Agnostic.com

27 2

Do you think there is a difference between liberal and progressive?

Marine 8 Apr 15
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

27 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

7

I have absolutely no idea what a liberal or a progressive is and I could give a "Fuck" less what others try and define. Libertard, teapartier, Right Wing Conservative,RHINO, Socialist, Christian Coalitionists and try and figure that definition as well as they represent. Your talking Fox New, Rush Limbaugh (Scumbag) in case I mispelled his name, who harp on anything and everything that is meant to lead those who cannot read of discern written facts. One must only know how to discern "Fact from Fiction" and for the most part the Christian Coalition of Pat Roberts, Jimmy Swaggert, and Joel Olsteen are the biggest criminal empires allowed to program this "TAX FREE" without any rebuttal or contests for Fraudulent statements which they propose on a daily basis.

Good for you

7

Yes. All progressives are liberal, but not all liberals are progressive.

Actually NONE of the "progressives" are liberal. They are absolutely closed-minded. The so called liberals are also far from liberal. The difference is that there are some true liberals out there, but none among the progressive

All progressives are liberal. They are very liberal.....@norealgod

@norealgod Some progressives are closed minded but hold and push for a specific progressive liberal agenda. They are still liberal.

I disagree completely ,I am a progressive person and want to use change to promote a better life for everyone. I feel that there are basic things we as people should enjoy like a fair wage, freedom from worry that medical problems will prevent a nice life, education, food and shelter. These are not asking for the moon but they are being denied by the super wealthy using foundations to generate super wealth that they will never be able to spend.

4

The problem with "Liberal" and "Progressive" is that human beingings do not fix exactly into any mold. As an example, I voted for Hillary despite that fact that I am an European Style Socilist in the manner of Burnie Sanders (only more extream). Howver, Burnie not running, I had to vote for the lesssor of the the two evils and the one closest to my posistion...and then she was not all that near. Many people are like that...in that they identify with the faction that is NEAREST to them albeit not a real good fit. It would be a big mistake to consider me a Liberal or Progesssive...I am a died in the wool sociolst who think Dems are generally too damned stupid to realize that the Republicans are the new Nazis.

4

What does it matter? These labels are interchangeable. From Dictionary.com:

Progressive:

  1. Favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.

  2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.

Liberal:

1.favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2.(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

4

I think we are in a post label environment. These terms, these characterisations, don't mean anything anymore - primarily because they are processed by the 24 second news cycle which is the internet. Oh, sure, the news industry uses these terms - you like guns, you're conservative; I don't like guns, I'm a liberal - etc etc etc until eternity. It's not just shorthand, it's misleading. I refuse to use these labels these days because they are empty.

So, to answer your question - I don't know the difference between liberal and progressive because that distinction is so blurred it is beyond recognition.

4

i fail to see how one could be liberal in their thinking and not be progressive also.The whole basis of liberal to me means new and different ideas to approach the problems we face. The republicans do not wish to rock the boat because it means spending money, being regulated and held responsible for the outcome.The dems have their problems and are no saints but they are all we have to work with. The Obama's were a great lift on politics. It is sad the republicans sabotaged his administration . We must make sure that the next dem has a better chance to save our government from the pall the republicans have levied upon us.

3

A true liberal is naturally progressive. The definition from Brtianica - "Liberalism is a political view based on liberty and equality. Liberals generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets." For these beleifs to be realized progressivism is necessary, especailly in the face of conservative politics which fundametally resists these beliefs in favor of authority.

jeffy Level 7 Apr 15, 2018

@Beach_slim I suppose you are an authority on this?

I believe you are right on the same page as myself. At least this is what I thought I was.I am for contriolled spending ( I do not wish to throw money around) but I also feel for the people that are not so lucky/ The super wealthy do not earn the money by their own effort rather by the work of the many and I believe that the workers have a right to share in the fortunes of their efforts. Asking for a wage to permit a home ,family education and health is not being unrealistic.. Hello jeffy

3

It depends on what part of the world you come from. Seriously. Politically I'm a very liberal person. I beleive in Democracy for all and equality of all. I cannot buy Trump and his "fake news" for a minute. He's a conman and a liar.
On the other hand I am personally conservative. My car is 14 years old but in excellent shape. I have low overhead and fix everything all the time if need be. I'm watching my money because if I gave it to you I would not have any. If you need $20 go to your momma, not me. I'm not the man to come to if you need a "small loan." I've also been flat broke before and have been around the block a few times. There's not a con that I don't know.
Should we do immigration and let in more people allowing them a chance at the American dream? Certainly. This is how America was made. We are the great melting pot.

