Since I have a background in history, I always keep the classical definition of liberalism in mind. It's emphasis on free market capitalism is something that I have accepted as part of society but don't see it as morally just. I think of progressive as left of liberal, but I'm most likely to identify myself as a leftist.

So i stand behind capitalism, lord knows at the very least in numbers we have never slaughtered people in the numbers of the other beliefs.


While you can jump behind Mao, Marx, or Stalin....you have tread a different path of liberalism, which hardly means capitalism unchecked.

Vietnam? Mass graves all over Latin America? Genocide in Indonesia and Central America?

Marx didn't kill anyone. He was a historian.

The "Chicago Boys" used the coup as a laboratory for Friedman's monstrous economic theories.

Dictatorships in Brazil, and Argentina. There are so many more examples.

No, in fact capitalism has vastly more dead people. The difference is that there is no "Army of the Invisible Hand" running around butchering people for the word of Adam Smith. Nothing so flashy or loud. Oh, there were cases where that was effectively the case, in the US's proxy wars during the cold war, and the US / West Europe's support for anti-left genocides in the southern nations during that whole period... But most of the carnage is simply a result of things that capitalists don't regard as anything the least bit unusual. For-profit medical systems and pharmaceuticals, patent protecting on agriculture, rampant pollution, austerity measures, "Structural Adjustment programs," Wage / benefit / labor cuts, embargos and military / covert actions against states that are non-compliant with the wishes of Wall Street.

Hell, all this piles together in Africa; we supported the armed juntas of anti-soviet regimes and turned a blind eye to their bloodshed so long as they agreed to not talk to Russia. We sold them military machinery and resources that they mostly used against their own people, and sometimes their neighboring juntas (also armed by us.) Actually it's more like we gave these weapons to them, as it was all done on credit.

When they dropped from power we decided the people they abused and robbed still had to pay the debts. Debt relief came from the IMF and World Bank, and was paired with structural readjustments; the privatization of state companies, upper limits to employment, the cessation of domestic manufacture, union-busting, an end to public education and health programmes, and "opening the markets" to established international corporations, who faced no domestic competition in these emergent markets and so pillaged and polluted to their heart's content. Even the debt relief was treated as loans however and had interest payments; when an African nation falls short, well, it's back to the negotiations with the IMF, to figure out what other structural adjustments could be made.

The slashes to employment, education, and health care leads to spiraling poverty, drug use, and prostitution, which all in turn turns into the world's worst HIV epidemic; an epidemic so bad that the leaders of African nations are speaking in terms of apocalypse for their people's suffering. But because of patent protection for Pfizer and other companies, retrovirals and treatments that could save the lives of millions and prevent infection of millions more, remain hopelessly out of reach for the majority of Africa. That's just HIV. Want to talk polio? Malaria? Tuberculosis? Plain ol' staph infections?

Africa's a fucking rich place, and the nations there could, almost one and all be self-sufficient, if they had the infrastructure and fund to tap those resources. But instead we've shackled them down to the debts of their oppressors, and force economic experiments on them seemingly designed ot keep them in this subjected state in perpetuity. meanwhile our fat asses just love all those diamonds and rare earth menerals and lumber and aluminum and gold and other raw resources being sucked out of the continent, with the money we pay for those resources going right back to our own corporations rather than the people digging the shit out of the middle of a war zone.

That's Africa under capitalism, and that's without even touching on the slave trade, another awesome capitalist venture in "The Dark continent." Would you like to talk about Latin America or Southeast Asia, the Middle East, perhaps? Are you familiar with the Pahlavi Shah? or Suharto?

Don't give me this "capitalism has less blood on its hands" garbage. The US, richest nation on earth, has a infant mortality rate on par with fucking Bosnia because of a capitalist, for-profit medical system that, by design, is less functional for the proles than the elites. Same for our HIV cases; again, if you're Magic Johnson, you're well-treated, but if you're just Tom Johnson, well, hope you already have the hole dug, Tom.

As for your question? I call myself a leftist. Leaves the Birchers gaping like landed carp and I so enjoy their sputterings.

\o/

THAT'S capitalism for you.

The Triangle Fire, numerous other tragedies can be laid at the feet of the unfettered free mark.

But it's not just deaths; it's also the inequitable distribution of wealth, where the obscenely wealthy 1% control government and make sure no one gets a living wage, universal health care, or a decent retirement.

