posted
So first it was COMMUNIST. (actually it was probably something else before that, but I don't know it.) And Communist got a bad meaning attached to it so they switched to...
SOCIALIST. Much the same with subtle differences that don't ammount to much and you'd be hard pressed to find someone to come up with anything significant. But that eventually got a stigma attached to it to so then we had...
LIBERAL. This used to have a fine and noble meaning, but once again it got corrupted by what people MEANT by it, so now we have...
PROGRESSIVE. This sounds nice, I mean, they're for Progress right? No, it really means Incrementalist. Move the country toward what they want one step at a time. But fear not. Sooner or later, as people always do, they'll figure out that Progressive is just all the previous names they've given it and the progressives will move on to another term.
posted
Could be right, Book. Point is, they're always changing what they call themselves as soon as the word takes on the stigma of what they mean by it.
posted
I never really understood what progressive meant. It seems like quite the buzzword. To me, it seems to mean, "I am in favor of progress," which would probably border on retarded.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why doe people have such contempt for the so-called left? Some of their philosophies make sense...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, everyone who defines him or herself as a progressive is only doing it because it's a fad. Uh huh.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
unregulated corporate monopolies or unregulated government monopolies... one side or the other. can't we find something in between.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, progressives came before liberals. Pixiest, I think you're spouting a bit too much venom.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:unregulated corporate monopolies or unregulated government monopolies
i don't really see any difference between the two.
so this country was created based on some pretty lofty ideals; equality and liberty and the rule of law and all that. only problem is that it has yet to live up to those ideals (perhaps never will). so we have two choices: abandon those ideals or work towards achieving them. i don't think anyone will honestly argue that we should attempt to undo the civil rights movement, or women's suffrage, or the new deal (although some people might argue this one), or the emancipation proclamation, or the extension of voting rights to non-landholding white males. we look back now on these steps towards what we consider "america" and take them for granted as something intrinsic to the nature of our country, but at the time, the people advocating these changes were considered radicals, liberals, progressives, socialists, whatever. There were no "good old days" which we need to get back to, the history of this country is one of slow evolution towards something better, the majority of the population usually kicking and screaming against any changes. Nothing's really changed, just the particular issues.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The progressive label was in vogue at the turn of the 20th century and I don't see it going out of vogue anytime soon.
quote: "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." - GKC, 4/19/24
posted
"Point is, they're always changing what they call themselves as soon as the word takes on the stigma of what they mean by it."
Pixiest, this is more than a little disingenuous of you, as you're perfectly well aware of the fact that conservatives have been working hard to associate liberalism with communism -- and nazism, generic evil, etc. -- for years, and have begun to do the same to the word "progressive."
It has nothing to do with how liberals -- or progressives -- actually ACT; it has everything to do with conservative propaganda designed to turn the label into a curse word.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you do not like what they are doing with the language, then do unto them as they have done unto us. (By us I mean anyone who does not support theft by taxation.) Call yourself a Progressive, emphasizing the personal freedom aspects of libertarianism/anarchism. Soften up the economic liberation aspects of the platform until the word has taken on a newer meaning. Remember, everything is progress to someone.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For what it's worth, I've been a "lefty" for at least 35 years - so much for fads.
Never cared much for the "liberal" label, but for reasons better laid out by Phil Ochs in "Love Me, I'm a Liberal."
quote:I vote for the democtratic party They want the U.N. to be strong I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts He sure gets me singing those songs I'll send all the money you ask for But don't ask me to come on along So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
Communism was never something I could identify with - socialism, either, for that matter. Aside from the dismal way communism generally worked out in the real world, ideological recipes don't seem to be real useful in that same real world.
"Progressive" is an older term than you might think - and it's pretty meaningless. It's a label that has encompassed, among other things, the eugenics movement in the early 1900s. It's encompassed some other things too - like universal suffrage. But there's no real consistency in just what the heck it ends up meaning.
So I'm a lefty - identifying with the self-interests of those not doing so well in this society. I figure that those of us on that end of the spectrum have every bit as much right to advocate for policy in our perceived self-interest as insurance companies, multinational corporations and other deep pockets. Because you all know, I hope, that corporate dollars spent on policy advocacy aren't formulated on what's good for the country - but what's good for the stockholder.
