Liberal Vesus Progressive

[Sunstone]

This topic doesn't neatly fit into any particular "Only" group, so, as a compromise, I'm posting it here, but with the qualification that the thread is open to Liberals, Progressives, and Socialists.

There are any number of ways to define the similarities and differences between Liberals and Progressives, but I personally prefer to state them this way:

1) A Liberal is someone who, like the Clintons, feels that the status quo should be changed only to the extent necessary to prevent social unrest or revolution.

2) A Progressive is someone who, like Sanders, feels that the status quo should be changed as necessary to promote the general well-being or overall good of the citizens, even when doing so is not necessary to head off civil unrest or revolt.

Thus, a Liberal might agree to the Voting Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that passing it is necessary to prevent or quell civil unrest, while a Progressive might agree to the Voting Rights Act on the grounds that passing it is "the right thing to do" for minorities and even the people as a whole.

I'm loosely basing this distinction on Chris Hedges notions of the historic role Liberals have played in American politics. According to Hedges, Liberals have gained their authority and mandate to act by being the group that acts to defuse the agitation on the Left by making relatively modest changes to the status quo. In recent decades, the Left has all but disappeared from American politics, which explains why so many Liberals, including the Clintons, have seen fit to drift to the right on various issues. That is, without the Left being a real threat, there is no reason for a Liberal to agitate for relatively left wing solutions to various problems and challenges.

Now that I've given my notion of the differences and similarities between Liberals and Progressives, what's yours?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've always seen it more as how someone wants to paint themselves. "Progressive" connotes a sense of action, whereas "liberal" connotes more of a sense of viewpoint. So, people who want to project and identify more with action and active change tend to prefer the "progressive" label, and people who simply want to convey what their opinions and perspectives use the "liberal" label. Although, "liberal" seems to be the more default label, whereas people seem to pick up the "progressive" label somewhere along the way to present a more specific identity.

This would be consistent with, but separate from the definitions you listed.

 

[Augustus]

Clearly in politics there is a battle of definitions of words (a bit like RF really ).

Liberals/progressives/socialists seem to have a harder time of finding a label that is free of negative connotations than conservatives do. Progressive was chosen as 'progress' is a good word, and the liberal brand has been tainted through usage. In most cases, they are interchangeable though, outside of those with a keen interest in political theory at least.

The word progressive for me is problematic though as both fascism and communism were progressive ideologies. Not progressive in the modern American sense of the word, but certainly in the traditional sense of the word. I'm surprised the Republicans haven't made a point of highlighting this repeatedly. Doing so wouldn't even be mendacious as it is perfectly accurate, and is a term I would use myself in the right context (I've even done so on here at times).

Progressive for me doesn't signify a specific political stance, but an attitude towards changing systems of governance. This is to some extent consistent with the definition you gave, but it doesn't have any requirement to relate to either a left-wing or a moderate ideology.

 

[Valjean]

Good point, Rowan. Putting a political question in a DIR pretty much guarantees a in-choir "discussion.

Just to throw a spanner into the gears, though:

Sunstone:
A Progressive is someone who, like Sanders, feels that the status quo should be changed as necessary to promote the general well-being or overall good of the citizens, even when doing so is not necessary to head off civil unrest or revolt

.
Sanders wants to make America great again (?!) by turning back the clock to the '50s or '60s -- an era of big government, high corporate taxes, strong corporate regulations and oversight, strong unions, a thriving middle class and a wide social safety net. All this sounds progressive -- but it also sounds like the 1958 Republican platform: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...meme-says-1956-republican-platform-was-prett/ -- But how is turning back the clock and reviving an earlier era progressive? Isn't this pretty much the definition of conservative, even reactionary?
Have things moved so far to the right that they're coming round, full circle to the left again?

It's all very confusing.

 

[Laika]

My definition of liberal is much broader and covers virtually all forms of democratic capitalism. (Dictatorial capitalism would be "fascist"). Both have problems in terms of accuracy but have their uses.

When I would use the term "liberal" as an insult, it is usually for an extreme and dogmatic insistence on certain positions as "natural" or innate in "human nature" which does not take into account contary views, examples or historical developments. Liberals are like rabbits staring into the head lights of an oncoming car: they think they have a "natural right" to that particular space in the road and to believe anything they want about the sudden change coming in their direction, particularly that it isn't coming at all and will be sufficently complacent to debate what those fast approaching head lights mean. Such is the level of complacency and almost pathological aversion to non conformity, that they will refuse to take iniative, insist on taking the "centre ground" even if they really need to get out of the middle of the road for their own self preservation. As much as empathy suggests you should help them, they just nievely believe that their "rights" take precedence over horse power and then realising this may be mistaken fatalistically resign themselves that there is no alternative to being road kill.

I'm still undecided whether the commie angle is from the road side or behind the steering wheel. Either way, liberals just don't seem to "get it".

Back to the OP, Progressive is anything which leads to the "development of the productive forces", e.g. Science, technology, increased labour productivity and economic output, greater levels of education for skilled labour, etc.

 

[Politesse]

Liberals have good intentions, progressives have good intentions backed by consistent principles that occasionally turn into actions.

 

[Ethics Gradient]

I think that Liberals are generally concerned with ensuring that rights that ensure peoples freedoms are put in place and protected. Socialists do the same but also work towards addressing inequality in society.