[Cid_Yama]

This battle between Clinton and Sanders is highlighting the differences between Liberals and Progressives and shows how there CAN be Progressive Republicans as there were in Eisenhower's time.

They may have to be Progressives first, as there is no place for them right now in the Republican party, And many prove to be a third force, one that is neither Democrat nor Republican, but just Progressive. It has become clear that the establishment Democrats don't want them any more than Republicans do.

If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, it may just be time for Progressives to reach across the aisle and come together for and independent run. It looks like people on both sides are getting the message, and we would be free to dump both the Liberal and Conservative baggage and be able to forge a new way.

Are you with me?

[Ibon]

This battle between Clinton and Sanders is highlighting the differences between Liberals and Progressives and shows how there CAN be Progressive Republicans as there were in Eisenhower's time.

They may have to be Progressives first, as there is no place for them right now in the Republican party, And many prove to be a third force, one that is neither Democrat nor Republican, but just Progressive. It has become clear that the establishment Democrats don't want them any more than Republicans do.

If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, it may just be time for Progressives to reach across the aisle and come together for and independent run. It looks like people on both sides are getting the message, and we would be free to dump both the Liberal and Conservative baggage and be able to forge a new way.

Are you with me?

Yes I am with you and see this as a growing possibility. But I thought we were going extinct so why bother?

[Cid_Yama]

I want to see the people win. We may not have time, but it would be glorious! You know, go out fighting for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

To go out standing tall, not on our knees.

[Cog]

Progressive=Rob from the rich, give to the poor.

No, I am not with you.

[Cid_Yama]

Didn't figure you would be. Good riddance.

And thank you for the Robin Hood imagery. Robin Hood, in legend, was Sir Robin Earl of Loxley. Standing against the Evil John, usurper of his brother, King Richard, and the Evil Sherriff of Nottingham. Who harvested the wealth of the kingdom with cruelty, driving the good working people into paupery.

Very fitting.

[GHung]

Sounds great. Maybe we should agree on a definition for "Progressive" (or "progressivism").

May as well get the Urban Dictionary's top definition out of the way first:

Progressive:
A term that former liberals co-opted when they discovered that their delusional beliefs didn't fit any recognized definition of the word liberal.

These fools are frequently self-loathing, unsuccessful losers who can only feel better by projecting their failures onto their opponents.

A "Progressive" is identified by the following behaviors/beliefs:

- Knows what is best for everybody else
- Claims to be well-informed even though they get their news/talking points from the Daily KOS and/or MSNBC

- Believes that personal wealth is evil yrt they fawn over wealthy celebrities and limousine liberals

- Believes corporations and profit are evil, and will tweet about this 24/7 on their fancy iPad

- Thinks name-calling and demonizing opponents is the same as debate

- Accuses every person with a dissenting view of being a racist

- Supported Occupy Wall Street from the comfort of their living room, not the rape tent

- Drives a Prius with a COEXIST bumper sticker
- Believes in the rights of everyone, except those who disagree

- Thinks the Constitution is flawed because they can't control all 3 branches of government

- Believes YOUR success could only have come at THEIR expense

- Believes Al Gore is right about global warming, even though his carbon footprint 100X of the average person

- Thinks voter identification is racist, because it discriminates against dead people

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... rogressive

Then there are more mainstream definitions:

Dictionary.com :

adjective
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4. (initial capital letter) of or relating to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
6. noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.
7. of or relating to progressive education :
progressive schools.

Mirriam-Webster -Full Definition of progressive:

1. a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression

2: of, relating to, or characterized by progression

3: moving forward or onward : advancing

4. a : increasing in extent or severity <a progressive disease> b : increasing in rate as the base increases <a progressive tax>

5 often capitalized : of or relating to political Progressives

6: of, relating to, or constituting a verb form that expresses action or state in progress at the time of speaking or a time spoken of

7: of, relating to, or being a multifocal lens with a gradual transition between focal lengths <progressive bifocals>

8: or, relating to, or using a method of video scanning (as for television or a computer monitor) in which the horizontal lines of each frame are drawn successively from top to bottom — compare interlaced

Vocabulary.com:

progressive:

People who are progressive favor reform and civil liberties: this is the opposite of conservative, and means something close to liberal.

