‘Progressive’ beats ‘conservative’

In Monday’s debate, Hillary Clinton was asked whether she’d describe herself as a “liberal.” I expected the usual Democratic line — “I don’t believe in labels” — but her answer was much, much stronger than the usual talking point.

“You know, Rob — (laughter) — you know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual. Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it’s been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

“I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we’re working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their families.”

Nicely played. I’ve been reluctant to give up on “liberal” because I resent the notion that the right can berate the left into giving up on our own label, but Clinton made a compelling case.

Just as significant, I think, is this new Rasmussen poll that shows an interesting trend: “progressive” actually beats “conservative” nationwide.

In every poll in recent memory, “liberal” always polls below “moderate” and “conservative.” It’s reinforced the notion that center-right politics have been in ascendance for quite some time.

But if “progressive” replaces “liberal,” the dynamic changes considerably.

From the poll:

During last Monday’s Democratic Presidential debate, Senator Hillary Clinton indicated that she preferred to be called “progressive” rather than “liberal.” The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that is probably a good move — Americans are more receptive to the term progressive.

Just 20% said they consider it a positive description to call a candidate politically liberal while 39% would view that description negatively. However, 35% would consider it a positive description to call a candidate politically progressive. Just 18% react negatively to that term. Those figures reflect a huge swing, from a net negative of nineteen points to a net positive of 17 points.

On the other side of the ideological spectrum, being called politically conservative is considered a positive description by 32% and negative by 20%.

Rasmussen didn’t dwell on the point, but let’s not brush past the head-to-head number too quickly. According to the poll, 35% consider “progressive” a positive description of a candidate, whereas 32% consider “conservative” a positive label. In other words, the left’s label is now more popular than the right’s.

Obviously, the numbers are pretty close, and I’d prefer to see “progressive” even higher, but given that “conservative” has left “liberal” in the dust for a couple of decades now, I consider the results rather encouraging, don’t you?

I’m sure the ReThugs wish they’d thought of that. Or maybe they did and realized Das Base (which has a hard time grasping new ideas) wouldn’t go for anything that isn’t clearly labeled Conservative.

  • Having shat all over conservative principles, the Republicans are definitely in need of some rebranding. I’m confident that they’ll come up with something:

    Giuliani: 9/11, 9/11. 9/11…
    Romney: Family Values Progressives
    McCain: Modern Minutemen
    Thompson: Home and Hearthers

  • this has been evident for a while — conservatives managed to poison the word “liberal” long ago. “conservative” itself was poison for republicans after the goldwater years. (as best i can tell, not having lived through those years.)

    sure, you can fight the imposed stereotype, or you can embrace what to me is a more elegant (and inclusive) term: progressive.

    semantics? maybe. but if a small change in nomenclature helps, why not use that advantage?

  • I agree with you about being forced to change our own label, and I’m still not sold on Hillary’s answer. I think that if maybe the same level of passion and clarity was put into defending ‘liberal’ that was used to describe ‘progressive’ than maybe this argument wouldn’t have ever occurred.

    But more important than that: will Hillary and the progressives stand up for the new label when it is attacked? We’re going to run out of words here if our leadership doesn’t stand up and fight for one of them.

  • I have maintained for quite awhile that Progressive is the better term. Screw staying chained to a term that’s been dragged into the mud. I don’t live for semantics.

    We need to always put quotation marks around the term “conservative”, because the Republicans, who have taken that brand as their own property are simply not interested in conserving things that the rest of us care about. They don’t conserve the environment, or our national stature, or our children’s fiscal futures. They have actively looted all these accounts and more, and they should be called the party of Looting Polluters (or is it the party of Polluting Looters?).

    Imagine if the “Liberals” had wasted 2 trillion dollars* somehow. Just WASTED it. What do you think the “conservatives” would have to say about that? We need to channel that rage and pour it onto their heads.

    * The current projected cost of the Iraq war.

  • There is more history behind the demonization of ‘liberal’ than just republican slander. As leftist students in the early seventies, my friends and I rejected and detested liberalism as the enabling force behind Vietnam. To this day, regardless of my 35 year history of Democratic votes, I cannot think of myself as a ‘liberal’. It sticks in my craw. Progressive, if a bit sanitized, ain’t bad. I amongst those who prefer DFH – direct and in your face.
    cheers

  • Nothing in American public life is untouched by race, our Original Sin.

    Liberal is heavily tainted by association with colored people, specifically giving money to them that used to belong to white people.

    Progressive isnt’. The only thing it’s tainted with by association is car insurace. (For me, that’s enough….)

    All nine of us who remember the Progressives from high school history think of them as bunch of white guys from the Upper Midwest. No scary colored people there, no sir. (I think this is the loophole — or rathole — through which Lou Dobbs sneaks in.

    Besides, Americans love ‘progress’ in the abstract.

  • Just curious, what mechanism did Hil have in mind to get the people these tools she says they need?

    Faith-based institutions, perhaps?

    Rassmussen ran the poll and conservatives will now spend the next decade pounding negative connotations into the word “progressive” and then former liberals will run away from THAT word too.