Anyway, Pixiest, not sure where you're aiming here. Lots of people drift with the political tides - to both sides of the spectrum. Some of us have been pretty stable politically for decades.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that there was this political party in about 1900 that was running on a platform of social change. They wanted a five day work week, public schools with a free education, national parks, and several other currently recognized civil rights. The party that advocated these radical, unheard of ideas was the American Socialist Party. Isn't it funny that everything they stood for 100 years ago is now considered a traditional American value?
Posts: 279 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
And did those feet in ancient time Walk upon England's mountain green? And was the holy Lamb of God On England's pleasant pastures seen? And did the countenance divine Shine forth upon our clouded hills? And was Jerusalem builded here Among those dark satanic mills?
Bring me my bow of burning gold! Bring me my arrows of desire! Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold! Bring me my chariot of fire! I will not cease from mental fight, Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand, Till we have built Jerusalem In England's green and pleasant land.
Words by William Blake (1757-1827)
The Red Flag [1889]
The people's flag is deepest red It shrouded oft our martyred dead And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold Their hearts' blood dyed to every fold
Chorus: Then raise the scarlet standard high Beneath its folds we'll live and die Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
It waved above our infant might When all ahead seemed dark as night It witnessed many a deed and vow We must not change its colour now
Chorus
It well recalls the triumphs past It gives the hope of peace at last The banner bright, the symbol plain Of human right and human gain
Chorus
It suits today the meek and base Whose minds are fixed on pelf and place To cringe beneath the rich man's frown And haul that sacred emblem down
Chorus
With heads uncovered swear we all To bare it onward till we fall Come dungeons dark or gallows grim This song shall be our parting hymn
Then raise the scarlet standard high Beneath its folds we'll live and die Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer We'll keep the red flag flying here
Words: Jim Connell Music: "The White Cockade"
I Dreamed I Saw Phil Ochs Last Night
[1989]
I dreamed I saw Phil Ochs last night Alive as you and me Says I to Phil "You're ten years dead" "I never died" says he "I never died" says he
The music business killed you Phil They ignored the things you said And cast you out when fashions changed Says Phil "But I ain't dead" Says Phil "But I ain't dead"
The FBI harassed you Phil They smeared you with their lies Says he "But they could never kill What they could not compromise I never compromised"
"Though fashion's changed and critics sneered The songs that I have sung Are just as true tonight as then The struggle carries on The struggle carries on"
When the song of freedom rings out loud From valleys and from hills Where people stand up for their rights Phil Ochs is with us still Phil Ochs inspires us still
The trouble is, it isn't really accurate. Ochs died by his own hand - or rope, more accurately. And while his life did have a tendency to dump on him, his friends and family all agreed that it was his inability to deal successfully with alcholism and accompanying depression that really did him in.
There are martyrs in this world. Ochs wasn't one of them.
Which doesn't have anything to do with the quality of his music or the causes he tended to front for - mostly, they were my causes too.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
IF we want to go by "classic" definitions -- America's "conservatives" are actually "liberal." And the "liberals" are actually the classic "radical."
Labels, labels, labels -- whose got the labels?
I don't really care about the labels anymore. I am labeled a "conservative" though my leanings are actually far more "libertarian." I don't really care for either of the 2 "big parties" but the Republicans mesh with my views more often than the Democrats, so I am a registered Republican. This seems to have automatically earned me the "conservative" label.
Oh well. Talk to me on an individual basis -- then tell me what you think. Don't paint with a broad brush.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the contrary, America's liberals are conservative.
