There have been many posts on this forum that denigrate the word "Progressive" and make it seem like it is a terrible thing to be called a progressive.

It means "going forward". Don't you want to be associated with a word that means going forward? I know I do.

The opposite of progressive is "retrograde". That means, "Tending or moving backward; having a backward course; contrary; as, a retrograde motion; opposed to progressive."

Personally, I would not want to be associated with a movement (political party or whatever) that wants to move backward or has a backward course. I would rather be involved with a political party that wants to move forward.

progressive is no more offensive than let's say...republican (and all the derogatory derivations used on the forum) or the word democrat or liberal or conservative (and many more).....they are all political intended words that mean no more than creating a cubicle or pigeon hole categorization solely for the intent of and interpretation of or opinion of the person that uses the word to give themselves comfort in their beliefs......as we all know right or wrong or accuracy is of no consequence in the political realm....

btk

Both the terms "liberal" and "progressive" have been changed away from their original meanings that varied by historical eras and western nations. In my estimation, when I hear these terms in today's U.S. society, these terms have been shifted toward another meaning that promotes micromanaging control by government into the individual citizen's freedom and rights to livelihood and rights to private property/money ownership. In other words, bigger, more meddling government that begs for more Big Brother in our lives.


"Classical liberals, who broadly emphasized the importance of free markets and civil liberties, dominated liberal history for a century after the French Revolution.

The onset of World War I and the Great Depression, however, accelerated the trends begun in late 19th century Britain towards a "new liberalism" (social liberalism) that emphasized a greater role for the state in ameliorating societal ills.

By the beginning of the 21st century, liberal democracies and their fundamental characteristics—support for constitutions, civil rights and individual liberties, pluralistic society, and the welfare state—were widespread in most regions around the world."
Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"While the ultimate significance of the progressive movement on today's politics is still up for debate, Alonzo L. Hamby asks:

What were the central themes that emerged from the cacophony [of progressivism]? Democracy or elitism? Social justice or social control? Small entrepreneurship or concentrated capitalism?

And what was the impact of American foreign policy? Were the progressives isolationists or interventionists? Imperialists or advocates of national self-determination? And whatever they were, what was their motivation? Moralistic utopianism? Muddled relativistic pragmatism? Hegemonic capitalism?

Not surprisingly many battered scholars began to shout 'no mas!' In 1970, Peter Filene declared that the term 'progressivism' had become meaningless."
Progressivism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There have been many posts on this forum that denigrate the word "Progressive" and make it seem like it is a terrible thing to be called a progressive.

It means "going forward". Don't you want to be associated with a word that means going forward? I know I do.

Just for fun and that is all!!! No ill meant toward Gays, (I can't believe I have to say this!)


What do you think of when I say, "let's have a Gay ole time" ?
Or to move along gay?
They change over time as has your word "progressive"

Words have different meanings and you have used it in a way to make YOUR point. It does not make your point true.

liberals use many terms which sound nice but when really investigated, do not stand for anything which many of us would welcome...for example, rather than say "pro-abortion" they sound nicer with "pro-choice", but the result is the same...sometimes going forward is not to be deemed a good thing...when you are approaching the edge of a cliff rapidly and spinning out of control, i would prefer the term "stand firm" or "dig in" to progressing over the cliff...i applaud the conservatives who are courageous enough to dig in their heels and not compromise with those who are pushing us along to doom...another case is "sustainability" of the Agenda 21 variety....this is a term used with the green programs as an excuse to take over private property rights and eventually tell people where they must live in order to "sustain" the earth...what they really are sustaining is their collectivist ideology against individual rights. semantics can be tricky!

Science and technology are both progressive in nature and a good thing but you must be careful because to must of a good thing can hurt or destroy you. Too much salt will ruin a good soup .

Interesting that one poster said that she prefers standing firm and not compromising to going forward. Where I come from, that is called mule stubborn. When a mule gets stubborn and will not go forward, it is usually replaced with a better animal that follows direction for the good of the community.