Progressive people are interested in change and progress. You're a progressive thinker if you like to think up new ways of doing things and you’re open to change. You have a progressive attitude towards gender if you dress girls in blue and boys in pink to challenge stereotypes. Progressive also refers to a type of verb tense, and to taxes that increase as your income increases. This word applies to lots of things that slowly increase or keep making progress.

Thinkprogress.org:

What It Means To Be A Progressive: A Manifesto -

People often ask what, exactly, do progressives believe? Over the past few years, we’ve worked with a great group called the American Values Project, representing a cross section of leaders from think tanks, philanthropic organizations, and environmental, labor, youth, civil rights, and other progressive groups, to try to distill progressive beliefs and values into clear language in one digestible resource.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/ ... manifesto/

I think I prefer to be referred to as a "Pragmatic" or "Pragmatist". I haven't seen too many "Liberals", "Progressives", "NeoLiberals", "Conservatives", "NeoCons", etc., who take the full realities of our collective situation on as part of their 'manifesto'.

[Plantagenet]

Robin Hood....Very fitting.

Not really.

I don't see Robin Hood as a good image for progressives. Basically Robin Hood opposed the government. His main issue was getting taxes cut----and I've never seen a progressive who wanted to cut taxes. Robin also committed assaults and murder, organized prison breaks, robbed people, kidnapped people, etc. In today's world Robin Hood would be a "three-time" offender and would be put in prison for life.

I think Progressives would be better off choosing a benevolent ruler instead of an anti-government activist like Robin Hood. IMHO someone who collected taxes and then used them wisely like one of the good Caesars like Emperors Claudius and Marcus Aurelius or maybe Byzantine Emperor Justinian would be a better image for progressives than Robin Hood, who is a more of an anti-government and anti-tax activist.

[chilyb]

Robin also committed assaults and murder, organized prison breaks, robbed people, kidnapped people, etc.

Literally, per medieval folklore, yes, but I think you are missing the point.

[Plantagenet]

Robin also committed assaults and murder, organized prison breaks, robbed people, kidnapped people, etc.

Literally, per medieval folklore, yes, but I think you are missing the point.

I think you are missing the point. If someone murders someone else "literally" that means a murder actually took place. Right?

The real world isn't Disneyland. The Robin Hood shown in Disney movies isn't the historical Robin Hood---its the Disneyland version. NOW--- Lets look this objectively.

Robin Hood wanted lower taxes----what in heck does that have to do with progressives, who don't want lower taxes? That means that Robin Hood is not an appropriate image for progressives.

Yes, in the Disney version Robin Hood "steals from the rich to give to the poor" but in the earliest accounts he wasn't stealing from the rich---he was stealing from the government and from government officials and government supporters. And just to make it more complicated --- these government officials also were Normans while Robin Hood (or Robin Wood) was a Saxon, i.e. of the conquered native population. Robin Hood never robbed a rich Saxon lord---his targets were the Norman government and the officials in the Norman regime. Remember---the Normans conquered England in the Norman Conquest only about 150 years earlier.

Cheers!

[chilyb]

well OK. I don't want some murderous, thieving son of a bitch in control of our government either! haha

Maybe Robin Hood a shitty metaphor. My point was that I think you are taking it too literally. And yes, I was brainwashed by Disney at a young age. So let's just disagree about who is missing the point and leave it at that.

[Cid_Yama]

GHung, The urban dictionary definition they got from the conservative rationalwiki and is NOT what Progressivism is.
Absolutely laughable. Just more redefinition and rewriting history. They attempt to even take away the name of those who have historically opposed them.