What about the hardline capitalist dictatorships of Latin America in the 70s and 80s? What about the deaths from poverty that can results from unchecked capitalism? I would say that poverty has probably killed more people than most wars. What about all the deaths from the disasters that result from unregulated capitalism, from Bhopal to Bangladesh?

Of course not everything that could be called 'capitalist' reaches these extremes. But leftism does not equate with Maoism or Stalinism either.

A mixed economy is best IMO. With plenty of regulation of the private sector, and plenty of safeguards against dictatorship.

I suspect there is going to be a lot of arguing past one another on this thread because the "classical definition" of liberalism is not what is understood in the U.S.

but it still frames how I see the terms.

I could choose to self-apply either, or both, or neither, as the case may be.

It's like asking me, am I ruggedly handsome or rather dashingly good-looking? Hmmm, lemme think; I'll take both, thanks.

It will be news to those of us who agree with Locke. I know for a fact that global political climate has changed, and the slip of beliefs is always a factor.

Until well defined the silly castigation on this forum is silly. Then again perhaps not, i remember a time when semantics was actually a college credit course.


I tend to the find the progressives, god awful, and if they were not corrupting the base line of my beliefs to support theirs laughable.

enough with the land... as opposed to the European colonists who intended to farm it and "work" it.

Locke argued that it was the work that was the underpinning of ownership.

In the spirit of Locke, if a squatter breaks into an empty house, whether it be empty because the former owners have been forced out by foreclosure process... or maybe they're just staying in their summer home... in the spirit of Locke, if that squatter starts growing some tomatoes... then that house, that land... belongs to the squatter by rights of the work he or she is putting into it.

So... are you a Lockean Liberal? You would dismiss the Constitution in favor of Squatter's Rights? (As Locke would have done... presuming his works were not merely a hypocritical bit of lip service to justify the genocide of the Native Americans and the stealing of their continent as being "moral"...)

probably had no awareness, nor was unlikely silly enough to consider native Americans a mono culture.

Not to speak for Locke, but where where the owners of such hypothetical house...if tied up and in the french equivalent of an attic, he probably not be to impressed. Then again being French, he would be happy with many atrocities....are you a Locke Liberal?

Would Locke frown at the cannibalism in the SouthWest during the 15/16th century? *shrug* who knows, we only have his recorded words to go by.

See what I did there? I made a language funny.

Anyway, while I appreciate your erudition, I think the bottom line is that in the current US domestic political climate, most of the people who self-apply the label "progressive" instead of "liberal" do so not out of a thoughtful consideration for the historical etymology of both terms or based upon their opinion of Locke, etc. but rather simply and straightforwardly because "liberal" was given negative connotations by the right wing starting in the 80s.

I'm not terribly hung up on labels either way, so I'll leave you to your thread.

We have enough 'divide and conquer' going on around here anyway.

If you're left of the selfish bastards and vote for Dems, you're ok with me.

That thing always cracks me up.

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade and private property.

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

Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform.[1] Modern Progressivism emerged as part of a more general response to the vast social changes brought by industrialization.

It is left of center in the political spectrum and is to be contrasted with conservatism on the right and the revolutionary left, the former generally resisting changes it advocates and the latter rejecting its gradualism.

Relation to Liberalism

The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal." Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies and should not be used interchangeably. In the U.S. in particular, the term "progressive" tends to have the same value as the European term social democrat, which is scarcely used in American political language.[citation needed]

The reason for this confusion in the U.S. might partly be rooted in the political spectrum being two-dimensional; social liberalism is a tenet of modern progressivism, whereas economic liberalism (and its associated deregulation) is not. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the center-left Center for American Progress, "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics. It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic." [13]

Cultural liberalism[clarification needed] is ultimately founded on the belief that the major purpose of the government is to protect rights. Liberals are often called "left-wing", in contrast to "right-wing" conservatives. The progressive school, as a unique branch of contemporary political thought, tends to advocate certain center-left or left-wing views that may conflict with mainstream liberal views, despite the fact that modern liberalism and progressivism may still both support many of the same policies (such as the concept of war as a general last resort).[citation needed]

American progressives tend to advocate progressive taxation and oppose what they describe as the growing and negative influence of large corporations. Progressives are typically in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. In the United States, liberals and progressives are often conflated, and in general are the primary voters of the Democratic Party which has a "large tent" policy, combining similar if not congruent ideologies into large voting blocs. Many progressives also support the Green Party or local parties such as the Vermont Progressive Party. In Canada, liberals usually support the national Liberal Party while progressives usually support the New Democratic Party, which traditionally has had provincial electoral success in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and since the recent federal election, in Quebec.

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

Social democracy is a political ideology that considers itself to be a form of reformist democratic socialism.[1] It advocates for a peaceful, evolutionary transition of the economy to socialism through progressive social reform of capitalism. It asserts that the only acceptable constitutional form of government is representative democracy under the rule of law. It promotes extending democratic decision-making beyond political democracy to include economic democracy to guarantee employees and other economic stakeholders sufficient rights of co-determination. It supports a mixed economy that opposes the excesses of capitalism such as inequality, poverty, and oppression of various groups, while rejecting both a totally free market or a fully planned economy. Common social democratic policies include advocacy of universal social rights to attain universally accessible public services such as education, health care, workers' compensation, and other services including child care and care for the elderly. Social democracy is connected with the trade union labour movement and supports collective bargaining rights for workers.

Neo-liberalism at best.

No, I'm not a liberal.

And no, I'm not even going to begin to try to correct the grammatical catastrophe that is your post.

If you want me to defend my "{sic} believes" ... you'll have to first tell me what they are... since you seem to be working from some ill-conceived but already ossified point of view.

Before you begin though, you may want to try to define your terms, for your own sake as well as for the sakes of those with whom you would presumably like to discuss/argue the matter.

but i do have at least one "of Arts" to my name.


So you do not know your beliefs, shame, i know mine....i guess there is nothing to discuss between us.

I will refrain from voicing my suspicion of the preface of your "of Arts" suffix.

I see quite clearly now that you are not one inclined toward lucidity... and so, mayhap, I will return the favor... to the extent that it bemuses me and involves no imposition.

As to your "beliefs"... I am quite satisfied that they should remain so esoteric as you have maintained them thus far... though I suspect that they are not so as a result of any sort of mystical understanding, based upon the clarity of your expositions thus far, but rather the result of a neo-epiphanical befuddlement.

A discussion first requires an explication of something to be discussed. You have thus far failed to provide anything coherent to thusly examine.

that lucid enough for you sir?

I asked you to defined the terms of the discussion, you failed either by intent or dislike, lord most people who piss away money on "of arts" at least have decent rhetoric to fall back on.

Also, it would be more THAN one degree not then. Exactly what university do you have multiple degrees from? Your OP and replies are just a RIOT, I am sure that wasn't your intent. But this shit is just hilarious.

The OP was a riot, but the grammar usage in your post makes my head hurt.

Just sayin'.....

Because I consider myself first and foremost a member of the Democratic Party. All labels past that are immaterial as far as im concerned.

Though, according to the recent left-libertarian thread, I would be a left wing libertarian/social libertarian economic liberal/etc . But thats the way other people would probably label me

Though I have to admit Social Libertarian/economic liberal or simply liberal both have appealing rings to them.

Liberals have heart and want to build things
What the ultra-vocal people in 2013 are saying progressive want to burn things down and not care what is left in the ashes the day after, just burn it down

as i have said, that philosophy is indeed going so far round the block that it is exactly the same except for wedge issues, as the teaparty on the other side.

and one thing the so called "progressives" seem to forget is they pick and choose one sentence or one issue of someone, then disregard that their heroes actually support the President 99% of the time, and 100% of the time a 60th vote is needed.

And, as judged, LBJ and John V. Lindsay and Jim Florio are not looked upon kindly to them anyhow.

The world is more than soundbyte same words, which just as easily could come from Ron Paul and Rand Paul. (and Rand's rant fillibuster showed the same same loved him doing so and admired him.)

NO LIBERAL would have admired ONE letter of any word Rand Paul spews out.

That is the difference between a liberal and a progressive in May 2013.imho

That is the wonder of the universe is it not?

Very succinct, to the point i was trying to make no matter how bumbling (mine not yours).

While not to harp on the heritage of progressives, for what in the name of any god would you go with such a moniker knowing the pure evil is attached?


And your wrong in one respect, I surely do applaud Rand's making a fool of himself in public forums it is why we like public forums after all.

and for all they use his name,let me, A Paul Wellstone liberal.
Paul who had said many times- NO to third party run or support.
NO to tearing things down doing so without a clue to what one actually wanted and how to attain that goal.

The liberal understands "one did not build it" and "it takes a village".
and it takes votes from the other side.

Ralph Nader could have run for something himself like Senate or House like Al Franken did, and work, work, work
to better and attain his goal instead of taking the easy way out.
He could have asked Al Gore for a cabinet post and working within is NOT selling out, it is working to achieve a goal.

