Can anyone describe the difference between a liberal and a progressive?

Do those of you who call yourselves progressives do so simply to avoid the negative connotation that the right has managed to assign to the word liberal, or is there a substantive difference?

Full disclosure: I consider myself neither. I call myself a moderate. I define myself as liberal on a number of issues (gay rights, drugs, death penalty, etc.) but as for a general label, I consider myself moderate.

:dem:

I do think people use progressive to avoid the 'liberal' or 'socialist' stigma. Hey...if it works, use it. I prefer honesty. Say what you are and proudly explain WHY you believe the way you do...don't fear labels

...says, "The Progressive Choice"?

I'm just curious...not trying to poke my finger in your eye.

in my opinion.

but I would think one implies progress and one implies liberty. Since it was PROGRESSIVES of the 50's and 60's who decided sterilization of the poor was a good thing, I have had a block to using the term as it has negative connotations to me.

I favor liberty over progress which as we have seen can certainly interfere with it.

but those people would not be my people

I've been talkinga about progressive taxation alot recently. Don't confuse the use of the term 'progressive' in the context of taxes with progressive in the sense of where you fall on the political spectrum. 'Progressive' in a tax sense has nothing at all to do with your political leanings. It's a technical term with specific meaning.

As for your question, I'm sure political scientists and historians have something more sensible to offer, but I believe that 'liberal' generally means anything to the left of center (or to the left of moderate) to political scientists. I think, historically, 'progressive' implies a reference to a faction within the 1880s Democratic Party, and to 20th century democrats trying to build on their ideas.

I think when people use these different terms to describe themselves, they're either talking within the context of political science or history, and one encompasses territor which isn't meant to preclude the other. It's apples and oranges, or, it's not even like they're both fruit.

right wing. I think though that left-wing and right-wing can be descriptive in a generic sort of way.

I thought that progressive was a nice word for socialist while liberal was a little closer to center politically but more of a mind to think on social (not socialist) issues (equal rights etc).

That was my impression, too.

"Progressive" appeals to me because it has a grass-roots, activist connotation. Seems to be a code-word for that. Whereas liberal, in US politics at least, seems synonymous with "tolerant". I have no problem with social liberalism, but many self-described "liberals" are not so liberal when it comes to law & order. Outside the US, though, liberals are not so cozy with the state.

I proudly take the mantle of progressive and I consider the GOP to be quite Regressive. Liberal is just another way of saying Progressive.

I'm financially a long-term conservative (sp?) who believes America needs to invest in itself before India and China gains another job and/or is in a position to manufacture our Phalanx/Cruise Weapons systems.

Socially, I believe it's in the best long-term intrests of the US to support edcuation, research and those who have and are contributing to the health and welfare of our nation including the arts.

Personally, I'm a nicotine addict and my cat can expect to die at an early age from excessive petting; I just wish she wouldn't try to help me out at DU though.

in the Meeting Room. Here 'tis

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=111&topic_id=5128

In brief: progressives have been around about a quarter-century longer than (New Deal) liberals, are to the left of liberals, are more consistently skeptical about military adventurism (major exception: TR) and yes, I consider myself a progressive rather than a liberal.

But nobody who knows the history would use progressive as an euphemism for liberal. Rather the contrary.

Share the wealth! Huey Long for President in 1936!

Liberal also connotes one who seeks to achieve social change through legislation and working inside the system. Progressive may or may not be so bound.

I haven't been down there for awhile, I'm glad I got to see it.

I totally agree with your own take that progressives are to the left of liberals. I KNOW I'm to the left of many/most(?) "liberals" which is why I very deliberately call myself a "progressive".

sw

If anything, modern-day progressives would be more aptly associated with the Populists of the late 19th century, and even possibly the Socialists of Eugene Debs circa late 19th and early 20th century (but to a much smaller degree).

opposition to the WWI (again, TR excepted, so far as I know) and were close to the populists. Most people would say Huey Long was a latter day populist, but he consistently called himself a progressive.

http://www.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/progress.html

PROGRESSIVE PARTY


Progressive Party was the name used to designate several political organizations in the United States. In national politics, the term is associated with the unsuccessful presidential campaigns of Theodore ROOSEVELT (1912), Robert M. LAFOLLETTE, Sr. (1924), and Henry WALLACE (1948) . These leaders all broke off their major-party associations to take bold positions on domestic or foreign policies.

