The way I see it, the bigots and the selfish people in this country don’t want change because it will either offend their delicate sensibilities or adversely affect their securities portfolios, or, in many instances, both.

People drop dead in this country because they can’t afford health care; others are too completely batshit insane to support or even take care of themselves and are left to live (or not) on the streets; gays can’t get married because some people apparently dislike the gays; and anti-choice activists are trying to convince the state that a woman’s right to decide whether or not to have an abortion should be revoked. Meanwhile, corporate welfare and the war du jour continue unabated.

Personally, I think it’s safe to say we’ve waited far too long for “progress” already, and it’s dangerous to wait any longer because things aren’t just staying the same, they’re getting much *worse*. At this point, it’s either forge ahead or fall (way the hell) back.

(And from what I know of those of you I know, we’re all We’s)

There has been a Progressive Party in America’s past, and they were socially liberal in their views. At the time (late 19th early 20th centuries) the main left wing alternatives were Socialism and Anarchism, so Progressivism arose as an alternative to those liberal economic and governing models.

Also – I would also like to post a correction to my earlier post. I said ” If you slide more towards the egalitarian side, you’re probably Liberal, the individual side, you’re probably Conservative.” and thinking about that, it was a pretty silly thing to say, considering that Liberalism is very strongly devoted to the idea of the rights of the individual, and that Conservatism is really just about not changing things from how they’ve always been done in your local culture. I need to rethink that premise a bit, and I just wanted to point out that I am aware of the flaw in my comment.

Oh, and I don’t think Dugh’s a wimp either.

As I’ve said before, cut the red states loose. The problem isn’t the twats leading the Democatic party, but rather the union itself. Separate from the the red states and let them starve and self-destruct. Really, they can twist in the wind for all I care (and without blue dollars, they likely would). Yeah, I know how much well-meaning patriots want to sacrifice so-called “liberals”‘ rights and money so that America can one day be a “great nation” once everyone finally comes around and deigns to allow social justice and civil rights for all.

Fuck that. I pay my taxes and I’m tired of waiting.

I can’t quite stomach the idea of being “progressive” (spineless) instead of “liberal” (pragmatic – and able to sleep at night) just to perpetuate a failed political experiment.

Unless you’re happy waiting for the conservatives to die, being “progressive” versus “liberal” in the USA is not really a viable option.

Think about it for a minute: if liberal “blue-state” Americans denied the “red-state” conservatives financial welfare, how long do you think it would take before the right-wingers were ready to suck it up and rejoin the union on liberals’ terms? Creepy – and admittedly – a little fascistic? Perhaps. But a solution well worth evaluating in my opinion.

“The only way to make it “work” right now is to bang it with a hammer… until something breaks”

Bang on this country, then.

;-)

Regarding the whole Liberal vs Progressive, I see that as a way for Liberals to dodge being sneered at by Conservatives who managed to turn the “L word” into a disparaging term. Rather than owning the word, standing up and saying “Yeah, I’m Liberal, what of it?” they got all pussy-faced and whinged “No, I’m a Progressive, we’re different somehow, please don’t hit me. I promise not to filibuster and I’ll cave to all your threats.”

I never viewed it as any kind of procedural, or ideological distinction, just a pussy way of running away from a label.

It first came into common use during Bill Clinton’s campaign, when one of his spokespeople said “we’re not Liberals anymore; We’re Progressives!” as a means of deflecting criticism. Reagan had sneered the word Liberal at Carter enough to poison it for wimps too spineless to stand up to it for twelve years.

In reality though, Clinton was anything but Liberal, he was a Centrist, who dragged the country and the Democratic party so far to the right, that the Republicans had to react by going even further to the right in creating NeoCons, just so there’d be a distinction. They courted the religious nut-jobs who previously had been viewed as religious nut-jobs and gave them power.

So anyway, if there is a distinction between Liberal and Progressive beyond the running-away-from-a-label one, I would say that Progressives are more conservative than Liberals, and only slightly left of pre-religious-nut-job Conservatives. Following your premise, from left to right, Liberals, Progressives, Conservatives, NeoCons.

But that’s just me.