Someone said the other day in an article, then the progressives all leaped on it negatively-
why can't President Obama be like LBJ and get things passed.
Without seeming to know how he needed and got the republican votes, and had to bypass the George Wallace Dixiecrats(who most likely would be beloved by progressives today for standing up to authority or something inane like that)

btw, you said it perfect,I understood it immediately and I myself am the one that fumbles around.

and the words they throw around.
don't they realize FDR was as big an authoritarian as there was? Same with Jimmy Carter and same with anyone in elective office.
Sometimes words are just used that make no sense.

(they should listen to one of their idols in the entertainment field, George Carlin,
and apply the "Football vs. Baseball" bit he did to themselves, and to politics.

(and dare I say,when one gets right down to it-occupy is a very negative word a very war like NOT a peaceful word.
I don't believe a Harry Chapin would ever have used a word like that, nor would a Martin Sheen.) Nor is wearing masks, which connates a negative, as does not wishing to give a name.

Yesterday's liberals were all proud of their names and from the bottom up, all immediately thought about joining the elective office world and then working within.

makes no sense to me.
(and of course, they say I make no sense to them).
Opportunities wasted, because all it takes is a few protesters in every single district to run for office and a few to win to tilt the house.
But I guess that is too hard work.

Liberals understand that losses will happen and dust themselves off and get back in to it.

I am a Jerry Brown liberal. He is the perfect example.
He ran for the biggest office, but then he came back in some of the smallest ones and climbed back up.
Wanting to be part of the system from inside from working within.
And not tear it down from the outside.

But I must say this is a semantic based division. We're down to splitting hairs to achieve more division?

Damn.

Julie

especially on these boards.

Phil Ochs - Love Me, I'm a Liberal

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Amen!

I feel sad for those who not know the names and references, but that is a master piece that will stand till the end of time.

it is pretty in thought and words, surely everyone can appreciate it.

One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times. Ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally.'

Lots of words, not much content.

I am definitely liberal and think progressively. I think capitalism is broken while I still feel that one should make a profit for their efforts. But it should not be a get rich scheme that it has become.

I believe we have an obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

You decide, am I liberal or progressive? I don't care what you label me because I am what I am.

and have a hell of a disgraceful history....


The sheer fact that they cannot defend their ideology is happenstance.

I would consider you a liberal, and welcome you to a cup of coffee on a cold day.

I see him as progressive yet he is probably the best Senator we have on the left.

Thanks for the offer of coffee, but I never took up that habit.

Liberalism is a weak form of leftism. On the political scale it is immediately to the left of center. Nothing at all radical about it.

if he lived today. What was Republican then is liberal now. Obama is not a liberal in his own words. I think that means he considers himself to be to the right of liberal, probably a corporate Democrat, and to the right of Nixon. His policies seem to add credence to that. I would say that FDR would be considered a progressive now. He created the social programs that Obama wants to cut. I stand with FDR.

I wonder if there was ever a poll trying to find out how many GOPers identify themselves as conservative or right-wing?

and that is hard to do as most people are a mix of ideologies.

"Progressive" comes from late 19th century bourgeois Republican reformers whose legacy ranges from the awesome (labor laws) to the awful (eugenics -- the KKK in the 1920s was a "progressive" organization), and to me and a lot of people the term does have some baggage of creeping puritanism.

"Liberal" is a much older term and basically doesn't mean anything anymore; a century ago it described what we might call today libertarianism, but also had more of a social than political meaning.

"Left" comes from which side of Louis XVI's court different factions sat on, and is probably the only term that can be pretty reliably defined; I think Noah Millman said it best that leftism sides with society's losers and rightism sides with society's winners.

Oddly enough, none of those ideas are particularly contradictory of "conservatism" in the broadest sense (that of preferring to adapt existing institutions over creating new ones).

The poster is well named: creating a Rift with an axe.

It starts off with no respect for a large number of human beings. It goes on to prejudiced name calling. It then associates vaguely some purported antecedent views that have nothing to do with the people targeted.

Both Liberals and Progressives suffer lapses of reason and descend into emotion at times. It's important to deal with the ideas without tarring broad groups of people with ugly slurs.

Progressives have just as much conviction as liberals.

The OP rants against purity tests and then establishes this thread as a self-identification purity test.

[font size = "+1"]Democratic Underground does not need to be divided in the way the OP is trying to divide us.[/font]

And I vote progressive for that very reason

And this poll demonstrates why.