Bull Moose Party

William Howard TAFT was elected PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES in 1908 with the support of his friend and predecessor Theodore Roosevelt. But Roosevelt, a dynamic leader of the Progressive Movement, soon grew impatient with Taft's relatively cautious approach to reform. Taft's dismissal of Gifford Pinchot as chief forester angered Roosevelt, an ardent conservationist. Roosevelt challenged Taft for the REPUBLICAN presidential nomination in 1912, but was defeated because Taft controlled the party machinery. Roosevelt, saying he felt as fit as a bull moose, launched the Progressive party with himself as presidential candidate. His platform called for tariff reform, stricter regulation of industrial combinations, woman suffrage, prohibition of child labor, and other reforms. Roosevelt won 27% of the popular vote, running ahead of Taft but losing to the Democratic candidate, Woodrow WILSON. Progressive candidates for state and local offices did poorly, and the party disappeared after 1916, when Roosevelt returned to the Republican fold.

The LaFollette Progressives

Sen. Robert M. LaFollette, Sr., of Wisconsin was another leader of the Progressive Movement. Although progressivism receded after World War I, LaFollette fought on. By 1924, conservatives dominated both parties. LaFollette, nominally a Republican, decided to run for president on his own. Fearing that a formal party organization might be infiltrated by Communists, he ran as an independent. However, he accepted the support of the Conference for Progressive Political Action, which had been organized in 1922 by workers, farmers, and liberal intellectuals. The Socialist party also supported LaFollette. His platform denounced the control of industry and government by private monopolies. It favored public ownership of natural resources and railroads, farm-relief measures, lower taxes for persons with moderate incomes, and other laws to aid the less privileged. LaFollette got 17% of the popular vote but carried only Wisconsin. In 1934, LaFollette's sons, Sen. Robert LaFollette, Jr., and Philip, organized a Progressive party in Wisconsin. After Philip had been defeated for renomination as governor on the Republican ticket in 1932, the brothers concluded that the increasingly conservative GOP was no longer a reliable vehicle for advancing Progressive principles. Under the Progressive banner, the LaFollettes scored many successes, as did Progressive candidates for local offices in Wisconsin. But the party disappeared in 1946 when Robert chose to seek renomination to the Senate as a Republican unsuccessfully, as it turned out.

The Wallace Progressives

After World War II the Truman administration took firm stands against Soviet expansion. President TRUMAN dismissed Secretary of Commerce (and former Vice President) Henry Wallace after the latter called for a conciliatory policy toward Russia. Wallace declared his candidacy for president in 1948, and a new Progressive party was formed to nominate him.

He expected support from blacks, intellectuals, and other groups that had admired his militant liberalism. But the support of the U.S. Communist Party damaged the Progressives, and Wallace got only 2.4% of the vote. In 1950, the Progressive party was further weakened when it denounced U.S. entry into the Korean War, and Wallace left the party. The Progressives disappeared after polling a small vote in the 1952 presidential election.

Donald Young
Editor, Adventure in Politics: The Memoirs of Philip LaFollette

http://www.fightingbob.com/aboutbob.cfm

Running with the support of the Socialist Party, African Americans, women, organized labor, and farmers, La Follette terrified the established economic, political, and media order, which warned that his election would bring chaos. And La Follette gave them reason to fear. His Progressive Party platform called for government takeover of the railroads, elimination of private utilities, easier credit for farmers, the outlawing of child labor, the right of workers to organize unions, increased protection of civil liberties, an end to U.S. imperialism in Latin America, and a plebiscite before any President could again lead the nation into war.

Campaigning for the Presidency on a pledge to "break the combined power of the private monopoly system over the political and economic life of the American people" and denouncing, in the heyday of the Ku Klux Klan's resurgence, "any discrimination between races, classes, and creeds," La Follette told his followers: "Free men of every generation must combat renewed efforts of organized force and greed to destroy liberty." La Follette's 1924 crusade won almost five million votes--more than five times the highest previous total for a candidate endorsed by the Socialists. He carried Wisconsin, ran second in eleven Western states, and swept working-class Jewish and Italian wards of New York and other major cities--proving that a rural-urban populist coalition could, indeed, be forged.

La Follette declared in a post-campaign article for the national publication he edited, La Follette's Weekly, which would soon be renamed The Progressive, that, while threats and intimidation had weakened the 1924 drive, "the Progressives will close ranks for the next battle."
Though he did not live to see it, La Follette would within a decade be proven right.

