Take your pick - they're all here. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

You should know better
 

You should know better.

Today's Liberal is not the same as a Liberal from 100 years ago.

Progressivism of the early 1900s is not the same as what liberals call the progressivism of today.

The progressives of today are last years liberals who want us to call them progressives this year. What will they want to be called in the 2010 elections - True Conservatives?

The left is going to be soooooo disapointed in Sharia Law.

With respect, does the fact that some would change the meanings of words and phrases mean that we should participate in that process? If one answers that question "yes" then one is advocating a postmodernist approach to discourse.

Or should we attempt to hold the line and make sure we're defining terms accurately and using those terms correctly?

Just as SEALs and special operations Marines calling themselves "special forces" clouds the public's understanding of special operations forces in general and special forces in particular, the conflation of political definitions plays an equally disruptive role in contemporary political discourse.

We can
 

Oh, we can.

But the phrase "He has a good liberal education" does not mean the same thing today as it did 100 years ago.

Sig,
Every closet Leftist and KPFK subscriber I know refers to themselves as a Progressive. For most of those in my acquaintance, the word is code for “Communist/Far Leftist working within the System.” Some of them are registered Republicans (none of whom can articulate or defend a conservative idea, or would have dreamed of voting for George Bush).
I think we can safely make a distinction between Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party of 1912, and the contemporary political activists who have adopted the term and have given it its meaning in current usage, like these people:

http://progressivelabor.890m.com/
sample their music here:
http://www.plp.org/PL_albums/songlist.html

http://www.progressive.org/

http://www.campusprogress.org/

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...ogy_youth.html

If you’re unfamiliar with your local Pacifica Radio station, you can get an idea of what KPFK is about, here:
http://www.kpfk.org/pledge/catalog/i...acturers_id=32
If you’re a Noam Chomsky fan, you’ll find a lot of company at KPFK.

Ditto...
 

Ditto on the Progressive term being Socialist and way Left.
SIg...You're not a Leftist but tend to be out in left field. there are rarely standards "we" can keep if the other side changes the meanings. These things still have to be addressed.

Again I say the Constitution of the United States IS A RIGHT WING Document. It is therefore difficult to proclaim a right winger as Radical, when the Constitution is not a Center line Document. It is Conservative, very conservative.
The recent argument about gun laws being the right of the States is absolutely false. All the rights granted by the Constitution are "Individual" not State.
Okay, I get carried away.
The POTUS is not trying to help the US but rather break us down far enough to allow his take over (with Muslin aid). His alliances are shady at best. Don't be fooled by semantics. That battle will relegate us to mere insects squabbling on the floor, while the anointed one gets away with his agenda. Blitzzz out

Sigaba,

Portions of the Progressive platform
Progressive Platform of 1912 - Teddy Roosevelt party

The Progressive party, believing that a free people should have the power from time to time to amend their fundamental law so as to adapt it progressively to the changing needs of the people, pledges itself to provide a more easy and expeditious method of amending the Federal Constitution.
We demand that the test of true prosperity shall be the benefits conferred thereby on all the citizens, not confined to individuals or classes, and that the test of corporate efficiency shall be the ability better to serve the public; that those who profit by control of business affairs shall justify that profit and that control by sharing with the public the fruits thereof.
We believe in a graduated inheritance tax as a National means of equalizing the obligations of holders of property to Government, and we hereby pledge our party to enact such a Federal law as will tax large inheritances, returning to the States an equitable percentage of all amounts collected.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...p?document=607
SnT

SnT--

I believe the passage you've provided helps to prove my point. The fact that the platform maintains the rights of individuals and corporations to own property is directly contrary to one of the principal objectives of international communism: the abolition of all private ownership of property as a means of annihilating the individual as a political and economic actor. Marx and Engles are clear on this point in the second chapter of The Communist Manifesto (source is here).
Moreover, as the Progressive party platform was situated in a specific context (i.e. the traditions of Jefferson, Lincoln, and the United States Constitution), it is centered around a theory of history that is antithetical to Marx's and Engels's view of historical progress.

The two rejected history as an example of a tool used by the prevailing ruling class to justify its dominance.

Blitzzz,

I whole heartily agree with you......:lifter

Big Teddy :munchin

Would you suggest fascism would be a closer match? I do believe a strong argument could be made for that case. I'm no scholar or historian by trade, but what I know of the early 20th Century Progressive movement would indicate that fascism may indeed be a better match. So, maybe I should change my statement. Whether, progressive or fascist, or they're assigning czars or dictators, it all shakes out the same in the wash.

The perceived ownship of private property is but a ruse to make one believe that they have some level of control, when, in reality, they do not. So communism is just a tad more honest than facism. For me, the individual, it's all the same dictatorial control, whether it's early 20th Century or early 21st Century Progressivism.

KClapp--

IMHO, it works to the president's political advantage for his critics to claim he's either a communist or a fascist. Making either argument requires two resources in short supply: time and access to source materials that would help to document the development of his political ideology.

I think that Grateful Citizen and Gypsy have offered a more advantageous line of approach. Their separate suggestions that the president is a product of Chicago politics offers a simpler (but not simplistic) approach: hold the mirror of the Second City to the president and ask Americans "Is this what you want your country to look like?" MOO is that this approach can get more traction if it is pursued vigorously.

However, if pressed, I would use the following "ists" to describe the president.

• egoist
• opportunist
• elitist
• belletrist
• urbanist
• apologist
• chauvinist
• orientalist
• sexist
• racist
• con artist

YMMV.

Incarcerated and Blitzzz--

With respect to your points regarding the contested meaning of "progressivism," I would point to George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" (1946). (Yes, I am aware of the man's politics. What's good for the goose....;)) Source is here.
And later on in the essay he offered this blunt assessment (source is here).
Informed by this sensibility (and of being repeatedly hammered by the late Mauricio Mazon to define and to use terms accurately), I remain committed to the belief that it isn't merely an exercise in semantics to contest those who would change the meanings of terms. Is this practice going to leave me as an insect "squabbling on the floor?" Unlikely.

Most of those who today call themselves Progressives are not. They should not be allowed to appropriate that term when their agenda is contrary to the goals Theordore Roosevelt articulated in a letter to a friend over a century ago.
______________________________________________
* Roosevelt to George Trevelyn, 9 March 2005, as quoted in H.W. Brands, TR: The Last Romantic (New York: Basic Books, 1997), p. 541.

Words....
 

Words are the platter upon which thought is delivered verbally. Your words, Orwell's words or my words. Gold, silver ,or plastic platters do not alter the essence of the thought.
Quote whom you will, but the actions are the "IS" of the thought.
Hummmm...what the hell did I just say? Blitzzz

There is a segment of the population who were raised and trained to hate both. Some even lost friends battling both. For those of us "haters" out here, it is a readily identifiable term we can use to solidify our stand. For those without that upbringing, training, and experience, it is a different story.

It's possible.

= dictator. ;)
______________________________________________

There's so much overheated rhetorical hyperbole already in use, that a lot of people tune out when they hear, "He's a fascist!" That kind of soundbite label is heard daily to describe the police officer writing a parking ticket, or the father grounding a teenager, or the boss restricting personal phone calls on company time.

The speaker may be making a serious statement with full awareness of actual fascism or socialism.

However, a lot of listeners will filter it automatically and mentally file the speaker as just another hysterical ranting nut, rather than a serious warning to be heeded.

I believe that is Sigaba's concern.

He's a lot of things but he's not a dictator, how do I know?

I'm still alive and "free".

Get your head out of your butt.

TS