Author Topic: What is the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive"?  (Read 662 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39901
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
What is the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive"?
« on: January 13, 2010, 06:25:55 PM »
Can anyone please explain to me the difference between a liberal and a "progressive"?

Over at DU, they use tat term a lot and I dntknow what it means.  Does it mean just another word for "Liberal" or does it mean something else?

If some asked me the difference between a libertaran and conservative, I could probaby rattle off 5 things.

Anyone? 

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22727
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: What is the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive"?
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2010, 06:33:09 PM »
Can anyone please explain to me the difference between a liberal and a "progressive"?

Over at DU, they use tat term a lot and I dntknow what it means.  Does it mean just another word for "Liberal" or does it mean something else?

If some asked me the difference between a libertaran and conservative, I could probaby rattle off 5 things.

Anyone?  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html

What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive?



I often get asked what the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive" is. The questions from the media on this subject are always something like, "Isn't 'progressive' just another name for 'liberal' that people want to use because 'liberal' has become a bad word?"

The answer, in my opinion, is no - there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.

To put it in more concrete terms - a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). A more "progressive" solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry's profiteering and market manipulation tactics. A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor; A progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America (much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money).

Let's be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class.

We can see a good example of this hestitation from Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in his "health care to hybrids" proposal. As the Detroit News reports, Obama is calling "for using government money to relieve Detroit automakers of some of their staggering health care obligations if they commit to improving fuel economy by 3 percent a year for 15 years."

Here's the thing - we all want to see autoworkers' health care preserved, and we all want to see better fuel efficiency standards for cars. But is this really the road we want to go down as a society? I'd say no. The fact is, the auto industry should be forced to produce more fuel efficient cars through higher government fuel efficiency mandates, without taxpayers having to bail out the industry. It's not like those mandates would be asking the industry to do something that doesn't make good business sense - demand for higher fuel-efficiency cars is skyrocketing.

Paying off corporations to do what they already should be doing sets a dangerous precedent - it sends a message to Big Business that they can leverage their irresponsible behavior into government handouts. In this case, the auto industry would be leveraging its refusal to produce more fuel efficient cars and preserve its workers' health care into a giant taxpayer-funded subsidy.

To be sure, Obama has solid motives in pushing his proposal, and it is a creative cross of issues (health care and energy/environment). But the general unwillingness of Democrats to consistently push for more sharp-edged progressive solutions is a big problem right now. The "free market" conservatives have so dominated the political debate over the last two decades that our side seems only comfortable proposing to pay off different economic players, instead of forcing those players to behave themselves. It's time for that to change. The government has a job to play in protecting Americans from being ripped off, and that doesn't mean just handing the economic bullies a bribe. It means pushing back - hard.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22727
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: What is the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive"?
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2010, 06:35:52 PM »
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3038859

Progressive Etymology
by Chris Bowers, Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:41:03 AM EST

During my time away, Matt did a lot of interesting writing about the history of the 1960's and the impact of 1960's leftism within the contemporary progressive political environment. In keeping with Matt's work, I would like to open up a discussion on the history ideological self-identification within the American left and center-left. Specifically, I would like to take a quick look at the history of the ideological moniker "progressive," in order to develop a better grasp of what we mean by the term, how it differs from liberalism, and how it connects our current political actions to a tradition of American leftism.

I'll start the discussion with how I understand the history of the term in an American political context:
19th Century Roots. The term "progressive" first came into use in an American political context in the late 19th century. It was the ideological term many American leftists self-identified with, from women suffrage activists, to Teddy Roosevelt supporters, to backers of Robert LaFollette. At this time, "progressivism," was clearly distinct from "liberalism" in American political discourse. At the time, "liberalism" was a distinctly middle-class and American bourgeois view of a laissez-faire economic policies and (very) gradual movement toward universal suffrage. Progressivism was associated with the more forthright and hard-nosed suffrage and governmental accountability movements of the time, including the popular election of Senators, first wave feminism, and the implementation of ballot initiatives. Economically, it was vehemently anti-trust and pro-corporate regulation. In many ways, it is what we would now define as the differences between "neo-liberalism" and "progressivism."