    I’m a liberal, dammit.
    All the liberal PANSIES are “progressives”. The champions of the abused, disenfranchised, oppressed and overpowered who’ll meet you on the gridiron ready to dust it up are godblessed LIBERALS.

  • Long time lurker, first time commenter. I just couldn’t stay quiet on this one.
    I respect Hillary and have no personal animosity for her, but this is beyond the pale. Her claim of kinship with Bob LaFollette is an outrage and a disservice to his memory. I recommend she actually read some of his speeches from the “early 20th century” progressive era, and then get back to me . . . with a retraction. Shameful.

    ‘trane

  • Wrong answer.

    Right answer would have been, “if by liberal you mean, X, they yes.” Run off about 20 common sense, positive values for X.

    Follow that by, “if by liberal you mean the caricature created by the Republican party, who says liberals are Y, then no. Then run of 10 negative, ridiculous values for Y as promoted by Limburger.

    People would still be cheering.

  • Conservatives will no doubt see this and respond by increasing their attacks on progressives and try to redefine that word too. I’ve already announced at Liberal Values that we will remain Liberal Values, not Progressive Values:

    http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1888

    In my case, the arguments center aound the original roots of the word as well as current usage. I also pointed out in my post that those who demonize liberals are not very reliable sources and we shouldn’t allow them to determine what words we use–especially now that more people are catching on to the lack of reliablity of the right wing noise machine.

  • As much as I like the term ‘liberal’, I have to admit that re-branding is very much in the American tradition. Besides, sticking with a failed brand name would be, umm, conservative.

  • When my Alma Mater, which had never been segregated, decided that segregation was all right as long as it was all-black dorms and fraternities I gave up on Liberals. I’m identifying myself a Liberal again just to piss off the folks who call themselves Conservative.

  • The Washington Post has an article about Fred Thompson that underlines how “conservative” he is, and I know you’ll be shocked, but apparently he’s a global warming denier.

    This is great news, because about 70% of Americans aren’t.

    Here’s the money quote:

    …Scientists who insist that global warming is ruining nature, he said, are like those true believers four centuries ago who insisted that the Earth is flat. “Ask Galileo,” he said…

    Got that, America? Fred Thompson says you’re as stupid as someone who thinks the world is flat (Tom Friedman?).

    the WaPo article:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072602247.html

  • Whoops, this got lopped off:

    Thompson seems to have taken particular pleasure in mocking global warming.

    “It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto. . . . This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle,” he wrote.

    What a neanderthal. Someone please interview his younger relatives and see if they think global warming is funny. Freddie will be dead long before it really kicks in, but they’ll be around to see if its funny or not.

  • In my opinion, “liberal” and “progressive” do not mean the same thing, and I consider myself to be a liberal and not a progressive. I’m not going to spend time trying to define them, other to say that I see progressives as being more leftwing and activist. The type of people who go to anti-war protests, throw pies in GOP faces, and other stronger actions. These are people who want to see big change and they want to see it as soon as possible. But liberals just want us to go back to how things were before the right began dismantling everything, and just to fine-tune a few more things.

    And I think that abandoning “liberal” is a bad idea, as it’s an implicit concession that conservatives were right all those years and liberals really were bad. And then conservatives can try to nail us for simply switching terms and will begin to sully the word “progressive”;which they’ve already started to do. Besides, the best way to deal with an insult of this nature is to embrace it. Let them call us anything they want, we’re still right and they’re still wrong. That’s why I’m a proud liberal.

  • How did “conservative” ever become positive? Conservatives have (by definition) stood against every positive change that has occurred in history. Of course, future history textbooks will excuse the conservatives for their views because they were only “products of their time”.

  • JFK had a great comeback to that question. Had I been Hils I woulda said something like beep52 suggested “like the men who wrote the constitution liberal? Like the folks who ended slavery liberal? Like the folks who marched for civil rights, ended Vietnam War, got a 5 day 40 hour workweek liberal? Like the liberals who are trying to save our planet and endangered species liberal? I know I made mention of two Republican presidents there, but today they would hardly recognize their own party and would be members in good standing of todays liberal party. So hell yes, I’m a liberal and I’m damned proud!” And then I woulda listed the numerous ways brand conservative ir anathema to all that is good about this country.

    Seriously, you can’t allow your enemies to tarnish your name or to own it. you can’t let them make bad conotations from it. Much like feminists have taken back the words bi**h and c**t, or African-Americans and the word n***er. Words have power. Never cede that power to the other side.

  • Never could understand how some Americans can imbue the word “liberal” with all kinds of negative values while, at the same time, thery try to rename “French fries” as “Liberty fries”. As far as I know, “give me liberty, or give me death” is still taught, even in Regressive schools. But, not Latin, I guess…

    DrBiobrain, @20,
    Zogby’s (electronic) poll agrees with you.Their categories start with:
    1) Progressive/Very liberal
    2) Liberal
    3) Moderate

    And descend, to regions I never actually read through, from there

  • Comments are closed.