There is not an agreed upon definition of "liberal" and "progressive." Both terms carry too much baggage, and their multiple connotations are contradictory.

Despite the way the mainstream uses "progressive," as "extremely liberal," to be progressive simply means to support moving forward on issues. It doesn't determine the direction of that movement or what direction "forward" might be.

Then there is the connection to the "progressive era," which indicates political activism and reform to remove corruption from government, the labor movement, etc.. That's a noble label adopted by a less than noble political group. The neoliberal DLC's think tank is the "progressive policy institute." Knowing that, I can't call myself a progressive.

That moves us on to "liberal." That term has quite different meanings depending on whether it is being applied to economic or social policy. Liberal economic policy, as espoused by today's neo-liberals, is bad for the 99%. Liberal social policies, on the other hand, are supposed to benefit that 99%. The two don't work together.

The current takeover of the Democratic Party by neo-liberals, while trying to maintain a surface pretense of social responsibility, has corrupted the term liberal, at least for me.

I'll call my self a left libertarian, per the political compass. Economically left. Socially more libertarian; not as described by the "libertarian party," but as the other end from authoritarianism.

In the end, I don't see a huge difference between them - and actually, we kind of need both kinds to get things done.

title smitle

to damn much work to do fighting doz bastards

.. I don't define myself by other people's slanted, condescending terms.

I am a FDR Democrat. The rest is bullshit.

Last edited Tue May 7, 2013, 09:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Obama continued: "I am somebody who is no doubt progressive.

I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair

. I believe in universal health care.

I believe in making college affordable.

I believe in paying our teachers more money.

I believe in early childhood education

. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive."

Town hall meeting 2008.



http://progressive.org/mag/nichols0109.html




So you hate Obama too?





I win the internet.

Which makes it damn difficult to organize.

Solidarity!!

That's why I don't use the label liberal out in the real world where there are a mix across the political spectrum (as opposed to our cloistered leftie safe havens) since there is that almost inevitable comeback that I don't want to get distracted into arguing about.

Before I became a campaign staffer, I referred to myself as a progressive. I've since exclusively worked in Blue Dog districts and have been disgusted with the progressive purity movement.

This sums everything up

http://outspokenliberal.blogspot.com/2013/04/from-progressive-to-blue-dog-my-own.html

Despite your mischaracterization of the problem, the issue with blue dogs is that they work with the GOP against the aims of the democratic party at large. It is one thing to try to negotiate with the leadership to pull or push a larger issue in one direction or another. It is quite another thing to become intransient because they know that they can move into the majority by working with the GOP, and deny the leadership a majority vote. They give the leadership no opportunity to work with them, but in fact issue ultimatums to leadership. If they are going to actively work with the GOP, they aren't democrats in anything but name only.

I work on campaigns for Blue Dogs (it was never intentional, but they're the most endangered candidates and the most likely to staff up). On my first interview, I was asked if I had a philosophical objection. MY response then was that I would rather have a Democrat who votes with the party 85% of the time than a big fat goose egg from a Republican. In the districts I've worked in, a progressive is simply not electable period. (Try running as a progressive in a district Romney won by 29 points).

If you want to change those types of districts, my suggestion would be to draft progressives to run for LOCAL office (mayor, council, school board, etc) and build an infrastructure from the bottom up. Because when an independent does research on a candidate, Mayor Joe Progressive has much broader appeal than Joe Progressive.

There are some Democratic purity groups (Progressive Democrats of America, Progressive Change Campaign Committee) that I strongly disagree with. Granted they're independent groups and can do what they want to, but they spend all of their time and effort going after Democrats when they could be going after the Republicans. I went to a PDA conference in 2010 and walked out of there more turned off by the group than turned on (a conference is not supposed to do this). They were still pushing their 'single payer or else' agenda and lambasted a congressman (a member of the Progressive Caucus) for not cosponsoring HR 676 (which he agrees with, but as the then chair of the health subcommittee, I can see why he did not cosponsor it). Now it could just be me, but I'd rather see groups like that go after the Republicans.

The other side has lost senate races (and possibly control of the senate) because they nominated candidates that were too ideological for the general electorate in their states. (Nevada, Delaware, Colorado, Indiana, Missouri). These races should have been GOP holds or pickups and had they been, the senate control would be tied now. I simply don't want the progressive movement to turn into the left's tea party.

"I simply don't want the progressive movement to turn into the left's tea party. "

There is a long way to go from where we are to any correlation between the tea party and the current progressive movement, such as it is.