Same here. I'm fiscally conservative and socially progressive. Freedom has to be for everyone not just those who want to be like me. I want everyone to pay their fair share, no loopholes or negative tax rates for the richest companies. Immigrants made this country what it is, a chance for all to succeed.

You are not conservative only wise. To be a liberal does not mean to give everything away and I am positive if you saw a man in the street starving you would aid him.

3

Unfortunately Yes. Progressives are more liberal. And Liberals have refused to support a far left candidate (Sanders) even if they know it would be good for America. Sad.

I feel Bernie is to far left to be realistic. Many of his tdeas are great but some go to far and this will prevent him from being elected to anything.

Marine, I would go so far as to say that what Bernie has done is shifted the overton window. It is now acceptable to use the term democratic socialism and have the progressive wing of the democratic party not only accept it but embrace it. Bernie is the most popular politician in America by far. We are in the midst of seeing exactly what can happen when the anti government party is in charge of government. This will swing the pendulum pretty far to the left. It is conceivable that we get Medicare for all along with tuition free college after the next presidential election cycle.

3

Well, progressive seems to be more work!

2

In my mind, in the U.S., a

Liberal is someone who believes in open-minded approaches to different situations. (Gay marriage? Sure.) They may not be interested in seeking out solutions to problems, and especially not in finding problems to solve. While they are generally good people, this tends to manifest as attention to superficial details of issues (Trump and Stormy, OMG!) rather than digging into the systemic problem (Trump elected in spite of popular vote)

Progessive is someone who actively seeks social progress and betterment. These are the people who dig into issues to find the route cause (if they can), and are willing to tackle major systemic issues even if that necessitates major change (global warming is bad, lets revolutionize the energy industry!). Progressives tend to alienate people who move more slowly, especially conservatives, but sometimes liberals as well.

The two are not mutually exclusive, either. I would fall into both categories on most issues.

2

Why do we need to apply convenient labels to everything when one size does not fit all?

you said it, convenience and easier to categorie people.

2

So here is my thought. I am scially extremely liberal. However, that liberalism is tempered by governmental fiscal conservativism. I am scared by the fact that very soon the federal budget will approach 100% of GDP. We must get of spending under control and everything needs to be under review but first and foremost is our military budget. It is insane. I'm a veteran and agree we need a strong military but we are buying tanks that the Army does not want just because they are made in a congressman's district. It has to stop. There are thousands more examples.

Agree

As a former military contractor I think the federal budget for defense is criminal. You use that budget for social programs and the benefits will cut into the need for so many weapons. Conservatives hate the label "social programs" because that is money that will not go into their pockets. The US is declining as a super power and weapons is one thing that keeps the US as a super power. The power to kill every person several times. It is insane.

2

As long as it is left of Republicans and right of communism, l am pretty much OK with anything.

Sounds good to me

2

Outside the USA they are 2 distinct terms. One can be a liberal conservative as was Edmund Burke.
Free market capitalism is a liberal idea but one that progressives would like to see at least restrained and regulated. This is why Regan's Voodoo economics is named Neo-Liberalism. It's a revival of liberal economic ideas that first failed around the time the Dutch Tulip Bubble burst.
Unfortunately Conservatism has been hijacked by radical reactionary populist nativists. This is doubleplus ungood. We need a solid conservative (in the Burkean mold) presence in our gonvernments just as we need a strong, vocal progressive presence.
Equally unfortunate is the progressive side bowing to the Neo-liberal economic crap that has infested (by design) our various nations. Thatcher was quite explicit about using that system to reduce and subvert progressive policy.

2

Yes the spelling

2

Yes. I was liberal until I realized they didn't plan on doing anything about anything.

2

Modern liberalism, no. Classic liberalism, yes. Classic liberals are all about individual freedom, such as those acknowledged in the Bill of Rights, and also advocate limited government. Modern liberals, not so much. Many modern liberals advocate "democratic socialism," which limits freedom, requires an invasive government, and is more akin to progressive ideals.

Then I'm for progressive ideals.

Right On! Bulls Eye

@norealgod Isn't it amazing how the human brain can interpret things so differently and of course EVERYONE thinks they are right.

1

I am not a conservative, period. Does that make me a "liberal" by default? I consider myself a progressive. That being said, I do not agree with many liberals and conservatives on many issues so I do not know which is my category. That is to me one of the reasons I hate about labels. One thing I know for sure and I am open to it and that is that I am not a christian and do not believe in a being that is observing me from the clouds passing judgement on what I do, otherwise known as God.

1

As I understand it:

Liberalism- the position of less government involvement in people's personal lives. This is why liberals tend to be pro-choice, promote lgbt rights, are tollerant of immigrants, are in favor of decriminalizing recreational drugs, etc.