The 1924 campaign laid the groundwork for the resurgence of leftwing populist movements across the upper Midwest--the Non-Partisan League of North Dakota, the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, and the Progressive Party of Wisconsin. It spurred labor-based independent political action by New York's American Labor Party and other groupings. And La Follette gave inspiration, as well, to those who swung the Democratic Party to the left in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Harold Ickes Sr., a key aide to La Follette's 1924 campaign, would become an architect of the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who, in the words of historian Bernard Weisberger, "completed the elder La Follette's work."

http://www.fightingbob.com/aboutbob.cfm

I've seen a couple liberals doing so, but it was only on golf courses.

For one thing, I identify my political philosophy with the old Progressive Movement of the late 19th Century/early 20th Century; exemplified by such reformers as "Fighting" Bob LaFollette, Emma Goldman, Eugene Debs, Mother Jones, William DuBois and others.

I have no problem with calling myself a "liberal" -- which I certainly am -- but for me the term "Progressive" means something even bigger and more active than liberal.

To me, "Progressive" means fighting for fundamental social change on a grand scale. On the other hand, "liberalism", to me, denotes more of an accomodation to the status quo -- attempting to make things better within the existing framework of the societal/governmental paradigm rather than working to shift the paradigm altogether.

I do not consider the terms "progressive" and "liberal" to be synonymous at all. I know many "liberals" whom I would definitely NOT consider to be progressives. And as a native Minnesotan, where our earlier political history includes having a socialist governor at one time, the term "progressive" carries a very specific meaning.

Hubert Humphrey was a liberal, Paul Wellstone was a progressive. John Kerry is a liberal, Dennis Kucinich is a progressive. There IS a difference!

sw

(edit - typo)

I've always seen the term liberal as denoting someone tolerant of change, mainly incrmental change. It is the balance against conservative in the traditional sense; that is generally opposed to change. When I use the term conservative I am generally referring to paleocons, as opposed to neocons (who are obviously very interesed in change, just of an entirely different sort).

I call myself a progressive because I feel that I am actively working for change rather than simply being receptive to it. By that definition, I would place most of the American left under the umbrella of liberal. By-and-large our electorate is disconnected from active participation in changing things, even it they think it would be a good idea.

I also consider myself a radical because I'm interested in addressing the root causes of problems rather than simply attempting to cure their symptoms.

I think being a progressive denotes something far more radical than "liberal" -- radical from the Latin radix, which means root.

It's just as you said: "...addressing the root causes of problems rather than simply attempting to cure their symptoms."

Welcome to DU, btw! :hi:

sw

use the word "progressive" to describe myself.

When Dukakis as presidential candidate refused to respond to attempts to smear him with charges of being a liberal, the term became defunct.
Today, right wing pontificators use "liberal" as a virtual cognate for anyone in the democratic party.

Good word. I had to look it up. Thanks.

I don't know what the difference is but I once saw a liberal described as someone so broad minded they wouldn't even pick their own side in an argument and I knew instantly what that meant and what pissed me off the most about left wing politics in the US.

"He who considers wealth a good thing can never bear to give up his income; he who considers eminence a good thing can never bear to give up his fame. He who has a taste for power can never bear to hand over authority to others. Holding tight to these things, such men shiver with fear; should they let them go, they would pine in sorrow. They never stop for a moment of reflection, never cease to gaze with greedy eyes — they are men punished by Heaven."

—Chuang Tzu



Progressivism is a political movement that represents the interests of ordinary people in their roles as taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents. To coin a phrase, progressivism champions government "of the people, by the people, for the people."

Given this mission, one might expect all democracies would be made up predominantly of one or another progressive parties.

Unfortunately, this isn't the case for the most part.

Why? Because economic elites emerge in every society and seek their own interests, all too often against those of taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents. By definition, elites enjoy greater wealth, and therefore influence, than the ordinary citizen, and they typically attempt to exploit these advantages politically, using them as leverage to obtain still greater wealth and influence. And since the desire for wealth and power is rarely satisfied, there tend to be recurring cycles of concentrated political and economic power, together with the corruption that invariably attends these. One such was seen in the United States around the turn of the 20th century. At the turn of the 21st century, the US is in the midst of another. (For a briefing on the makeup of the cabinet of the Bush presidency, follow this link.)

In general, then, Progressivism stands at the opposite pole from economic elitism, and has enjoyed its greatest support and successes precisely when the injustice, exploitation, arrogance, and greed of elites become intolerable.