And it was nice of you to ignore all my points, but address some impression you got from a conference I didn't attend.

But I have to admit, I'm not sure how a progressive caucuse can be considered on some sort of "purity" campaign by merely confronting a member of their caucus for not suppporting the aims of the caucus. Aims by the way that you claim the member agreed. It's that kind of "my way or no way" that the blue dogs bring to the party. The caucus I presume collectively came upon a position and strategy, one this member decided not to support. Imagine a caucus saying "oh well, what the heck". Kinda defeats the whole purpose of a caucus now doesn't it? A caucus isn't suppose to be a bunch of individuals seeing if they accidentally agree on something from time to time. They're suppose to coordinate. Sounds like the member wanted to be progressive in name, but not fact. That just undermines the caucus.

The progressives had to vote for ACA despite their objections to huge portions of the bill. The Blue Dogs sided with the republicans over a few aspects that didn't pass their purity tests. Heck, when you realize how much CAME from the blue dogs, not to mention moderate republicans of the past, it's hard to figure out exactly what their problem was, except that they weren't in charge.

Blue dogs are Republicans.

They're about as purist as they come.

And would you call a member of Congress who votes for Democratic leadership and with the party 85% of the time a Republican?

They voted with the leadership so that they could get committee assignments and chairmanships. Then turned around and voted against the leadership on significant legislation. Ultimately they left the party and joined the GOP. They had names like Strom Thurmon and Jesse Helms.

I guess you think we should have worked with them to keep them in the party.

But the collapse of the Blue Dogs in 2010 was what initially lead to the Democrats losing the House. The Blue Dogs that I worked for are more liberal than their voting records suggest (from many conversations with them) but they have to vote their district. If they're receiving calls 10-1 telling them to vote against X, then they are going to vote against X (I know at the state level, on major bills, the staff literally keeps a tally sheet).

Read the blog post I wrote and it pretty much sums up my feelings.

You're making the argument that holding the house is worth undermining democratic goals and values. That somehow democrats and progressives are wrong for asking blue dogs to support the party. The Dixiecrats were also being told by their constituents to vote certain ways. Ways that had them voting to support segregation. The senate most often used the filibuster, by dixiecrats, to block anti-lynching laws at the federal level.

You suggest it would been better to have kept the dixiecrats, including Helms and Thurmond in the democratic party, than to have forced the integration of the democratic party. Mind you, we did FORCE the southern states to integrate the party, and lost many a democratic senator and representative because of it. But you would classify this as some sort of "purity test" on the part of progressives.

Not all of the 'blue dogs' are very conservative Democrats. You have a guy like Patrick Murphy (PA, not the guy that defeated West), who was in the Blue Dog caucus, but was a leader on the DADT repeal. Gabby Giffords considered herself a Blue Dog. Kirsten Gillibrand, a name mentioned a lot in the presidential field, was first elected to Congress in a Blue Dog district. Her legislating shifted as she became a senator, representing a much broader (and more liberal) constituency.

The Blue Dog I worked for in 2010 (narrowly won in 2010, lost in 2012) was more liberal than he made himself out to be (I learned this by speaking with him), but his (and any other elected official's) goal is to represent the people of his district in Congress. If an elected official votes against his/her constituents' will, then it could be a career ender.


Here's a list of the 'official' Blue Dogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

Tell me--- in a district that is R+29 at the presidential level (like the one I worked in last year, represented by a blue dog from 1982-2010) would you rather see a Blue Dog or a Republican?

I work to elect Democrats, and I accept the political reality of this day and age. Had I been working for Democrats during the Dixiecrat era, my opinions might have been different.

So you're about winning, even if that means losing on the issues.

And apparently democrats should never be challenged to uphold the positions of the leadership, ever, or it is come kind of purity test.

The Blue Dogs opposed much of the ACA and watered it down extensively, working with the GOP to accomplish it. The rest of the democratic party swallowed a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction to get what little they got. It was a predominately GOP leaning bill, but many blue dogs STILL wouldn't vote for it. So tell me, who were the "purists" and who worked with the party? Those who supported it despite the fact that it had little of what they wanted? Or those that voted against it because it had one or two provisions that would have been unpopular in their own districts?

You seem to have a funny definition of "purity".

Dixiecrats are Strom Thurmond, George Wallace. Some of the most vile politicians of my time. And if Thurmond and Helms were blue dogs why did they switch to Republican? It was because they are racist, ultra right wing conservatives. They were never considered blue dogs, but they were Democrat hold outs from when Democrats supported slavery and Jim Crow.

