Giving ‘progressive’ the ‘liberal’ treatment

Yes, Ross really did put “science” in quotation marks.

LOL! Thanks for the best laugh I’ll have all day. “Ross” is an idiot.

What we need to learn: (1) dont wait for them to define “progressive” – we need to get out there and do it ourselves; (2) fight back this time, unlike with liberal when we arrogantly believed that the Right Wing Noise Machine wouldn’t really be able to change how a word is looked at; (3) the best defense is a good offense – get “progressive” locked in and then immediately start noting – not only every time they trash progressive, but even before that – that if you aren’t progressive, you must be regressive. “and boy oh boy those conservatives have indeed acted regressive lately [citing examples X, Y and Z]”

Nautilator has it exactly right. This campaign started way too late to do them any good. No one they could possibly persuade is paying any attention anymore, and it only underscores how silly the word conservative has started to sound, especially to a lot of people who once considered themselves conservatives.

I predict the term “Conservative” will, in the not too distant future, be as tarnished as the term “Liberal” has become to many people bombarded by Conservative propaganda over the last thirty years. “Progressive” broadens the label that liberals can agree with. The original Progressives starting with Teddy Roosevelt, along with Robert LaFollette, Hiram Johnson Senator Norris, and others, were mostly reform minded Republicans in the first decades of the 20th Century. At that time the Democratic party was dominated by racist Southern politicians. Progressive is a great term because it is inclusive and can even claim sensible Republicans who have some integrity (I think there are a few). The modern Republican Party has become as extreme as the late 19th and early 20th Century Democrats which helps explain why the South is so avidly Republican. Because of Lyndon Johnson’s Civil Rights initiatives, Southerns simply switched parties and kept their same old racist and reactionary conservative mind set. When Bush finally leaves office the damage to society and the carnage he has left will set the concept of “Conservative” back a long time.

A Bad Idea in Search of an Attractive Name

“It stands to reason, then, that conservatives, after having tarnished “liberal,” are going to have to take on the newer, more popular, label for the left.”

Ummm, no. Do not blame Conservatives for what the so-called Liberals have done to themselves.

A rose is a rose is a rose …

And a Progressive is a Liberal is a Socialist is a Communist.

This is the third iteration of the Progressive theme and meme in the last century. The original manifestation of Progressive thought had a genuine concern for social welfare in a more primitive economic environment. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican President, was a leading political embodiment of the Progressive movement in the early Twentieth Century. Much progress was made in social justice during this period.

The Great Depression was a time of stress and strife, and serious consideration was given to radical political solutions for the problems, not only in the USA, but world-wide. In America, fascism attracted adherents (Charles Lindbergh, notably) and Socialism/Communism had a wide following among the usual suspects; the media, academics, and politicians. Communists/Socialists tried to hijack the government in America as they had done in Russia a few years before. Mindful of the mass murder and destruction that marked the early years of the Soviet Union, the American people firmly rejected Socialism as a model for their polity.

Henry Wallace was FDR’s Vice-President during FDR’s third term. Wallace actively promoted Communism as Vice-President. Wallace’s policies were controversial and unpopular, and Wallace was taken off the ticket for the 1944 elections to be replaced by Harry Truman. Roosevelt died scant weeks after Roosevelt/Truman were inaugurated for Roosevelt’s fourth term; we missed having an active Communist sympathizer for President by that small margin.

Wallace ran for President in 1948 on the Progressive Party ticket (the second iteration of Progressivism in the USA), and was soundly defeated and repudiated, taking no Electoral College votes, and showing modest strength only in (where else?) New York and California.

“American radicals and socialists began calling themselves `liberals’.”

– F.A. Hayek, 1960.

Having failed to impose their Collectivist philosophy on the American people as Communists, Socialists, or Progressives, the Collectivists adopted a new name: Liberals. As practiced by the Collectivists, the Liberalism of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s was extremely illiberal.

Liberal values originated in Europe during the Enlightenment, and grew to fruition in the founding of the United States of America; the finest statement of liberal values is contained in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States of America, the first ten Amendments.

So why do Collectivists, until recently known as “Liberals”, campaign so hard against liberal ideas like free speech (First Amendment, talk radio) and self-defense (Second Amendment, right to keep and bear arms)? Because you can’t impose Collectivist policies on people who are free to say what they want and who can defend themselves and their values. The Collectivists want to impose social controls as Lenin did in the early Soviet Union, and as the Socialist bureaucrats are doing now in the EUSSR.

Communist, Socialist, and Liberal have become terms of disapprobation in the United States over a period of decades, and the Collectivists are desperate for a new term without negative connotations. The best they can come up with is a revival, for the third time, of the tired old “Progressive” label.

“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

– Juliet, in Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare, 1594

And by whatever name they call themselves, Collectivists are rotten and depraved enough to gag a maggot. Collectivists actively seek the destruction of the individual and individual values in favor of a universal set of values that subsume the individual in rules and bureaucracy, as envisioned in the concept of the “New Soviet Man”.

The corruption and inefficiency of Socialist efforts everywhere should have destroyed Socialism as a viable political philosophy, but it has not. Communism/Socialism/”Liberalism”/ Progressivism must be confronted anew in each generation if human freedom is to prevail.

Or maybe the Collectivists will run out of names. Perhaps they could call themselves “Know Nothings”, a name with historical validity in the United States, and which aptly describes their philosphy.

Well said Iago. And the Left may want to re-look at that poll, it asked what people thought of candidates who are politically progessive which is not necessarily the same thing as what do you think of Progressives. That word is just coming into the political vernacular and when people realize that Progressive just means ULTRA-liberal, then they will quickly reject that label. Personally, I couldn’t be happier that the Libs are trying to recast themselves as more liberal, anti-military and anti-America.

