.” I simply don’t buy the argument that to label yourself makes you a “non-thinker.” To label yourself might be construed as taking a stand or taking a position. I am proud to be a liberal. I’m proud to consider myself progressive. I take being a progressive liberal to be in the best tradition of the Founders of our country. Even some of the most conservative among them held positions which would seem liberal by today’s standards. That’s all I’m saying.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:56 pmActually: Progressive-the root is gres, which means degree, pro means forward, and the suffix ive means characterized by. So progressie means characterized by moving forward in degrees.
Conservative: con means “to take your $hit by means of falsehoods, serv means to feed you BS, and ative means nothing…thus your definition.
Or something like that….
Comment by snicks — February 7, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
Makes perfect sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:58 pmProgressives don’t close out the obvious.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:59 pmThere is no far left today. What is portrayed as far left is in reality quite moderate. It is the right that lost touch with reality.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:01 pmCol. Jack- sorry to be misleading. Thanks for pointing this out. I am not being sarcastic.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:03 pmI could be defined, but I prefer it when I control the defining.
leftcoast: “Our government is now owned by corporate America. There is no way in god’s green earth that our ForeFathers would have survived the taint and purchase power of today’s corporate lobbying to write the document that we have let die. We take it back or we will perish as a nation.”
I agree with your first sentence, but I would point out that the Founders believed corporations should be strictly regulated. You couldn’t even keep a corporation together for more than 40 years until the 1880’s and it was a criminal offense in most states for corporations to give ANY money to ANY campaign until the late 19th century. The revolution started partly because of a specific targeted tax cut for an English corporation with personal ties to monarchal power that gave that corporation an unfair advantage of domestic colonial tea importers. Jefferson thought corporations were simply a sneaky way to set up another landed aristocracy. There is no way they would have allowed corporations to have the political power they enjoy in our system today.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:03 pmComment by Tracy2 — February 7, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
What is the point for example, in paying an aeronautical engineer so much more than someone who runs a checkout line at Wal-Mart? Why not just let everyone make the same wage?
An excellent point (even though you say it tongue in cheek.)
I question why I am more important or valuable than anyone else in the world. On an idealistic level I question the whole concept of competition. And certainly one profession being better than another, and deserving a higher wage. The argument that more pay goes to the profession that contributes the most to our society is terribly flawed. Take teachers or nurses for example.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:03 pmSorry, I meant to type “an unfair advantage OVER domestic colonial tea importers.”
February 7th, 2008 at 8:04 pmNo prob JP. Here’s the derivation of waterboarding.
inter-, in the presence of; see inter- + rogre, to ask;
See, they’re just asking. And it is the present. What’s the big whoop?
/sarc
February 7th, 2008 at 8:09 pmleftcoast, I agree with you that corporate power has almost ruined our political system, but I think I’m probably more optimistic about our chances for reversing that. I still think we’re in control. We need to reverse the trend. Public financing of all federal elections would be a great start. Re-instating the legal firewall between corporate boards and the news operations they own would be another. The fact that one of the nation’s biggest military industrial contractors actually owns one of our major news organizations is a threat to democracy. My hope is that more and more people will become aware of that.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:09 pmCol.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:11 pmMy second sentence was not clear. Sorry.
The Conservatives want to shove Jeebus up our a$$es. They don’t want to assume any responsibility, they just want their tax cuts. They want amoral wars of aggression, but don’t want to pay for it. They fear Mexicans, the French and of course Muslims. They want to deny Gay people the rights and privileges they take for granted. They want to demean women and have control over their bodies. Did I mention, they don’t want to pay taxes?
February 7th, 2008 at 8:11 pmCol.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:14 pmPublic financing of campaigns would be a great start. Scrutiny of media ownership, and an end to the PMC warned by Eisenhower would really go along way.
