What is the difference between progressive and liberal?

[TheFarseer]

Or is there one? I have my own thoughts on this but I wanted to see what other people thought.

[K-W]

1. To overgenerlize

Liberals seek to put us back to the New Deal. Progressives want to go further.

[SoFlaJet]

2. IMHO

none it was just us trying to not be labeled by the haters who were/are trying to turn liberal into a bad word-it is being bandied about 'round here that we should all call ourselves LIBERALS in spite of their rhetoric

[troublemaker]

3. Loathing of power

Progressives believe extraordinary power is okay if it in the hands of good people.

Liberals believe nobody is that good.

[K-W]

4. Since when?

Are you confusing libertarian with liberal?

[troublemaker]

5. No, I'm not.

libertarianism is an logical but impracticable extension of the liberal tradition. (All extreme logical extensions in politics fail in their rigidity because human nature is dynamic)

Digsby recently said it better than I can:

As a Democrat I fall into the liberal category more than the progressive, I'm afraid, although I'm comfortable in each of those camps. I do believe that society needs government for more than defense, policing and contract disputes and I don't have a strong emotional attachment to property rights above all else. Reasonable taxation seems like common sense to me and certain necessary functions don't seem to respond well to the market, so I'm not a libertarian.

But, I am a liberal in much of the classical sense. I have a visceral mistrust of power so intense that all intrusions against civil liberties and individual rights are suspect in my mind until proven otherwise. The idea of innocent men being imprisoned with no due process, people being unable to marry who they choose or have dominion over their own bodies, censorship, forced religion and any other use of power against individuals is something that I believes requires a huge amount of deliberation, debate and thought before it should ever be implemented in the name of security, community or anything else. Indeed, in my mind, humans are such unreliable and incompetent creatures that it's best if we just don't go there at all.

It's a strange form of democracy we have because of its dual purpose of fulfilling the desire of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. It creates a tension between the two pillars of the American system: freedom and equality. We are always measuring our progress between those two poles and it's never easy. But, to be an American is to hold both of those ideas as ideal. Indeed, America will cease to be America if we don't.

I have never agreed with this manifest destiny, American exceptionalism crapola. We come up so short, so often, within our own country that it is folly of the highest order to believe that we have a right to evangelize to the rest of the world. But, that doesn't mean that we haven't got something fine going here that deserves to be preserved, defended and respected.

on edit, added link: http://haloscan.com/tb/digby/108897147775359188

[K-W]

8. Yes, but is that the true sense of the american liberal movement?

I dont think the New Deal was about limiting government at all.

I dont think we disagree here, these words just have a million different meanings in different contexts and to different people.

[troublemaker]

10. Some say the new deal was very much about limiting government

insofar as we expanded govt less than almost any other country during the same period. 80% of European nations slipped into (or reinforced existing) totalitarianism. The times demanded revolution and we held the line at regulation.

As folks often say, FDR saved capitalism from itself.

I think of liberals as recognizing the productive benefits of capitalism but understanding that it cannot be a religion and needs some regulation to survive. Republicans are like lunatics on a train engine talking about how much more pressure it could generate if we welded the safety valves shut.

I agree that terminology is a problem. It's hard to generalize about big government. Social security is big government. Cops kicking your door in is big government. War is really big government.

[Virginian]

6. I think a progressive might have more focus?

Is a Progressive more goal oriented than a Liberal?
Perhaps a Liberal is more open to changes along the way?

[troublemaker]

9. Of course everyone wants liberty AND progress

but when conflicts arise progressives will tend to chose progress over liberty, and liberals will tend to chose liberty over progress.

Progressives are more about the whole society; liberals more about the relationship between society and the individual.

Neither view is always right or always wrong. Liberals will support something like the 60s civil rights movement (which took away a lot of liberties, like choosing who to hire, who you feel like serving in your restaurant, etc.) when the need for progress is overwhelming, as it was.

When the need is less dire they (we, since I obviously consider myself a liberal) favor humility and caution. All large government action involves unpredictable outcomes and a risk of moving toward some form of totalitarianism, so it's best to pick your spots with care.

[Chili]

12. troublemaker...

"Neither view is always right or always wrong. Liberals will support something like the 60s civil rights movement (which took away a lot of liberties, like choosing who to hire, who you feel like serving in your restaurant, etc.) when the need for progress is overwhelming, as it was."

I don't want to misunderstand you: this sounds like you're saying that progressives are segregationists and disapprove of equal opportunity in the workplace? Or are you talking about Affirmative Action? Most "liberals" support Affirmative Action, and segregation is anathema to both liberals and progressives, isn't it? (whatever the definition of "progressive" is). From your post above, aren't those libertarian tenets? Is that what you were describing?

I should add that I know little to nothing of Libertarianism.

I thought that progressives were simply further left of "liberals" in that the environment and civil liberties had a bigger priority than social issue reforms, such as Head Start, educational training programs, Social Security, etc. Those are classic liberal causes. I'm willing to be corrected on that, because Farseer asked a good question.

[troublemaker]

19. Heavens no; quite the opposite

I'm saying that preogressives would be more gung ho for civil rights than liberals, while liberals would be more gung ho for individual rights (aka civil liberties).

[Aidoneus]

7. a great deal..

I used this analogy before:--imagine the difference between Diane Feinstein and Eugene Debs, and that's a start..

[leftofthedial]

11. liberals bash Zell Miller

progressives bash Joe Lieberman

[CWebster]

13. Progressives forge the path when it is unpopular

Liberals sign on as it becomes more widely accepted.

[Chili]

14. LOL leftofthe dial!

I like that!

[CWebster]

15. Who bashes Nader? nt

[leftofthedial]

16. everyone who hates the bushgang

[CWebster]

17. That makes sense

Bash the one who has opposed Bush policies all along and rally around the one who voted to support them.

[leftofthedial]

18. it's not what he says that's the problem

it's what he's done and what he's doing.

[Liberal Classic]

20. A better question might be

What's the difference between liberal and leftist?

[eridani]

21. Progressives disapprove of imperialism

Liberals are fine with it. The difference between liberal and conservative is domestic policy--liberals want to share the imperial loot widely, and conservatives want CEOs to hog it all.

[no name no slogan]

22. Also, traditionally progressives have favored more direct democracy

The Progressive movement of the early 1900s brought us things like the referendum, the proposition and other such "direct democracy" measures that gave the common person greater say in their government.

With a referendum, the public is given direct power to enact/repeal a law-- instead of working through the legislative process. However, this is a more "classic" example of progressiveism, while today it's more complicated.

Maybe this is a better analogy: if a liberal sees a hungry person, s/he will feed him. If a progressive sees a hungry person, s/he will not only feed him, but also teach him how to grow food, and how to fight the system so that nobody goes hungry again.

[troublemaker]

24. The referendum is not democracy, but a tool to subvert democracy

The traditional role of plebiscites and referenda is a horror show. There's nothing easier than subverting representative government through skillful use of referenda. See Napoleon's career and recent California history for good examples. See also Austria and western Czechoslovakia in the 1930s.

The only thing more naive than faith in dictators is faith in direct democracy.

[KittyWampus]

23. Liberal Is A General Term. It Simply Means "Free or Unregulated"

and doesn't designate an Unregulated Economy (Neo-Liberalism in Europe) or Unregulated Society (Liberals in America).

Progressive implies Evolution. Moving forward. Technologically, Societally etc.