American conservatives are retrogressive: working for a return of poisonous rivers&lakes, nylon-melting smog, species extinction, clear-cutting of public forests, sales of public lands and resourses to the favored few for pennies on the dollar, sales of monopolies on government-funded research for pennies on the dollar, bacteria-laden meat and produce, government-backed breakups of cooperatives and unions, the 100hour workweek, sick&starving elderly and children, forced childbearing, indentured servitude and slavery, JimCrow under "states rights", illiteracy in the general citizenry, return of a permanent aristocracy, limiting of the right to travel freely and voting rights to only those deemed to be socially/politically correct, etc ad nauseum.
quote:American conservatives are retrogressive: working for a return of poisonous rivers&lakes, nylon-melting smog, species extinction, clear-cutting of public forests, sales of public lands and resourses to the favored few for pennies on the dollar, sales of monopolies on government-funded research for pennies on the dollar, bacteria-laden meat and produce, breakup of cooperatives and unions, the 100hour workweek, sick&starving elderly and children, forced childbearing, indentured servitude and slavery, JimCrow under "states rights", illiteracy in the general citizenry, return of a permanent aristocracy, limiting of the right to travel freely and voting rights to only those deemed to be socially/politically correct, etc ad nauseum.
posted
No - deliberate mischaracterizations by a paranoid delusional hate-monger do. I've overlooked your "conservatives are incompetents" tripe before. But this one is too much.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Just want to say that Dag's not the only one who finds the content of your message more than a little manure-laden. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's posted before that conservatives are incompetents seeking to game the system to keep their children from having to work. He's also posted numerous posts with the same sentiment as the one in question here, just not quite as blatantly odious.
In short, his history shows no particular reason why he wasn't intending to be taken seriously.
posted
I missed the part of this thread where you defended liberals from the Pixiest, Dag. Where was that, again?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I know he's posted like that before. I just didn't imagine he thought it was credible. This is Hatrack. He does read. He couldn't be serious?
posted
BtL, there were numerous people opposing pixiest in a fairly even-handed discussion, including Tom. Frankly, I found the discussion fairly ludicrous from the get-go, but had nothing new to add to it. From experience, I know aspectre's asinine comments usually go unrefuted. Plus, no one had responded to it when I read the thread.
I've spent entire threads chastizing the people on my side of an issue. I've never painted myself as impartial - I've been very partisan (as in choosing sides, not politcal parties) on almost every issue of significance on this board. I have tried to be fair, and call people on it when they're not.
Dagonee Kat: Lot's of people have made generalized comments in a joking manner, including Tom and myself. We usually use a smiley. If we don't, and it's misinterpreted, we usually clear up the misinterpretation. He did neither, nor has he ever, even when I've called him on inaccuracies before.
In other words, he's either goofing off or else nothing you could say would go through anyway. But if it makes you happy, don't let me stop the tilting. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre's posts go mostly ignored because they tend to be so extremist. Sometimes he's like the background noise that sort of gives this place some of its charm. And he's hardly alone on that count.
I'm pretty confident when I say that you're much more likely to defend the conservative point of view than the liberal. Though, as you say, that may well be because many of the more outspoken members of the board are currently liberal. As for your impartiality, you do (I believe) tend to present your opinions as being "above the fray", so to speak. I say that because I can count on you to correct someone's language and get into issues word choice, but frequently I don't know where you stand by the end of the conversation. That might just be me reading too much into things. But hey, you're more than welcome to E-mail me about it.
Anyway, my real reason for replying before Tom was that I don't feel like reading that particular argument and so tried to head it off at the pass Selfish and arrogant of me? Guilty as charged.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be the first to admit that on many issues I'm much more likely to take the more typically conservative position - abortion, taxes, gun control, crime, affirmative action, smaller government, the list goes on. Issues where I take the "liberal" position are usually based on a more typically "conservative" principle. Gay marriage is the perfect example, where I come from a weird states rights/civil marriage is already removed from any traditional concept of marriage.
Also, I certainly have nothing against people taking sides in an issue. What I HATE is people demonizing others. In the infamous Good...OSC thread, almost all the demonizing was going one way (of course, the article that started it demonized in the other direction). It's why I don't post at Ornery - what's the point?
I guess I hold an ideal of Hatrack that discussions can actually change the participant's minds sometimes. And that can't happen if each side doesn't understand the other. So I do spend a lot of time explaining the underlying principles behind a lot of people's views, especially in cases where the difference of opinion is really about differing views of a worldview principle that is 4 steps removed form the discussion and that most people don't realize is even in play.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Selfish and arrogant of me? Guilty as charged.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