Counting dividends is hard work, plus adding up all the tax savings, whew! Might have to buy a new pair of gloves worn through from thumbing through the stacks of 100 dollar bills. Work or not, it is only fair that those making the most should bear their fair share of the tax burden. Those working hard to make ends meet (see insurance bills, utilities, rent, food) should not be stuck with the lion’s share of taxes.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:17 pmJP~
I teach, and it’s one of the things I teach the kids…how to get word meanings from their morphemes. Which inherently sounds nice, but…
It’s a corporate-bought program, implemented by my school system. Yes, a corporation sold my county an “educational” program. And it’s excruciating, on every level.
I believe it is a part of the gov’t plan to stupefy this nation’s children, and I feel like a pawn teaching it. Scary.
Way OT, sorry.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:18 pmEducation is becoming more and more a matter of just grooming the students to serve the Corporations. We need independent thinkers.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:22 pm#79 Comment by Tracy2 — February 7, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
Thanks for stating your opposition to the idea of free markets.
Your welcome! I support FAIR not free.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:22 pmFree markets aren’t free.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:24 pmDon’t pigeonhole me!
February 7th, 2008 at 8:26 pmMy students are VERY interested in the topic of the “war” and have, for the most part, very progressive views on it.
But, I am not allowed to talk about it. And it’s a very difficult (although obvious) decision as to whether to talk about it and in what capacity.
Teachers have a big voice. A voice bigger than t.v., because we have a captive audience, and one that’s young. I want to tell them to wake up and revolt.
But first, I have to remind them that they can’t listen to their iPod in class……
February 7th, 2008 at 8:29 pmsnicks-
February 7th, 2008 at 8:41 pmI so appreciate your challenge. It is our country’s challenge. Teachers must be allowed to teach. Not to a test which is now dictated by corporate test writers.
The teaching to the test will eventually change historical facts. The greatest danger to America.
snicks-
I so appreciate your challenge. It is our country’s challenge. Teachers must be allowed to teach. Not to a test which is now dictated by corporate test writers.
The teaching to the test will eventually change historical facts. The greatest danger to America.
Comment by leftcoast — February 7, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
Thank you.
Thank….you.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:46 pm“That is total BS because those who are conservative are some of the best neighbors you will ever have. Only someone who doesn’t think that personal responsibility and liberty is important would make such a blanket statment.”
Comment by Tracy2
Personal responsibilty and liberty are two things conservatives quit believing in, long ago. They talk about them, but when was the last time you actually saw one practice it themself? No, they’re simply platitudes, to be hauled out any time a conservative wishes to lecture someone else.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:55 pmPersonal responsibilty and liberty are two things conservatives quit believing in, long ago. They talk about them, but when was the last time you actually saw one practice it themself? No, they’re simply platitudes, to be hauled out any time a conservative wishes to lecture someone else.
Comment by barfly — February 7, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
I try to use “conservative” to identify those individuals that I observe identifying themselves by that label but behaving very differently. They really do consider themselves exemplifying conservatism while at the same time avoiding any accountability or embracing liberty. A certain meat-peddling troll from New Mexico provided a beautiful example.
I still know people I consider conservatives who are not trying to shove wars, religion or greed down my throat. I have no problem considering them good neighbors. Unfortunately, most of the “conservatives” I’ve encountered over the last decade or so have been bigoted authoritarians.
On the other hand, I’ve know more than my share of true a-holes calling themselves “leftists” or “progressives.” Living in places like Portland, Berkeley and Seattle (70s), it may just be that I’ve had more opportunity because I’ve had a bigger sample.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:03 pmTracy2dense—Ever seen Zeitgeist the Movie?
February 7th, 2008 at 9:08 pmComment by gummitch — February 7, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
I try to use “conservative†to identify those individuals that I observe identifying themselves by that label but behaving very differently.
“Conservative” once stood for something that had value. However, like “Republican” the word has been usurped by the neocons and other evil or crazy folks. If I were a true conservative or a Republican I would be furious that my ideology and party has been destroyed by evil vermin posing as good, upstanding, patriotic people.
So, the folks you call conservative, I try to call by what they really are, rather than what they call themselves. I would prefer to rip the “face” they show, off, to reveal their true nature and intent. To call them conservative would buy into their attempt at being “legitimate.”
February 7th, 2008 at 9:22 pmBeing from Wisconsin and influenced by Fighting Bob LaFollette, I’ve always considered the difference between progressive and liberal to be the willingness of progressives to a) fight for rather than compromise their beliefs and b) to confront the reality of corporate power.
Progressives like Governor and Senator LaFollette enacted reforms reining in corporate power. Modern liberals too often capitulate and surrender the heritage of those, and liberal, victories.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:57 pmConservative = Certain people (white male, especially) are intrinscically superior to everyone else (inherited wealth, Royalty, etc ), and should be in charge because of this inborn seperiority. Rule by the superior class. “To the Manor Born”, ‘Lucky Sperm Club”, “Those that has Gets”; this is as it should be. Everyone else, be damned. Motto: Survival of the fittest.
Liberal = everyone is born equal (see the Declaration of Independence), and all are ENTITLED to certain benefits, by virtue of being human: Education, health care, assistance for those who facing problems beyond their control. Motto: Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you. (Not to inject any religious philosophy into the discussion; but, it fits.)
February 7th, 2008 at 10:11 pm…but to suggest that wealthy don’t work is dishonest and uninformed. -Tracy2
I say we put a calorie meter them and pay them for work exerted.
Burn a calorie? .10 cents.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:06 pmWas that Tracy that talked about dishonest and uninformed? Really?
February 7th, 2008 at 11:22 pmConservatives exhibit some good qualities, and it is understandable that when there are lots of opportunities and the economy and Wall St are racing ahead that the outlook chimes well with a ‘personal responsibility’ viewpoint, success is there if you want it and work hard for it.
The problem is that this conservative viewpoint breaks down when large problems emerge that effect everybody, natural disasters, economic downturns. It is also a view resistant to understanding why communities fail, etc, preferring to criticise affirmative action and so on and blame individuals, overlooking the sources of crime and social fragmentation. If conservatives are not racist, they would support strong measures to tackle the excessive incarceration of black males and allow them to be in their communities. Instead, many conservatives resort to gangbanger stereotypical comments etc.
To me, being a person that falls in with progressive types (I am not from the US, so I don’t really think of myself in those terms) is, for example, not being a racist, as described above. That is one of the chief differences between us and them.
So, I think progressive notions of being prepared to act collectively for the common good and not leave things always to the market (not that this happens, as tax cuts, subsidies for Big Oil and so on are just as ’socialist’ in their interventionism as universal healthcare would be) are sound, particularly with regard to healthcare, emergency planning and so on.
What progressives might work on would be on how our policies can run alongside one another, adding skills during the good times and being prepared for the bad times. This would include a reform of the behaviour of credit card companies and home loans companies to offer a better framework that protects the public from its own dumb mistakes and the excesses of aggressive lenders. As we see, many individual bad decisions can lead to a bad situation for everybody.
Conservatives, typically, are not anxious to legislate against dumbness, preferring instead to trot out their ‘actions have consequences’ stuff. But, on this, there is stunning silence when it comes to the actions of this WH, for example, having consequences, or, for that matter, Scooter Libby, etc. This is another, to me, crucial difference between us and them. Progressives believe that the law applies equally to everybody, at least, that is what we should aspire to, and we will not exculpate somebody of a crime just because they are on our side. We do not want people like that on our side, conservative holders of office seemingly can’t function without abusing power, in fact, this seems to be the only attraction for them of public life. As such, progressives benefit from creating transparency, so that public officials can be held to a standard that drives away those who wish to operate in darkness.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:49 amhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_%28United_States%2C_1912%29
February 8th, 2008 at 2:33 amIn 1968, liberal meant Humphrey. That was not good.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:37 amIn 1968, liberal meant Humphrey. That was not good.
Comment by Domino — February 8, 2008 @ 2:37 am
Oh, a Nixon Fan.
Republican Richard M. Nixon narrowly won the election over Democrat Hubert H. Humphrey on a campaign promise to restore “law and order”.
