Liberals vs Progressives

This video does a fantastic job of separating the two from one another in terms of political representation.

[video=youtube;zH0mPfR-K2U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH0mPfR-K2U[/video]

To summarize: The video demonstrates that progressives are not liberals. Covering the criticisms of Affirmative Action, which is a means to undermine the merits of the individual by imposing mandatory quotas based on race. It also includes criticisms of progressive movements such as BLM and how they demand to be given a platform they did not earn. At its core, liberalism vs progressivism is a matter of individualism vs collectivism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/24/rise-of-the-cultural-libertarians/

 

Being a liberal I wholeheartedly agree that there is a clear difference between liberals and progressives. However this video is little more than the usual silliness that dribbles out the Libertarian cult.

 

The video maker is a proclaimed Liberal. As his stances are generally Liberal as well.

 

I encourage anyone who considers themselves a Progressive to actually come to the table with an argument. Let's hash this out, shall we.

 

I doubt there are many folks who actually mean what the terms "progressive" and "liberal" actually stand for when they use them. They are blanket terms these days, not much different than saying someone is a "lefty". There are classical differences between the two, but I doubt many people know them if they haven't sought out that information on their own. But at the same time, do the classical definitions apply or do we use the contemporary definitions, as well as what would be classified under either term in current times? Do the "classical" liberals own the term, or do the contemporary ideologies that classical liberalism became over time get to use the term as well?

I think before we even argue the differences between them, we have to nail down just what exactly each one is on it's own.

 

The video does break that down, and I agree with their conclusion. At it's core Liberals are left wing libertarians and progressives are left wing authoritarians. This is shown in that Liberalism is based on individualism and Progressivism is based on collectivism. These are the core differences between the two ideologies. Liberalism promotes the idea of lifting the poor up rather than pushing the rich down. That's why I put the video in, it supports my own arguments against progressives, and it lends aid to the conversation.

 

I don't think that's happened in the entire history of PF. What you will get are insults and accusations of racism; in other words, the bread and butter of a progressive argument.

 

You're not convincing me.

 

What he supports is decidedly Liberal. I might also point out that your post didn't contain an argument. Care to offer one?

 

So who is this guy? I didn't see a name.

By the way..."free markets"?

Ummmm...not really.

 

A youtuber who goes by SargonofAkad.

"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Whereas classical liberalism emphasises the role of liberty, social liberalism stresses the importance of equality.[4] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]"

As per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Didn't catch the opening paragraph I see. Now that's out of the way, got an argument?

 

Have folks here decided to pretend there is no difference between a classical liberal and an modern American liberal yet? Its what usually happens in threads like this.

 

Classical Liberalism is covered in one of the sources in the opening paragraph of Liberalism. As well the source provides a nice little timeline. The core of Liberalism is the same.

 

At it's core Liberals are left wing libertarians and progressives are left wing authoritarians.

Pure bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Thanks but the last thing progressives or liberals need is for conservatives to define them.

And we certainly are not going to defend ourselves against your straw men arguments.

 

David Sirota


there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional “liberals” in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A “progressive” are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.


To put it in more concrete terms - a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). A more “progressive” solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry’s profiteering and market manipulation tactics. A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor; A progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America (much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money).


Let’s be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America’s social safety net are noble and critical. It’s the other direction that’s the problem. Many of today’s liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today’s Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America’s middle-class.

 

I myself am a Liberal, not a Progressive. I see ad hom fallacy and unsubstantiated claims are your chosen methods of discussion. Do you actually have an argument?

 

Which is inherently an authoritarian position as described in this post. The funding for pharmaceuticals only encapsulates the costs of developing a medication, arbitrarily setting price limits also hinders the motivation of profit. Oil is in no way a limited market exclusive to the US. Therefore there are external factors which will offset price gouging practices. Liberals and Progressives are both left wing, but the means by which such shared values are realized is the difference. And it's a huge difference.

 

A youtuber who goes by SargonofAkad.

Wait...some anonymous youtuber is your "liberal of record"?

Pfffttttt

- - - Updated - - -

Again

David Sirota


there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional “liberals” in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A “progressive” are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.


To put it in more concrete terms - a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). A more “progressive” solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry’s profiteering and market manipulation tactics. A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor; A progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America (much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money).


Let’s be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America’s social safety net are noble and critical. It’s the other direction that’s the problem. Many of today’s liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today’s Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America’s middle-class.

 

It was to start the conversation and support the thread. Your inability to provide an argument is noted.

- - - Updated - - -

I refer you to post #18.

 

A. I provided an argument...based on a real person with a real name and reputation.

B. You lead people to believe your youtube video was produced by some "liberal of note".

Pure BS.

 

I've made no such supposition. What you're attempting is argument from authority. I also addressed the quote you posted, directly.

 

Progressive, is what Liberals called themselves, when Rove tried to make it a dirty word. I NEVER stopped referring to myself as a liberal.

 

Since when did Liberals let the right dictate what they should call themselves? Progressive is older than 2004.

 

Not all liberals are progressives but all progressives are liberals.

 

This seems to be the modern consensus, as I understand it.