When the Democrats stopped supporting Jim Crow, they left. Oh and if FDR was soooo progressive, why didn't he get rid of Jim Crow??


So you are going to compare Gabrielle Giffords and Kristen Gillibrand to Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms?

They switched to republican because the democratic party forced the integration of the party, and ultimately of the nation. Apparently that was some kind of "purity test" within the democratic party.

Resisting corporate take over the Democratic party = 'purist?' On what planet?

Our politics are supposed to be about checks and balances. But you can only balance a seesaw if it's got equal weight on both ends. You cannot start out with weight on the right end and someone sitting on the fulcrum and expect to get anywhere.

I'd consider that purist. When you make the perfect the enemy of the good, that is purist. When you run write-in campaigns against a state legislator for a single vote and subject the seat to GOP takeover, that is purist.

I'm all for electing more progressive Democrats in districts where they can win. However when the district on a state map of stereotypes is classified as 'Pretty Much Alabama" you take the Blue Dog.

If you read some of my old blog posts, I used to be much more progressive than I am now. What changed me was living outside of progressive areas.

You're not progressive now because you want to go along to get along. You want to be seen in the majority, and working with the majority, apparently partly for professional reasons. You are pretty much describing much of white Alabama in the '50s and early '60s. They didn't really care much for segregation, but they went along to get elected, to hold jobs, and to be considered part of polite society.

Those people weren't "purists" either, in any sense, including the segregation they helped uphold.

But I am also a realist. When it comes to governing, people have to work together. I live in a (blue) state with a GOP governor and a Blue Dog senate president that work together. The senate president is constantly getting flack from PDA, etc for working with him and getting legislation passed. During our last legislative elections, the local progressives were organizing movements against him (well after the primaries were over) and trying to run write in campaigns (they were not successful) against him and most of the Democrats from the region. Last year, that movement was encouraging people to vote 3rd party for president and US senate because Obama and the senator are not progressive enough for them.

As for my own personal issues, I'm as liberal as they come. But I don't live in district (anymore, thanks redistricting-- my old congressman is the one that PDA lambasted at the conference) that supports progressives. I'm in THE most Republican state legislative district in the state and my congressman is a man who's words about rape make Todd Akin look like a feminist. (I was a baby when he was first elected). Luckily I still have two Democratic (and not Blue Dog) senators. Every election, I vote straight ticket, and I attend the county party nominating conventions (there's been primaries but always unopposed). I am a member of the County Party's Democratic Women's caucus and have (unsuccessfully) tried to start up a Young Dems chapter in my county. I'm also on the executive board of my county's DFA chapter.

I work on campaigns for a living and have been sent to states that are very different from my own. (My last district was bigger than the state I live in and a good portion was coal country). The candidate has already clinched the Democratic nomination by the time I landed in the district, so I obviously had no say in that. What I do in those districts is that I look at the candidate's strengths and weaknesses, the district's past performance, and what part of the candidate I can match to what part of the district. If I had self-identified as a progressive and been publicly associated with some of the progressive movement in my state (see my first paragraph), then it could cost me my job.

outspokenliberal.blogspot.com is my blog. Read the post about my own evolution from progressive to blue dog. If you read the old posts, you can tell how progressive I was. I grew up living in a very liberal bubble (NYC area) and I'm all for progressives representing those districts. However if it comes to a district that is heavily Republican, if you had the choice between a Blue Dog and teabagger, what would you choose. If you lived in SC-01 would you have voted for Elizabeth Colbert Busch? She certainly did not run as a progressive because she knew the district would not elect her if she did. And Sanford tied her to the liberal movement. On Lawrence tonight, one of his guests said that in those such districts, you have to distance yourself from the national party. There's a lot of those districts in this country.

That's your third commercial for your blog. I've read it. I'm unimpressed.

"If I had self-identified as a progressive and been publicly associated with some of the progressive movement in my state (see my first paragraph), then it could cost me my job."

This was the defense many white professionals used in their tacit support of segregation in Alabama. I don't think one could call the desegregation movement within the democratic party "purity" movement, but that seems to be your argument. I'm sorry you feel like you're stuck on the wrong side of progress, but that doesn't make it a "purity movement" for progressive democrats to continue to work to fill the congress with progressives from ALL states, nor to hold their feet to the fire once they are there. It does them little good to win the seat and lose the votes.

