OCinBuffalo Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Progress means "to improve". So if one is a "progressive" I would think that means that they are concerned primarily with improvement. Or, at the very least, the solving of problems->results. So here's my question: if something(a government policy/law/injustice/disaster, etc.) has been fixed, and "progress" has been made, why is the solution to a problem that doesn't exist anymore(since it has been fixed) need to be perpetuated? If it does need to continue, then I guess it hasn't fixed the problem. If it hasn't worked, why are we still doing it? I understand that there may be a need for ongoing solutions, but how are these solutions measured in terms of "progress", or improvement? Take any entitlement program/policy/government department. If you are a "progressive", tell me about the progress - in terms of improvement over the last ten years - the thing you chose has made. I am interested to see if any "progressive" on this board can point to improvement. Or, if what is really going on is simply "progressives" getting more schit for the people that vote for them. If it's the latter, should "progressives" be held accountable for policies that do not make progress? (Because according to progressives, all conservative policies will not make progress, by definition) Or, sadly I am sure I will hear this despite it being a non-answer, is it somebody else's fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 If pro is the opposite of con, is progress the opposite of congress? - Carlos Mencia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Sorry, Tom. Youre out. OC is my new Hero. OC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Progress means "to improve". So if one is a "progressive" I would think that means that they are concerned primarily with improvement. Or, at the very least, the solving of problems->results. So here's my question: if something(a government policy/law/injustice/disaster, etc.) has been fixed, and "progress" has been made, why is the solution to a problem that doesn't exist anymore(since it has been fixed) need to be perpetuated? If it does need to continue, then I guess it hasn't fixed the problem. If it hasn't worked, why are we still doing it? I understand that there may be a need for ongoing solutions, but how are these solutions measured in terms of "progress", or improvement? I am not sure exactly what you are looking for but, here goes: Progressivism as I understand it, favors a decentralized approach to problem solving, which primarily empowers civic and most often private associations. Most progressives are more concerned with the overreach of federal power rather than the lack of it and take a posture that government needs constant reform and supervision (because power corrupts). Progressives tend to be more concerned about zoning and the quality of communities and schools rather than broad entitlement programs. Public space is generally a priority. So, maybe the answer you are looking for is I'm happy we have a wheelchair ramp and some crossing guards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 If pro is the opposite of con, is progress the opposite of congress? - Carlos Mencia shhh... that is stolen material Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 The progress they see is the progress in getting more peple relying on the government, either for a job or handouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Sorry, Tom. Youre out. OC is my new Hero. OC... Why? Because he defined "progressive" incorrectly? Wait...I was your hero? When the !@#$ did this happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I think part of the problem is looking at a dictionary definition of 'progressive' to define a movement that is much more fractured. I think of myself as a progressive from a social justice and workers' rights standpoint. I think naturally we should progress toward individual rights and away from a more powerful authority. I know there are plenty on the left wing that wouldn't agree with me in some areas on that. TR was a progressive who worked overtime to break down monopolies -- and he's revered by a lot of conservatives/libertarians of today. I agree with that stance. I also agree with his movement toward preservation and a vigilant environmentalism as a policy of our government. Others feel this means more programs, more legislation, and I don't think that's always the answer, particularly where the legislation we have is already doing the job -- or at least lays the groundwork for it. I think it's balance that's needed in any respect. If we tended all the way toward one side or the other, less people benefit. Edit: And XB, thanks, as usual, for stating my thoughts more eloquently than I am able to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 IMO people use the term "progressive" because over the last few decades, conservatives have very successfully campaigned to make the word "liberal" into a negative connotation, and now when people hear the word they think something other than it means or was intended to mean or represent. Go ahead, say "it is a negative connotation", hardy har har. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Progress means "to improve". So if one is a "progressive" I would think that means that they are concerned primarily with improvement. Or, at the very least, the solving of problems->results. So here's my question: if something(a government policy/law/injustice/disaster, etc.) has been fixed, and "progress" has been made, why is the solution to a problem that doesn't exist anymore(since it has been fixed) need to be perpetuated? If it does need to continue, then I guess it hasn't fixed the problem. If it hasn't worked, why are we still doing it? I understand that there may be a need for ongoing solutions, but how are these solutions measured in terms of "progress", or improvement? Take any entitlement program/policy/government department. If you are a "progressive", tell me about the progress - in terms of improvement over the last ten years - the thing you chose has made. I am interested to see if any "progressive" on this board can point to improvement. Or, if what is really going on is simply "progressives" getting more schit for the people that vote for them. If it's the latter, should "progressives" be held accountable for policies that do not make progress? (Because according to progressives, all conservative policies will not make progress, by definition) Or, sadly I am sure I will hear this despite it being a non-answer, is it somebody else's fault? Last ten years? The Progressives have been playing defense the last ten years, so there has not been a lot of, ummm, progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 The progress they see is the progress in getting more peple relying on the government, either for a job or handouts. Oooh, Wacka strikes again with another awesome soundbite attack. Why don't you call Rush and see if he approves of this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I think naturally we should progress toward individual rights and away from a more powerful authority...I also agree with his movement toward preservation and a vigilant environmentalism as a policy of our government. Who is going to enforce this "vigilant environmentalism" if not a powerful authority? IMO people use the term "progressive" because over the last few decades, conservatives have very successfully campaigned to make the word "liberal" into a negative connotation, and now when people hear the word they think something other than it means or was intended to mean or represent. In fairness, though, contemporary American "conservatives" (the Reagan/Goldwater sect, anyway) are largely neoclassical liberals who had the descriptor "liberal" hijacked from them by social welfare liberals (FDR et al.). It seems, then, that neoclassical liberals are, by dirtying the word "liberal," trying to get back at social welfare liberals for stealing their ideological label. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 We haven't made enough progress because rich people bad. --MoslonGoldfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Who is going to enforce this "vigilant environmentalism" if not a powerful authority?In fairness, though, contemporary American "conservatives" (the Reagan/Goldwater sect, anyway) are largely neoclassical liberals who had the descriptor "liberal" hijacked from them by social welfare liberals (FDR et al.). It seems, then, that neoclassical liberals are, by dirtying the word "liberal," trying to get back at social welfare liberals for stealing their ideological label. Reagan and Goldwater had something stolen from them by FDR. That's novel. And contemporary American conservatives have sold out the neoclassical liberal wing by pandering to a religious right that is only mildly vested in their interests but commands voters. It's not a natural alliance. Re: Who will enforce "this vigilant environmentalism"? Yes, a powerful authority, but one given power by people and held in check and guided by the rights of people, namely, the right to clean water, air, etc, and not the rights of entities that believe their interests trump the rights of every citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 It seems, then, that neoclassical liberals are, by dirtying the word "liberal," trying to get back at social welfare liberals for stealing their ideological label. I highly doubt that, if only because George W. Bush qualifies as a "neoclassical liberal", and I doubt he'd even know what that sentence means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I thought it had something to do with soup. Oh wait, that's Progresso. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I thought it had something to do with soup. Oh wait, that's Progresso. No, progresso is one of those little shots of really strong coffee... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 Or, sadly I am sure I will hear this despite it being a non-answer, is it somebody else's fault? Last ten years? The Progressives have been playing defense the last ten years, so there has not been a lot of, ummm, progress. , what else is there to say? I honestly believed that this little hook would go by the wayside. Nope, looks like it caught it's intended target. I don't know what is worse Molson, that you are are that gullible, or that the people who have obviously brainwashed you are that sinister. I did not do this to harm you. I don't do that kind of thing. Rather, I simply wanted to point something out to you: you are in serious trouble in the "thinking for yourself" department. So much so that you can't even see an obvious setup coming. Dude - you have to open up your mind to ALL the info you can get your hands on and START THINKING for yourself. Otherwise, you are gonna spend the rest of your life getting played as easily as I have here, and with much worse consequences than simply looking silly for a few days. Of course you can choose to interpret this differently and call me names again, but that would make you look even more silly now, wouldn't it? All I ask is that you think about it. As far as response to the others here: progressive is a word. WORDS MEAN THINGS. And yes, the meaning of words can be found in lots of places, including the dictionary. If a word does not accurately represent what you are/think, why the hell do you use it to describe yourself? More importantly, isn't it true that the reason people of a certain mindset chose to use the word "progressive" is because of what it means? Specifically, to improve? Isn't it also true that the reason they chose this word is so that they could represent their mindset to others as one of "improvement"; thereby superior to "staying the same". If these things are true, then why do they not judge the results of their policies in terms of real improvement? I think it would be a great idea to be a "true progressive" - meaning that every policy I supported would have to include measurable performance indicators and the minute that the policy either satisfied either: 1. resolution of the existing issues, or, 2. proved that it could not satisfy them, it would be discontinued. Things like traffic guards are a perfect example. Every day there is a problem: kids need to get to school safely. Every day we solve that problem by paying someone to make sure that happens. Fine. Here's what's not fine: Medicaid was established to pay for kids and poor people - not bums, but people who got hurt at work, etc. - and now 93% of it pays for the elderly(read: we need new things, and NEW TAXES, to pay for kids and the poor). FDR had no plan for this - none at all. They never did the actuarial studies to see what would happen to this "progressive" policy if a spike in population occurred. WHY? Because Medicaid was designed to solve the IMMEDIATE problems that were in our face as a result of the Great Depression. So, once the Great Depression was over, why didn't Medicaid go away? Simple, because "phony progressive" politicians saw it as an opportunity to make a living handing out free schit in trade for votes. Now please tell me, HOW IS THAT DEFINED AS PROGRESS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I think if you are going to look at the antecedents of progressivism, it is probably best to start with Robert Lafollette rather than FDR and social programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Reagan and Goldwater had something stolen from them by FDR. That's novel. Not Reagan and Goldwater specifically, mind you. I simply used those two names because they were the last notables of the mainstream tradition. You'd have to delve into the obscurity of the Libertarian party to find a true neoclassical liberal these days. And contemporary American conservatives have sold out the neoclassical liberal wing by pandering to a religious right that is only mildly vested in their interests but commands voters. It's not a natural alliance. No argument here. It's why I voted a predominantly third party ticket in '06. Re: Who will enforce "this vigilant environmentalism"? Yes, a powerful authority, but one...held in check... One would hope so. But power has a way of escaping check, doesn't it? In any event, environmentalism has already been co-opted by the anti-corporate left as a means of crippling industry. I'm not sure there's any turning back to what it was meant to be. ...George W. Bush qualifies as a "neoclassical liberal"... I'm not so sure about that. I think I might classify him more as a Christian socialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts