Reply #52: The usages have shifted through the years. [View All]

[JackRiddler]

In the 19th century, liberalism was a pro-market economic philosophy. At around the same time, modern conservativism was defined in reaction to the French Revolution.

Liberalism still retains its old meaning in Europe. In Germany, for example, the Liberals are the most pro-business party, although they're also what we would call social liberals.

In the US, progressive first came into common usage to describe reformers of the early 20th century, a time when liberal would have still resonated with its original meaning.

In my experience, most people on the left do not identify as "liberal," which to them means little more than capitalism with a human face and opportunistic compromises by career politicians and triangulating corporation men like Bill Clinton.

So they have come to prefer "progressive."

Keep in mind, even the DLC call themselves liberals, even Lieberman does. I don't really care for the term. But I pay attention to how the word is used, and sometimes I like what people who call themselves "liberal" think it means.

Meanwhile, in the mainstream, after decades of propaganda, "liberal" is a dirty word associated with the myths of champagne-drinking "elites" in limousines, insufferable latte-sipping hipsters at Starbucks, and "welfare queens" guzzling Thunderbird.

Progressive is the smarter way to go for good PR. Unlike liberal, people can hear what it means, it has the magic word "progress" in it and is very hard to taint.

The key perhaps is to get past the labels altogether, and ask the questions that matter:

Do you want to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you support a single-payer universal health system? Are you against providing trillions of taxpayer dollars to the criminal banks who burned the financial system? Would you like to end US interventions on behalf of the right-wing governments in Colombia and Mexico? Would you like to end the drug war, establish public campaign finance, end corporate personhood, see a truly open government that does not engage in covert operations and psyops on its own people?

If yes, then I don't care what label you use.