What is Progressivism?

Progressivism is the specifically American development of liberal populism that seeks social and economic justice above all else, most specifically with reference to the obstacles posed to social and economic justice by large corporations and banks. Though Progressives strongly support civil liberties, the "progress" in Progressivism lies, most fundamentally, with ensuring, as the American pledge to the flag puts it, "justice for all". Because of this core concern, Progressives have advocated governance "of the people, by the people, for the people", the phrase "the people" here standing in sharpest contrast to governance by the corporation, or rather its principle owners and beneficiaries.

link


Progressivism 101: The differences between progressivism and liberalism

Progressives tend to oppose monopolies and powerful corporate trusts. As a result, they favor trust-busting and regulation in order to check corporate corruption and strength. Some progressives are disappointed with President Obama, who has used markedly liberal policies to end the financial crisis. Instead of directing the Justice Department to launch anti-trust investigations against the nation’s largest financial firms, he has instead favored government bailouts and government takeovers. The more traditional progressive response to banks and companies that are “too big to fail,” would be to make them smaller.

Progressives also favor environmental protection, conservation and stewardship, and energy independence. A liberal solution to high energy costs might be to increase federal spending for a program like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Progressives, however, would “also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry's profiteering and market manipulation tactics.”

Progressives are opposed to the efforts of corporate entities that seek greater influence in government. As previously mentioned, progressives like to strengthen democracy, and generate more power for the public. That’s why the progressive movement was responsible for the constitutional amendment that allowed for the direct election of U.S. Senators (members of the Right should note that Scott Brown [R-MA] could not have been elected without this important contribution). Now, progressives support the public financing of elections, they support direct elections, and they support other efforts to reform government and politics.

link


Upton Sinclair's The Jungle (1906)

Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle to expose the appalling working conditions in the meat-packing industry. His description of diseased, rotten, and contaminated meat shocked the public and led to new federal food safety laws.

Before the turn of the 20th century, a major reform movement had emerged in the United States. Known as progressives, the reformers were reacting to problems caused by the rapid growth of factories and cities. Progressives at first concentrated on improving the lives of those living in slums and in getting rid of corruption in government.

By the beginning of the new century, progressives had started to attack huge corporations like Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, and the Armour meat-packing company for their unjust practices. The progressives revealed how these companies eliminated competition, set high prices, and treated workers as "wage slaves."

The progressives differed, however, on how best to control these big businesses. Some progressives wanted to break up the large corporations with anti-monopoly laws. Others thought state or federal government regulation would be more effective. A growing minority argued in favor of socialism, the public ownership of industries. The owners of the large industries dismissed all these proposals: They demanded that they be left alone to run their businesses as they saw fit.

Theodore Roosevelt was the president when the progressive reformers were gathering strength. Assuming the presidency in 1901 after the assassination of William McKinley, he remained in the White House until 1909. Roosevelt favored large-scale enterprises. "The corporation is here to stay," he declared. But he favored government regulation of them "with due regard of the public as a whole."

Roosevelt did not always approve of the progressive-minded journalists and other writers who exposed what they saw as corporate injustices. When David Phillips, a progressive journalist, wrote a series of articles that attacked U.S. senators of both political parties for serving the interests of big business rather than the people, President Roosevelt thought Phillips had gone too far. He referred to him as a man with a "muck-rake."

Even so, Roosevelt had to admit, "There is filth on the floor, and it must be scraped up with the muck-rake." The term "muckraker" caught on. It referred to investigative writers who uncovered the dark side of society.

link


One of the greatest Progressive speeches ever made.

A Rendezvous With Destiny
FDR Speech before the 1936 Democratic National Convention
June 27, 1936

The age of machinery, of railroads; of steam and electricity; the telegraph and the radio; mass production, mass distribution - all of these combined to bring forward a new civilization and with it a new problem for those who sought to remain free.