For further details concerning Progressivism, we recommend The World of Hope: Progressives and the Struggle for an Ethical Public Life, by David B. Danbom. This study emphasizes the connection between Progressivism, core American values, and the difficulties confronting attempts to bring those values to bear on politics in the face of a recalcitrant and corrupting business sector.

(See also: class conflict, democracy, populism, plutocracy, oligarchy, and the links below.)


http://progressiveliving.org/progressivism.htm

"He who considers wealth a good thing can never bear to give up his income; he who considers eminence a good thing can never bear to give up his fame. He who has a taste for power can never bear to hand over authority to others. Holding tight to these things, such men shiver with fear; should they let them go, they would pine in sorrow. They never stop for a moment of reflection, never cease to gaze with greedy eyes — they are men punished by Heaven."

—Chuang Tzu



Progressivism is a political movement that represents the interests of ordinary people in their roles as taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents. To coin a phrase, progressivism champions government "of the people, by the people, for the people."

Given this mission, one might expect all democracies would be made up predominantly of one or another progressive parties.

Unfortunately, this isn't the case for the most part.

Why? Because economic elites emerge in every society and seek their own interests, all too often against those of taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents. By definition, elites enjoy greater wealth, and therefore influence, than the ordinary citizen, and they typically attempt to exploit these advantages politically, using them as leverage to obtain still greater wealth and influence. And since the desire for wealth and power is rarely satisfied, there tend to be recurring cycles of concentrated political and economic power, together with the corruption that invariably attends these. One such was seen in the United States around the turn of the 20th century. At the turn of the 21st century, the US is in the midst of another. (For a briefing on the makeup of the cabinet of the Bush presidency, follow this link.)

In general, then, Progressivism stands at the opposite pole from economic elitism, and has enjoyed its greatest support and successes precisely when the injustice, exploitation, arrogance, and greed of elites become intolerable.

For further details concerning Progressivism, we recommend The World of Hope: Progressives and the Struggle for an Ethical Public Life, by David B. Danbom. This study emphasizes the connection between Progressivism, core American values, and the difficulties confronting attempts to bring those values to bear on politics in the face of a recalcitrant and corrupting business sector.

(See also: class conflict, democracy, populism, plutocracy, oligarchy, and the links below.)


http://progressiveliving.org/progressivism.htm

Progressives recognize the need for some degree of overhaul.

Actually, I think that the modern-day "progressives" are a group that kind of straddles the divide between the "liberals" and genuine "Leftists" -- a group that maintains ties with the liberals in order to make headway into electoral politics, while recognizing the desires of the leftists to conduct an overhaul on many aspects of our political system and society.

In fact, that has always been one of the sticking points between "Leftists" and "liberals" -- that liberals want to simply tweak the status quo a bit, while Leftists want to overhaul the whole damned thing.

I consider myself a progressive because I believe that there are still areas that only require some tweaking, while there are others that just have to be rebuilt from the ground up.

A 'liberal' is someone who knows what they think.
A 'progressive' is someone who thinks they know what others think.
A 'centrist' is someone who's afraid of what others think.
A 'conservative' is someone who doesn't give a damn what others think.
A 'neoconservative' is someone who's told what to think.

Simple. :silly:

Liberal refers to a type of social behavior, Progressive to solutions and progress.

offending conservatives. He doesn't approve of social injustice, but his cardinal rule is to avoid angering anyone powerful.

A progressive often agrees with the liberal about what's regrettable in society, but has the quirky trait of being willing to speak about these things, regardless of who is offended by it.

I identify with the working class.

"Liberal," for me, has too many middle/upper-class connotations. It's too closely tied to the so-called "New Left" and its contempt for the working class that is so often on display right here at DU.

When I think of a "liberal," I think of my aging hippy professors who plaster their Volvos with "Visualize World Peace" stickers and rhapsodize over the 60s but don't say a word about exploited labor right in their own university because that might endanger their research grants.

The people that brought us the Vietnam war were good examples of liberals. I prefer to leave that term behind, as it is despised around the world for being associated with free-market capitalism. Progressive captures the spirit of the politics to which I aspire; literally, fighting for social and economic progress and fighting reactionaries. "Liberal" seems to much like "live and let live." That's all fine, but I don't want to be liberal toward those who are working to destroy this country and the world. We should in no way be liberal toward them. Maybe it's a generational thing...