"I'm as liberal as they come." ... "my own evolution from progressive to blue dog".... "you can tell how progressive I was..."

You apprear very conflicted.

n/t

It is a term used by self hating Democrats AKA blue dogs.

and generally votes for Democratic candidates, due to lack of options I really like.

More liberal than progressive if I had to choose either/or.

label myself except to say I'm a Democrat.

So...the Liberals think the Progressives are jackasses, the Progressives think the Liberals are idiots, the Progressives and Liberals think Moderates are assholes, and the Progressives, Liberals, and Moderates all think Republicans of any degree should be rounded up and tortured before being thrown in the ocean to hungry sharks.

Everybody needs someone to hate, don't they?

either "liberal" or "socialist" to describe myself, and either "progressive" or "socialist" to describe policy that I like.

Simply because I started to realize what my political (and moral) values were around the time we learned about Teddy Roosevelt in social studies.

To me, "progressives" are the word police type. The one's that get all uppity and cry sexism or racism, when none is there. They are the hipsters of the left. Most of their views are decent but damn are they annoying with all their self-righteousness. To me, liberals are more raw, fight for the greater good, but retain a sense of humor and ability to separate hate, humor and intention. Progressives like to paint the world as this fairy tale land where there are no differences or traits inherent in one person over the other. Call someone a bitch? Oh you are misogynist pig. Consider a person who is indeed overweight, fat? Oh you are sexist douche who has no concept of what beauty is. Purity tests and the like, progressive monopolize the lefts thought police genre.

But that's just me.

I agree with most liberal and progressive ideas, but I don't describe myself as either. I am simply someone that supports those positions based on their own merit.

are accurate and both carry plenty of baggage I have no interest in associating with in labeling my personal politics so at present I lean toward leftist to describe my actual brand of social and civil libertarianism and socialist leaning economics.

No need to step around it, that's what I am.

Bob LaFollette's home, of course - so I've long been acquainted with those who call themselves 'progressives' and otherwise mirror just about every liberal stand on any issue, and I'm comfortable with being identified as either, but when people ask me, my political self-identity is as a liberal, about as liberal as you can get, while also considering myself a capitalist.

Hope that makes sense.

looking like a put-upon 5-year-old.

I believe the things I do because I believe that corporations and the extremely wealthy (*cough*Koch Brothers*cough*) wield far too much influence over our society.

Antimacassar flamingo denouement puppet! Fiddle bouillabasse worchestire calamine portabello! Sacbut eczema rechercher aluminium gewgaw quonset giblet tongs.

Helmet!

the word liberal sometimes makes conservatives visibly gnash their teeth together when I say it.

In general elections I also vote for the most progressive candidate available. I have two major criticisms of most liberals. First, they don't seem to do enough to bridge the vast inequalities between rich and poor in our country. Second, they too often support imperialism abroad and do little or nothing to reduce spending toward the military-industrial complex. That is why I am to the left of most of them. If it were up to me, we'd cut the military budget in half, provide free health care for all, and nationalize the major banks. I'm more of a democratic socialist than pure democratic party. But as I've said, I will continue voting for democrats if they are the main choice to oppose the god-awful disgusting republicans.

A few illiterates too, but what can you do? They were called out, loudly and repeatedly.

This OP seems much more angry than the other one.

I am in there some where. I always considered myself a Dean Democrat. I like Howard Dean's way of thinking, where ever that leaves me. (I also consider myself a Jodo Shinshu, even though I am not practicing that much these days. Just thought I would toss that in, ya know for fun.)

very precise political meaning. It is most usually used to refer to education; but when used politically, can mean almost anything, and Conservatives sometimes refer to themselves as progressive.

Even taking into account the differences in usage between countries, I find your characterization of 'progressives' extremely strange. How do you define a progressive? Who are progressives, and who are liberals?

Different people will interpret the two terms in such a way as to better validate their own opinions; hence, any label applied to me is wholly predicated on the interpretations of whomever is doing the labeling.

Regardless, I've always found it much more accurate and illustrative to look at a person's deeds rather than any label they may or may not give themselves (although it is often telling to see what a person uses more in conversation-- "I" and "them" or "us". i.e, division versus unity, loss of energy versus efficiency, etc).

I vote for Democrats and consider myself a Progressive, a Liberal, a Democrat, and many, many other imaginary labels... take that as you will. Apply your subjective definitions, your personal standards, and I'm sure it will be allowed all the credit it is indeed and in fact, due.