My initial impressions of the term "progressive" as it is understood today pretty much merge with what Chachcha said in the above posts.

If one looks at what has been presented as "progressive" in movies (TV) , other than technolgical advances are anything but progressive. In fact one could make a good argument that we have regressed socially, intellectually, civilly etc I mean just look at the horrendous crimes and the age and gender of the perpetrators, the very bad and rude behavior of people and the hedonistic advancement by many groups. Progessive means the solution to the unwelcome unborn is extermination...that is not progressive that is regressive.

If one views Obama's agenda it is not progressive but rather a throwback to the days of FDR and Johnson Administrations.

Succintly stated "progressive doe not mean the human race is advancing for its betterment. Chachacha "stand your ground" approach fits my view when it comes to the principles and belief of our Judeo-Christian Democracy

Exactly right Chachacha and Rubicon. Progressing to what, and to what end?

"Progressive" in today's political reality is another term for progressing to "social justice", or basically, to socialistic views of wealth distribution and equal outcome. Social Justice as an agenda has become linked with Marxist economics.

The "Rev." Al Sharpton preached that we won't have true social justice until everything is "equal in everybody's house."

Progressivism or Social Justice; whatever you want to codify the definition to relate to today's political reality, it shorthand for socialism or communism.

You can call a skunk another name if you like, but it will still stink.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Exactly right Chachacha and Rubicon. Progressing to what, and to what end?

"Progressive" in today's political reality is another term for progressing to "social justice", or basically, to socialistic views of wealth distribution and equal outcome. Social Justice as an agenda has become linked with Marxist economics.

The "Rev." Al Sharpton preached that we won't have true social justice until everything is "equal in everybody's house."

Progressivism or Social Justice; whatever you want to codify the definition to relate to today's political reality, it shorthand for socialism or communism.

You can call a skunk another name if you like, but it will still stink.

Al Sharpton is not the spokesman for the progressive movement by any means. He speaks what is on his mind but is not anyone's spokesman so let's just leave Al Sharpton out of the conversation just like conservatives will leave David Duke out of the conversation as he is not their spokesman.

I don't think anyone thinks we should have "wealth distribution" so everything will be equal in everyone's house. I have no idea where those ideas came from except maybe from out of context phrases put together into one statement.

Sort of like the out of context phrase of Mitt Romney saying he does not care about poor people. Not what he meant at all and just taken out of context.

The poster who stated the Obama administration is a throwback to the FDR days and the LBJ days must have forgotten that those two presidents were responsible for Social Security and Medicare. Would you like to be without either?

Conservatives digging in their heels and refusing to compromise is what is wrong with our Congress. We have to progress forward - not go backwards.

The Progressive movement in the US started early inn the Twentieth century and was originally located in California. It was based upon the belief that one group, specifically northern European people were superior to other races. It was to persist there until after WWII. Fully one third of sterilizations performed in the United States in the Twentieth century were done under the auspices of the California State Government.

Eugenics was not to remain restricted to California. The Progressives adopted it and one of their leading lights, Woodrow Wilson who came to the White House from Princeton, brought the ideas of Eugenics with him from his life in Academia. In the first year of his Presidency he ordered the segregation of the Navy, which throughout its history had been integrated. He also ordered segregation of the Civil Service in violation of the law. He also banned interracial marriage in the District of Columbia.

Segregation of the Civil Service quietly ended under subsequent Republican administrations, but full integration of the Armed Forces did not take place until ordered by President Truman.

The ideas of Eugenics continued to thrive and formed the intellectual underpinning of Hitler's 'master race'. Up until WWII, American support of Hitler and his ideas remained popular among Progressives. After the war, Nazi War Criminals cited California law in their defense. Today, the idea that there are special groups that are unable to succeed without government help is still alive and well with Progressives. They feel superior to those that they regard as underprivileged and feel entitled to decide for them what should be done. This was the origin of affirmative action in the 60's and these policies continue today. It's time to stop talking about 'fair share' and instead shift to an actual opportunity for everyone without consideration of race, gender, etc. The Progressive movement will never embrace this idea since it requires that all men/women be regarded as equal and the government stop trying to end discrimination by getting out of the discrimination business.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Al Sharpton is not the spokesman for the progressive movement by any means. He speaks what is on his mind but is not anyone's spokesman so let's just leave Al Sharpton out of the conversation just like conservatives will leave David Duke out of the conversation as he is not their spokesman.

