>--- Original Message ---
>From: davidmcr at aol.com
>To: asdnet at igc.topica.com
>Date: 7/17/01 6:19:10 AM
>
>As one who came in as "Progressive" on that test, I want to
side with Chris.
>I don't mind if someone calls me Progressive, but I'm a socialist,
a radical,
>not a liberal. The word "progressive" in my own political history
was always
>used as a gentle way of saying one had "correct views close
to the Communist
>Party". No one in the 1950's and 60's was a Communist, but there
were any
>number of "Progressives".
>
>Put me down as a socialist. In private and in public. (Of course,
a pacifist
>as well, which further cuts down my audience)
>
>Fraternally,
>David McReynolds
>
><< subj: re: [asdnet] "progressive" is no weasel word
date: 7/15/01 8:23:58 pm eastern daylight time
from: clowe at igc.org (chris lowe)
reply-to: asdnet at igc.topica.com
ralph suter wrote:
>Most
> > progressive-baiters today are right wingers, so it bothers
me that you
> > are
> > engaging in exactly the same kind of rhetoric they are so
fond of. I
> > would
> > expect George Will or someone of him to refer to progressive
as weasel
> > word
> > but I wouldn't expect it of someone like you. I, for one,
have never
> > called
> > myself a liberal. Furthermore, I've always hated "leftist"
because it is
> >
> > based on a one-dimensional concept of political classification
>
> > Nevertheless,
> > there are many people in the country who, whatever disagreements
they
> > have
> > about all kinds of other things, agree about a whole range
of
> > fundamental
> > issues, such as that we need universal healthcare and that
the
> > Reagan-Bush
> > Latin American policies were abominable and that it just
isn't right
> > that
> > greedy jerks like Bill Gates control billions of dollars
while millions
> > of
> > ordinary people struggle to make ends meet on below-poverty-level
> > salaries.
> > If you can think of a better word than "progressive" to describe
that
> > large
> > and diverse group of people, then please tell me what it
is.
>
> Ralph, much as you may dislike it, I think the word is liberal.
Part of
> the problem with "progressive" is that it represents socialist
or
> leftist or anarcho-ecologist or whatever you want to call it
> unwillingness to acknowledge what they do share with liberals,
or a
> section of them anyway (some of which you have specified admirably
> above). The liberals who have the courage to actually call
themselves
> that face not only the DLC running away from them to the right
but
> allies on a range of immediate practical issues running away
on the
> left.
>
> The liberal-baiting by many who call themselves progressives
on the
> let's-not-call-it-left is as peculiar and self-defeating as
the
> progressive-baiting you object to, and very similar in form.
I dislike
> some positions held by real liberals and dislike even more
being
> associated with non-liberals like Bill Clinton and Al Gore
who are
> getting smeared as liberals in the rightwing campaign to define
the
> whole of politics rightward. As a result, I used to try to
avoid
> calling myself liberal. But the practical fact is that on
immediate
> issues I am liberal. It is only in long-term goals and perspectives
on
> strategies that I am not.
>
> The funny thing for me is that I don't think that "progressive"
actually
> gets away from the most damaging connotation that "liberal"
has taken on
> at all, that of a class- and education-based elitism or patronizing
> attitude. Saying we're "progressive" implies that those who
disagree
> with us are a slower, perhaps a bit dim, backwards, etc. &
must sound
> patronizing as hell to a lot of people.
>
> That's not to say that there aren't real reactionaries or that
President
> Bush isn't ignorant as all getout (not at all the same thing
as stupid,
> as you know). But if we hope to persuade people whose current
actions
> (choices made under constraints of options offered) appear
to differ
> from at least part of their range of views in general, that
there is a
> purpose and a likelihood of success to their acting differently,
say by
> voting differently, voting at all, or taking other forms of
political or
> social action, we don't start well if they think we're patronizing
them.
>
>
> The other thing about "progressive" is that it leaves the baseline
and
> goals unstated. It just focuses on process.
>
> Andy English is probably right that Americans don't recognize
"social
> democrat." Personally, I'd like to change that.
>
> Chris Lowe >>
>
>The preceding is a personal opinion. Try not to post more than
daily.
>
>==^================================================================
>EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?b1dj8W.b2gpIG
>Or send an email To: asdnet-unsubscribe at igc.topica.com
>This email was sent to: debsian at pacbell.net
>
>T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
>http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
>==^================================================================
>
>