Trust the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again in the next election. They will likely keep the Senate, but America has more sense than to elect as president a woman who’s greatest asset is 8 years as the first lady.

More kool-aid, anyone?

Speaking of Kool-Aid, I just re-read your post #7, beep.

It does nothing to enhance your position. You site Hillary’s reluctance to defend herself against conservative attacks. You site liberals, as a whole, who have allowed themselves “for decades” to be defined by their political rivals without a serious rebuttal. You blame liberals for not showing the courage of their alleged convictions to defend the label of ‘liberal’.

“all the right has to do is say the new label is nothing more than liberalism rebranded and the new label is trashed.”

Right. Why do you suppose that is?

“The idea is to keep shifting the label on the labelers.
A rolling lefty gathers no slime.
You’ve got to move the target on these wingnuts…

Exactly.The point here is not to directly confront your opponent honestly and defend your point of view. Ambiguity and vagueness are your friends. Most people still mistake this kind of evasiveness for cowardice, but that’s also just a right-wing talking point. Don’t get distracted.

“Off hand…. A new rule of thumb:

A mere handful of words can effect a Presidential election.
It’s the language stupid!”

This guy is oblivious. What manipulative, deceitful nonsense.

I take it you have no problem with Blue’s ideas, you have only quibbles with his spelling and grammar. That sort of puts your priorities in perspective.

Speaking of, you could stand a little proof-reading yourself.

I’ll accept your forgiveness. Now, quit stalling.

“So complains the apparent conservative, whose movement has been guided to victory by polling semanticist Frank Luntz for two decades?

That’s news to me. I always thought it was KKKKarl Rove who’s been behind all this brain-washing from the start. Frank Luntz is 45 years old. If he’s been pulling off this scam since he was 25, as you claim, the man is an absolute genius.

The left would slit their own mother’s throats for a pair of men like that.

My bad grammar aside, would you care to rebut any point that lago or I have made? Isn’t it you liberals, oh excuse me, ‘progressives’, who love to pride yourselves on your ability to debate? After all, you are the philosophical kin to our Founding Fathers. Us? We’re just “talking points”.

My guess is your only real issue is that the left (finally) caught on to the right-wing word play and is going to join the battle.

If conservatives are just word-gaming the public, how is it possible that they get away with it and you can’t?

Accept it. You people are a fraud.

Give me an example of a living, breathing fiscal liberal. One who everyone on your side agrees is a worthy spokesperson for your party.

“To treat all liberals as extremists undermines your arguments and would have people consider you mere demagogues…”

Does the theory hold true of those on the left who demean all conservatives? Name someone you’d consider ‘extreme’ on the left.

It is difficult to be informed listening to a single side. If liberal views were so very weak, they wouldn’t enjoy support by majorities in the “The quips and names the right wing entertainers that pass for political minds have for liberals/progressives/what-have-you are fun, but don’t mistake them for axioms.
”.

You should understand that liberalism and the position it takes on any given issue is hardly ever a surprise to us or anyone else. We know what drives you better than yourselves. If it requires taxation, if it takes a morally-relative approach, if it’s degenerate, if it demoralizes the country’s morale in a fight, ect, you guys are all over it. What does Rachel Maddow have to offer?….Funny?…..That frustrated, crew-cut sister? This woman knows NOTHING about this world.

Hell, what about Garofolo?….Jail-house tats from head to toe. This woman looks like a something you’d find standing in front of a methadone clinic. You gotta be outta your mind, man.

No one has ever doubted that your politics are far more palatable and persuasive every else except in the United States.

The quips and names the right wing entertainers that pass for political minds have for liberals/progressives/what-have-you are fun, but don’t mistake them for axioms.

You people fancy yourselves so fascinating and esoteric as to defy description. Your hesitation to speak forthright and definitively on any given issue has always been your undoing. You are not above human nature’s ability to comprehend. Wether you are conscious of it or not, your philosophical paralysis has a very clear, definable explanation. There’s nothing coincidental about you.

It’s so laughable. Liberals think that the problem is their LABEL, when people are rejecting their POLICY. It doesn’t matter if you put a silk purse on a pig, the people are smarter than you give them credit for; we don’t need your nanny state.

It’s so laughable. Liberals think that the problem is their LABEL, when people are rejecting their POLICY.

That’s exactly it. This proves how shallow and deceptive these people really are. They think everything, including their own perception in the public mind, is something that can be tweaked or erased all together by simply changing a word here or there. It’s offensive and it’s condescending to any self-respecting person. They are intellectually dishonest and lazy.

They entertain some of the most insane fringe political elements in the history of this country. These lunatics need steady, constant, furious agitation just to stay motivated. The theatrics they’ve been pulling-off lately, including this MOVEON “Out of Iraq” all-nighter on the Senate floor, complete with cots, has made them the laughing stock of the country.

Congressional approval numbers are at historic all-time lows….14%!!….If Bush is in the gutter, where are they?

Now, they’re split. Half of them want to back-off and re-evaluate, the other half demands immediate, full-throttle impeachment hearings. The party is a complete mess. We’re still a year away and these clowns will not have enough red meat to toss these freaks long enough to keep them busy for that long.

Democrats have to do double-duty now. Not only do they need to look rational and reasonable to sane voters, they also need to fend off their own radical communist base who views them already as impotent and cowardly. Something’s gotta give.

Blue – Don’t say that.

ok, let’s settle for ‘god-like’ and be done with it. lol.

Nice work, lago. I was surfing around and came across this column in RealClearPolitics. It turned out to be worthwhile.