The Flip. Until FDR, "progressive" was actually the most common term used to describe the mainstream of American leftism. In what can be considered an early example of triangulation, FDR instead chose to call himself a "liberal," thereby poaching some of Hoover's turf while also distancing himself from the left-wing label "progressive." FDR thus changed the meaning of both terms in American political discourse, as the "progressive" label was rendered fringe left-wing, and the "liberal" label was tied to the economic policies of the New Deal instead of the laissez-faire and corporatist policies. From what I understand, Hoover was so outraged over FDR calling himself a liberal during the 1932 campaign, that Hoover challenged FDR to a debate entirely over who was the true "liberal" in the race. It is also important to note that when former Vice President Henry Wallace broke from the Democratic Party in 1948, he took up the banner of the "progressive" party. After that debacle, people did not call themselves "progressive" for some time.

The 1990's revival. After nearly fifty years in the post-Wallace wilderness, the term "progressive" saw a revival in our political discourse in the 1990's primarily from two sources. First, "third way" triangulation types such as the DLC took to the term as a means to avoid being labeled as "liberal." Second, left-wing creative class types, at first primarily in the Bay Area, took to the term in order to disassociate themselves with the exiting "liberal" political infrastructure on both ideological and identity-based grounds. It must have been unpalatable for the wildly successful, and generally cutting edge, entrepreneurs of the Bay Area to self-associate with an ideological term that appeared to be old-fashioned and failing.

The New Big-Tent Term. Entering 2007, "progressive" appears to be the new and emerging "big-tent" term for the American center-left. The term is used just as comfortably by New Dem types as it is by the Democratic Party's left-wing. Whether or not this has drained it of any significant meaning is open to debate. Whether or not it still has any significant difference from the term "liberal" is also open to debate. It certainly appears to have morphed into something of an empty vessel term that an increasingly large segment, if not the majority, of the left and center-left political activist community feels comfortable self-identifying with. That is a good thing, because it allows us a sense of unity we lacked when many would call themselves moderate and many would call themselves liberal. However, it is difficult to tell what degree of resonance the term has outside of the universe of political activists. Pollsters like to use the same question for decades, and thus are not ready to start including the term "progressive" in ideological self-identification questions anytime soon.
Personally, I far prefer the term "progressive" to the term "liberal." Logically, "progressive" is more of a direct opposite of "conservative" than is "liberal." I also don't identify with the ideological position the term "liberal" posits when used in an academic sense, and coming from academia that means a lot to me. I also like the way it is able to unite Democratic activists, and how it ties in with many of the great American political actors of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Which do you prefer? I have added a poll to the extended entry. Also, what detail can you add to this etymology? What mistakes did I make? I would like to get a better handle on how the term "progressive" is currently used, and has been used over time, within the context of American political discourse. Even if we cannot think of any other reason why this is important, if we are going to have a "progressive movement," it is probably a good idea to grasp what we mean by the term "progressive."

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39901
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: What is the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive"?
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2010, 06:37:13 PM »
Thanks O.

Bascially, a progresive is a liberal with a mean streak in him from what I can tell.

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
Re: What is the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive"?
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2010, 06:40:24 PM »

Let's be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class.


To me, that distinction is so small and irrelevant it's simply not worth bothering.

Progressive = Liberal, Liberal = Progressive.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22727
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: What is the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive"?
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2010, 06:41:22 PM »
Np 3333,

I kind of read on the first article that progressive is into regulation and a lib is into throwing money at it.  

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: What is the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive"?
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2010, 06:45:21 PM »
labels are a distraction.


OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22727
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: What is the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive"?
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2010, 06:46:31 PM »

Especially on packaging. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39901
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: What is the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive"?
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2010, 07:00:46 PM »
Especially on packaging. 

The zeal to regulate is what bothers me most.

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6799
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: What is the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive"?
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2010, 07:14:08 PM »
I really don't care what the difference is, all I see are a bunch of self righteous pricks that think they know what is best for everybody else. While at the same time making sure they are exempt from all the shit they try to push on the surfs.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: What is the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive"?
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2010, 08:46:42 PM »
labels are a distraction.


PALIN, PALINS BABY, BUSH BADDDDDDDDDDDD, OBAMA GOOOOOOOODDDDDDD
fixed  ;)

now who wants to talk about distractions?  ::)