Progressive- the position of trying to modernize the nation, and reform it's systems to better suit the current age. As opposed to traditionalism.

The two often go hand in hand, but could technically be separate.

1

I had looked up something the other day and it was talking about society being controlled by the government and referred to it as a liberal stance. Think that less government control and abolishing the control senate and congress has would be more of a progressive society. The presidency eliminated and a council to replace that office representing all political ideas. To reexamine all the laws and to make the constitutions into a more modern document.

That European and other countries version of multiple parties would never work in the US. People would equate it with communism as they did with Sanders.

The only people associating Bernie Sanders with communism was Fox news and the far right wing. They think that universal health care is communist. If that's the case then every other developed nation on the planet is communist. Millenials are more comfortable with the word socialism than the word capitalism. It goes to show how aware they are of how bad the system screws them.

@goamerica76 I think nationalized health care could work not just not at the expense of comprising medical breakthrough in research. I have talked to many others from lots of other countries all of them to date say nationalize health care sucks mostly because of the wait for treatment. The doctors that I have asked about said they do not like it because of the increase of paperwork. There is an answer to make it work it just has not been touched upon as of yet.

I think this is a popular misconception about nationalized healthcare in countries outside the United States. Obviously a majority in all those countries support their healthcare systems or they would change it. There will be anecdotes that support differing medical systems, but overall not one country that went universal coverage ever came back and said no we need to have private for profit industry in charge of healthcare for all of our citizens. The U.K. has been consistently seen as the top healthcare provider in Western Civilization. Do they have problems? Of course, until we can figure out how to get everyone medical care immediately and for free there will be problems. The problem is that our current system fails people either through bankruptcy or through straight up dying due to not having "medical coverage". And 80% of medical bankruptcies happen to people that are insured. I would love to hear an alternative that you think would work better than Medicare for All.

You are not a liberal rather you are a libertarian and they are scary.Nothing but a government can meet the needs of a society. There must be an entity to build roads,hospitals,schools,airports and laws and regulations that this entity works by. This same entity provides for security of the Nation and for it's people law and order.

@goamerica76 You are correct about the current Medicare it is most likely the best universal health care system On the planet. Unfortunately the permeates are narrow for coverage. These other countries do not change simply because they are in fear of altering their economies. They use the gas tax to pay for their health care some countries it is super high. I have never once as of so far had one person from foreign county brag about how good their health care is. On the converse they have said America has the best health care.

@azzow2 I have never heard the average European citizen talk about American healthcare as superior. They have healthcare systems in which everyone gets care and no one is saddled with unpayable debt because they got cancer. On the contrary, most Europeans find it ridiculous that people will lose their homes because they can't afford medical payments. They find it unconscionable that we would turn people away from medical treatments because they lost their job or don't have the right insurance. I would not use a gas tax to fund universal healthcare. Much better to use a higher capital gains tax to fund healthcare for the poor and middle classes. We are the richest country on the planet and yet 40 million people are on food stamps because minimum wage is below poverty. That's why the argument that the poor and those on welfare should just "get a job". Sure if they could get a job paying $20 an hour with great benefits then they would. It's not a laziness problem but rather one of tilting the economic game in favor of the wealthy.

@azzow2

@goamerica76 [spiegel.de]

@azzow2 I never doubted that the Germans fund their healthcare through a gas tax. I was saying that I would rather see a capital gains tax increase to help offset the cost of universal health care here in the United States.

@goamerica76 I see was uncertian. Have to consider commerce offset has been damaged very badly by NAFTA and its offshoots.

1

I like to call myself a Progressive. I'm for Progress in getting Gov't to work for the common man ...the poor and middle class working people. The Republicans and the Liberals appear to have sold themselves into working for the interests of the rich and connected.

1

I think liberal and progressive go hand in hand. A conservative and progressive are a contradiction in terms.

@Beach_slim The "rich" do not work in the sense of having a job and getting a pay check. \they make money off capital gains which is taxed at a much lower rate than people declaring their taxable income off their paychecks. The rich are rich because of that for the most part.

1

I find this interesting as a student of such things and a European (for now..any Irish ladies quite welcome to drag me off and marry me for love and the green passport).
For us, the Democrats are right wing with the Republicans being extreme right wing bordering on Fascist.
Where is the Socialist side of America? Don't confuse Socialism with Communism, though I'm sure users of this site wouldn't.

I don't understand 'far too left'. It must be noted that the rich - bourgeoisie steal from the proletariat. Some would say that that is the natural way of things. Effectively treating the masses like mushrooms - keep them in the dark and feed them shit.

1

No, not really.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:58487
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.