I don't think anyone thinks we should have "wealth distribution" so everything will be equal in everyone's house. I have no idea where those ideas came from except maybe from out of context phrases put together into one statement.

Sort of like the out of context phrase of Mitt Romney saying he does not care about poor people. Not what he meant at all and just taken out of context.

The poster who stated the Obama administration is a throwback to the FDR days and the LBJ days must have forgotten that those two presidents were responsible for Social Security and Medicare. Would you like to be without either?

Conservatives digging in their heels and refusing to compromise is what is wrong with our Congress. We have to progress forward - not go backwards.

Your post just tells me that you have no clue to what the "Progressive" movement is.

I wish I knew that earlier; I could have saved my breath.

Originally Posted by BBQMan

The Progressive movement in the US started early inn the Twentieth century and was originally located in California. It was based upon the belief that one group, specifically northern European people were superior to other races. It was to persist there until after WWII. Fully one third of sterilizations performed in the United States in the Twentieth century were done under the auspices of the California State Government.

Eugenics was not to remain restricted to California. The Progressives adopted it and one of their leading lights, Woodrow Wilson who came to the White House from Princeton, brought the ideas of Eugenics with him from his life in Academia. In the first year of his Presidency he ordered the segregation of the Navy, which throughout its history had been integrated. He also ordered segregation of the Civil Service in violation of the law. He also banned interracial marriage in the District of Columbia.

Segregation of the Civil Service quietly ended under subsequent Republican administrations, but full integration of the Armed Forces did not take place until ordered by President Truman.

The ideas of Eugenics continued to thrive and formed the intellectual underpinning of Hitler's 'master race'. Up until WWII, American support of Hitler and his ideas remained popular among Progressives. After the war, Nazi War Criminals cited California law in their defense. Today, the idea that there are special groups that are unable to succeed without government help is still alive and well with Progressives. They feel superior to those that they regard as underprivileged and feel entitled to decide for them what should be done. This was the origin of affirmative action in the 60's and these policies continue today. It's time to stop talking about 'fair share' and instead shift to an actual opportunity for everyone without consideration of race, gender, etc. The Progressive movement will never embrace this idea since it requires that all men/women be regarded as equal and the government stop trying to end discrimination by getting out of the discrimination business.

This is revisionist historical bunk. Progressives and eugenics — Crooked Timber

Glenn Beck Claims Progressives Are the Most Racist People in US History

from MediaMatters.org

Glenn Beck is taking some withering fire from an unlikely corner. Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard has written a lengthy piece devoted, in part, to dismantling Beck's warped view of history and progressivism, at various points calling Beck's rhetoric "nonsense," "radically adversarial," and marked by "conspiracism." He also goes to great lengths to explain Beck's connections to the paranoid anti-communist movement of the 20th century, in particular his affinity for "the Mormon autodidact W. Cleon Skousen. -

Basically, reasonable people think whatever Glenn Beck says is a bunch of hokum.

Originally Posted by buggyone

from MediaMatters.org

Glenn Beck is taking some withering fire from an unlikely corner. Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard has written a lengthy piece devoted, in part, to dismantling Beck's warped view of history and progressivism, at various points calling Beck's rhetoric "nonsense," "radically adversarial," and marked by "conspiracism." He also goes to great lengths to explain Beck's connections to the paranoid anti-communist movement of the 20th century, in particular his affinity for "the Mormon autodidact W. Cleon Skousen. -

Basically, reasonable people think whatever Glenn Beck says is a bunch of hokum.

I will have to check that out buggyone. Matthew Continetti | The Weekly Standard

The Two Faces of the Tea Party | The Weekly Standard