Stick around for the manifesto...

[AZhitman]

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10889022 ... trage.html

I like Terry Michael's writing, but the real interesting read is at the end - His "manifesto" for salvaging the Democratic Party and keeping it from slipping backwards into the rotting cesspool of "Progressivism".

[IBCoupe]

What's wrong with "Progressivism?"

[mattblancarte]

Terry sounds like a good guy, and I can identify with his libertarian edge.

What's wrong with "Progressivism?"

Branding and message, apparently. The author is arguing that "progressivism" is weak and non-descriptive in relation to his desired message for the Democratic Party. He prefers the term "liberal."

I think he has a point about the Democratic Party's need to re-brand and undergo a philosophical revolution. Jeffersonian policies at their core would help bring back centrists and independents that have swung back to the right.

Government: assure liberty by staying as far away as possible from our bank accounts, our bedrooms, and our bodies. Spread pluralistic democracy and free markets by example, understanding that neither can be planted by force on political real estate lacking indigenous cultivators for their growth. Restore the moral authority of mid-20th century “civil rights,” fashioning public policy around individuals, not tribal identity groups.

Sounds like Ron Paul to me.

[IBCoupe]

Or at least half of Ron Paul.

[AZhitman]

What's wrong with "Progressivism?"

Nothing that I'm going to convince you of in the next 15 minutes.

Kidding aside, you and I can agree that it's a much broader topic than can be tackled expeditiously.

[IBCoupe]

Well, I've got plenty of time. I don't know if you actually think there's anything wrong with progressivism (maybe you were just relaying the article's point), but if you do, let's talk about it.

[AZhitman]

I absolutely do.

However, they're "sticking points" that you and I are diametrically opposed on.

These include universal health care, certain reformations of the electoral process, abolishment of capital punishment, environmentalism at the expense of human rights, overt support of organized workplace unions, conservation without adequate scientific support (the ethanol debate comes to mind), mandated renewable energy policies that are either unproven or that run counter to capitalism, certain reproductive rights issues, minimum wage policies....

Yeah. I have a problem with those, and your tone leads me to believe you've already mentally claimed the "high ground" on this one... (which I'd be offended by if I didn't have as much respect for you as I do).

Suffice it to say, however, the "unwritten" tone of arrogance in this:

....if you actually think there's anything wrong with progressivism...

...is mildly annoying at best.

This is not to say that I don't agree with SOME of their positions.

But yeah, I'm not a big fan of current Progressives or their beliefs, and I'll counter them at every opportunity.

[mattblancarte]

These include universal health care, certain reformations of the electoral process, abolishment of capital punishment, environmentalism at the expense of human rights, overt support of organized workplace unions, conservation without adequate scientific support (the ethanol debate comes to mind), mandated renewable energy policies that are either unproven or that run counter to capitalism, certain reproductive rights issues, minimum wage policies....

Many tangential cans of worms to be opened (as you foresaw)... Precisely why I was trying to converse within the confines of the article and from the perspective of the author.

Or at least half of Ron Paul.

I was thinking 55%. :P

I absolutely do.

However, they're "sticking points" that you and I are diametrically opposed on.

Just want to make sure we are all on the same page in terms of defining progressivism. Are we talking about the political philosophy in general, or the CPC and its goals in modern politics? Both?

The distinction is clear enough (to me, at least) to warrant context.

[AZhitman]

I was referencing the political philosophy that most current Americans are familiar with - the "progressivism" espoused by the likes of Pelosi, Kucinich, Reed, Huffington, Maher, Franken, Gore, Olbermann, Ron Reagan, etc.

[IBCoupe]

I absolutely do.

However, they're "sticking points" that you and I are diametrically opposed on.

Okay, let's talk about them.

These include universal health care, certain reformations of the electoral process, abolishment of capital punishment, environmentalism at the expense of human rights, overt support of organized workplace unions, conservation without adequate scientific support (the ethanol debate comes to mind), mandated renewable energy policies that are either unproven or that run counter to capitalism, certain reproductive rights issues, minimum wage policies....

Those are issues. What's wrong with progressivism? You're using policies you (probably?) disagree with as launching points for criticism of an ideology, without actually explaining a thing.

Yeah. I have a problem with those, and your tone leads me to believe you've already mentally claimed the "high ground" on this one... (which I'd be offended by if I didn't have as much respect for you as I do).

Suffice it to say, however, the "unwritten" tone of arrogance in this:

....if you actually think there's anything wrong with progressivism...

...is mildly annoying at best.

No arrogance, Greg. Your words in the OP looked like you were simply summarizing the link's perspective... not necessarily actually representing your own views. Look, feel free to get upset when I assume what your positions are without you saying them, but don't get upset with me when I go out of my way not to make those assumptions.

This is not to say that I don't agree with SOME of their positions.

But yeah, I'm not a big fan of current Progressives or their beliefs, and I'll counter them at every opportunity.

What's the difference between current "progressives" and noncurrent "progressives," in your view? And why are they worth countering?