Ironic, how history repeats itself.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:51 amHumphrey was a bit of a racist though. Too bad Robert Kennedy was assassinated.
It seems Murder Inc., as Johnson called it is still alive and well though.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:56 amI doubt that most progressives of the Progressive Era would recognize most so-called progressives of the modern day. Samuel Johnson once remarked that many people exclaimed mightily about the declining state of society, while in their personal lives feeling no particular discomfort. Modern day progressivism and liberalism are marked by attendance of individuals whose personal lives are largely unaffected by the political beliefs they espouse. This is one reason we still have mediocre health care in this nation. The people most affected by it do not vote and the people who do vote aren’t affected by it.
If you aren’t willing to bear the cost, you can’t bear the mantle. You merely engage in social positioning. “Faith without works is dead…I show my faith by the works I do,” wrote James. That is true in more than the Christian sense.
Thanks.
mp
February 8th, 2008 at 5:55 amBuckie Boy is Fred/dimwit. I know that dull sentence structure anywhere.
haha!
Comment by justasking
hey, I think we have been insulted Buckie.
eh, the trolls run this place….just let it go. The regulars like them coming here and would rather have a discussion with them than try to run them off. I think it’s entertainment for them….
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/07/thinkfast-february-7-2008/#comments
notice they posted more in the bug mans thread than they did in the vets are having a hard time thread…..trolls in the delay thread….guess where they posted…….
February 8th, 2008 at 11:02 amDemocrat = Liberal as in more, more taxes, more government, more regulations.
Progressive as in code word for shameful liberal democrat
February 9th, 2008 at 1:52 am#93
As i understand it DUBYA lowered taxes for the rich during a time of WAR.I`ll take higher taxes, smaller gov`t compared to DUBYA`S large telecom wiretapping small(large) Gov`t anyday.
By calling progressive dems shameful then you are calling Jefferson.Washington,Monroe and Paine our founding fathers shameful.
You neo-cons have no heart,you have no soul you will not have the WHITE HOUSE anymore come NOV.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:19 pm#93
You are a shameful NEO-CON BUSHCO family member and you are just a follower for backing him and his administration.The shameful acts of this administration has ruined the reputation of this country for a long long time to come.Unfortunately the next president will bear the brunt of the work to clear our name over the next EIGHT years not just four years.You and the rest of your neocon buddies should take your ill-begotten wealth and leave this country so people like me can help clean up this mess and not have bother with you.
For my progressives out their we have long hard road ahead lets make sure we get everyone out to vote in the election come NOV just as we have done in the primaries.
For all the neocons who don`t like CHANGE(progress) go to #@!^&*%#@! and a few other places that cater to you.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:35 pmI am still trying to understand how it is that, for the first time in America’s long progressive/liberal history, this generation appears to be oblivious to the complex impact of American poverty, not only on the poor, but on all of the country. I’ve heard hardly a word questioning the wisdom of taking an ax to the New Deal, transferring public funds from aid for the poor into the bank accounts of the richest (via years of “tax relief”, whereby the public pays part of the tax debts of the wealthy). That’s unfortunate for all of us. Before Clinton’s welfare “reform”, some 80% of aid recipients were able to voluntarily quit welfare in under 5 years, moving forward into family-supporting jobs. Welfare provided a measure of economic stability that enabled families to work their way out of poverty. AFDC was one branch of the New Deal policies that were central to the creation of America’s once-massive middle class.
I think our liberal/progressive community is still suffering from a Reagan hang-over. When we care about those in foreign lands, we are compassionate. When we care about those here at home, we’re namby-pamby, bleeding-heart liberals. But the fact is, a society/nation is like a building, and by turning our backs on the poor, we haven’t noticed that our foundation is severely crumbling away.
It would clearly be in our best interests to reverse the past quarter-century of economic policies, shifting public dollars away from the rich (since this has clearly not benefited the nation) back into shoring up the poor to rebuild a powerful middle class. There would be no increased or additional cost involved, but simply a reallocation of funds. We need to bring the concept of “the common good” back into the public forum.
March 29th, 2008 at 1:09 pm