For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital - all undreamed of by the Fathers - the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.

There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small-businessmen and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.

The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor - these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small-businessmen, the investments set aside for old age - other people's money - these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.

Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.

Throughout the nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.

An old English judge once said: "Necessitous men are not free men." Liberty requires opportunity to make a living - a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.

The brave and clear platform adopted by this convention, to which I heartily subscribe, sets forth that government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are protection of the family and the home, the establishment of a democracy of opportunity, and aid to those overtaken by disaster.

But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.

link

The growth of oligarchy in America happened throughout the 20th Century and is a matter of historical fact.

Progressivism is the movement that arose to fight back, and it's thread extends back all the way to the end of the 19th century. That movement is not dead and is represented in Congress by the Progressive Caucus. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is the leading spokesperson for the Progressive movement.

[dohboi]

Plant, for your info, there was no clearly identifiable 'historical' Robin Hood.

"It is simply not possible to locate the historical Robin Hood with any certainty. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/mi ... n_01.shtml

[Plantagenet]

Plant, for your info, there was no clearly identifiable 'historical' Robin Hood

Of course not. But for your into there are various written accounts from the 14th century which are presumably based on oral traditions which are presumably based on events in the 13th century. There are also legal documents from the 13th century discussing various crimes committed by one or more Robin Hoods or Robin Woods. The name is right there in the legal record---there just happen to be several occurrences of it. And of course the historical context of the story is very well known.

And there actually was a King Richard Plantagenet---and he is actually one of my distant relatives as it turns out.

-------------------------------

Dohboi---I'm surprised you missed the whole point of the discussion here, i.e. the debate over whether the modern "Disney version" of the Robin Hood story is a prototype of for progressives, even though Robin Hood, as best we can tell, was mainly an anti-tax activist.


If Robin Hood is a progressive, does that make Brer' Rabbit a conservative?

[Cid_Yama]

Frank Capra was a Progressive and it is reflected in his movies. A good way to understand Progressive thought is to sit and watch them.

Mr Deeds Goes to Town (1936) with Gary Cooper

You Can't Take it with You (1938) with Lionel Barrymore

Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939) with Jimmy Stewart

Meet John Doe (1941) with Gary Cooper

It's a Wonderful Life (1946) with Jimmy Stewart

[Cid_Yama]

The story of Robin Hood is about injustice and standing against it.

Plant's twisted view of it is probably not shared by anyone. Just more trollishness, taking the thread off topic.

[onlooker]

I certainly am with you and with the ideals of Progressiveness. It is anathema to the peoples interest for either government or private companies to become too powerful or politically influential. When money becomes the arbiter of political policy then the people have lost. For all the achievements of progressives, it was an uphill battle to fight the influence and power of money is such a hyper commercialized and monetized world in which we live in. What I truly favor is a form of anarchy whereby society is not governed by any entity but simply by the cooperation and unity that comes from shared values, ideals and interests. I think we should also always be very wary of technology because it tends to be a means of positioning a few in positions of power over many.

[vtsnowedin]

What would be considered progressive in Teddy Roosevelt's or FDRs time and what a progressive party platform would look like today are certainly different things.
Perhaps Sid you could write up a draft progressive platform or first hundred days agenda to flesh out what you would like this party to accomplish.
Maybe Bernie would even sign onto it if you get it right.
I of course would look at what the proposals would cost and consider my tax rate now and after all the bills come due.

[Plantagenet]

The story of Robin Hood ….. Just more trollishness, taking the thread off topic.

You're the one who brought up Robin Hood.

If bringing up Robin Hood was trollishness and taking the thread off topic then you are the one responsible for taking this thread down that path.

Cheers!

[Lore]

Plant's universe revolves around cognitive dissonance.

cheers!

[Cog]

If only progressives could be contained to states like New York and California, the rest of the country would be somewhat normal. But like a disease it escapes those boundaries to infect otherwise healthy people.