from webster's online: Progressive
Adjective
1. Favoring or promoting progress; "progressive schools".
2. Favoring or promoting reform (often by government action).
3. (of taxes) adjusted so that the rate increases as the amount increases.
4. Gradually advancing in extent.
5. Advancing in severity; "progressive paralysis".
Noun
1. A tense of verbs used in describing action that is on-going.
2. A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties.
progressive party 1912 "bull moose"- The platform called for women's suffrage, recall of judicial decisions, easier amendment of the U.S. Constitution, social welfare legislation for women and children, workers' compensation, limited injunctions in strikes, farm relief, revision of banking to assure an elastic currency, required health insurance in industry, new inheritance taxes and income taxes, improvement of inland waterways, and limitation of naval armaments. Roosevelt's philosophy for the Progressive Party was based around New Nationalism, which was the belief in a strong government to regulate industry and protect the middle and working classes. New Nationalism was paternalistic in direct contrast to Woodrow Wilson's individualistic philosophy of "New Freedom."
progressive party 1924 was a national ticket created by Robert M. La Follette, Sr. to run for president in the 1924 election. It did not nominate candidates for other offices, carried only Wisconsin, and vanished after the election. In 1924 the party called for public ownership of railroads, and other leftist causes. The party prepresented a farmer/labor coalition and was endorsed by the Socialist Party of America, the American Federation of Labor and many railroad labor groups. In 1946 the party was gone.
progressive party 1948 This incarnation of the Progressive Party (known in some states as the Independent Progressive Party) was formed with an eye toward electing Wallace as president. It had no connection with the 1912 Progressive Party of Theodore Roosevelt or the 1924 Progressive Party of Robert M. La Follette, Sr. The Wallace/Taylor ticket was also supported by several other small parties, such as the American Labor Party (ALP) of New York. in 1948, the anti-war Progressive Party apparently supported the establishment of the state of Israel and its recognition by the U.S. government, as a means of reducing British imperialist influence in the Middle East. The Progressive Party disbanded in 1955, as the Cold War began to dominate the political spectrum in the United States, and any party which had not taken a stridently anti-Communist position was deemed to be unviable.
so- i guess it is up to us to decide what a 'progressive 'party is. could be left- could be right. it has been both. let's make our own way in the 21st century.
14 comments:
Yeah, I try to avoid a lot of the labels and concentrate on what the hell has gone wrong and how it, if it can, be fixed or at least repaired a little.
Guess we could call the gee Oh PEE a progressive party if one prefers dead ends and blind allies or progressing toward doom. I subscribe to the Progressive Democrats, reading their newsletter. I think they are for leaving the old school Dems behind and moving on. Who knows? Well researched post, Betmo.
If you were to ask me, which you are not, I would say that there are currently two versions of progressives in American politics.
Both reside left of center in the political model used most commonly to define liberal versus conservative ideologies.
I think the first type of progressive is the Progressive-Compassionate:
-Views the world in varying shades of grey, attempts to use well rounded judgment with a heavy dose of compassion to form opinions on a subject. Traditionally supports charitable works, reasonable civil liberties protection, nationalistic protections, and domestic agendas that centralize on improving the whole of American society.
The second type is the Progressive-Radical:
-Views the world in stark black and white, but frequently changes the line of determination for convenience, and uses an “anything but them” mentality to form opinions on a subject. Traditionally supports a Socialistic model based on Marxist views of “fairness” that typically condemn capitalism and wealth accumulation of any kind. Predominantly believes that the solution to any/all social contentions should be resolved by a large oligarchy style government and works towards a global commune of equality.
I think that you often find these two intermingled, but that the former often times hides its true intentions for fear of losing support of the Compassionate. I think that the Radical is driving the current left movement via Media and headline control. I think that the Radical is destroying the chances the Compassionate has of actually affecting any type of reform on American society.
I think the Compassionate is what is more considered the “moderate” and “average” American citizen, and is only slightly different from the “moderate” or “average” conservative.
Betmo, off topic, but you have to see the current exchange over at spooky pete's between Kira and me. What is it about neoconservatives that simply cannot accept that other people have another point of view than theirs, so they need to insult us rather than debate?
how about the regressive party? we give the government back to the people and away from the PACs and fringe groups?
diva- give her a run for her money. she acts like a queen bee know-it-all because she fancies herself a freelance journalist. i don't know enough about the ins and outs of middle eastern politics to take her on- but you go girl!
g- why wouldn't i ask you? you have an opinion that is hopefully based on facts or an accumulation of facts. i certainly didn't do the topic justice- it was a spur of the moment thought before morning coffee. i just thought that is was interesting that today's leftist progressive party shares it's name and perhaps a few ideologies with an offshoot of the repub party.
i, myself, find much in all parties that i agree and disagree with- and although i do lean left- i really feel most comfortable independent. if the libertarians didn't lean to the right- perhaps i would subscribe more to them.
How about we just stop running away from a perfectly good label - if we have to have one - and call ourselves what we are (if this is what we are).
Repeat after me, class: LIB-ER-AL.
I'm not ashamed of it, and neither should anybody else be.
qd- true, very true. i don't happen to be one though. i agree that there is nothing to be ashamed of for being a liberal. many of the freedoms we enjoy today came from the liberal side of things.
charlie- yes. i have been thinking about this a bit- after having had my morning coffee- and it strikes me that there is a fine line between progression and regression. not that they are alike- but that there isn't much middle ground. we have a world that is either moving forward quickly throught technology and the like- and another world that is still in the middle ages with no running water or spotty electricity, etc. even in america- and i would guess the rest of the western world- there is a nostalgia for the past and a resistance to change. there has to be a way to strike a balance and guerillas in the midst is asking some damned fine questions about violence that run along in a similar vein. there are no easy answers but we have to start asking some hard questions.
On topic, why do we need to attach labels to it anyway? Most of the labels become meaningless over time, as witnessed by the history of Progressive movement anyway. I'm primarily liberal, but there are certain areas where I am more centerist.
And Betmo, back to that other thing, I am not going to respond to her again - she gets to have the last word. Life is far to short for me to get into a cat fight with an Ann Coulter wanna-be.
To expect one political philosophy to have all the answers to our governmental or social problems, is nuts.
We must get away from choosing one party platform over another and expect that one philosophy to solve a multitude of problems.
The art of compromise is dead in our national politics, and that is hurting our chances to solve problems.
Until we have leaders strong enough to look outside of their own parties philosophy for answers to our problems; the country will continue to suffer.
The egotistical, elite personalities usually attracted to politics, are incapeable of being open minded enough to reach political compromise.
Forget about progressive in terms of political philosophy, and define it as moving the country foward together, to meet our needs of the future.
here! here! time. the voice of reason. i completely agree. apparently, it is more fun to do it this way though. if people didn't enjoy being selfish, greedy, power hungry and argumentative- we wouldn't be in this fix.
divajood- that's why i don't bother to comment on spooky's blog. it isn't worth being treated as though one is dirt simply because one doesn't adhere to the she-wolf's rhetoric. there is no debate there- it is straight put down from the get-go. it's too bad because pete is fair minded and open to comments.
I'll continue to post over at Pete's but ignore the troll -- she looks like Ann Coulter.
This is so beautiful and I practiced progressive activism this weekend, and networking with other progressives at DemocracyFest.
I so hate what Israel is doing right now..peace has to have a chance or we are all going to meet our maker sooner than we think.
Post a Comment