Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Definitions

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
trezic Donating Member (114 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-19-05 10:25 AM
Original message
Definitions
I see the labels progressive and liberal tossed around on here quite a bit, but precious little definition for them. I'd like to see just what people think of this, so I'll offer my own thoughts and ask for responses.

Progressive: These are the hardcore social justice people. Primary concerns are poverty and the environment. Tend to be hostile to corporations in general. Also tend to be hostile to the national security state and the use of force internationally. And, this could just be me, seem to be near obsessed with ideological purity.

Liberal: Less hostile to corporations, but share much of the same suspicions as progressives. Primary concerns tend to be social issues, as opposed to social justice, such as civil rights, gay rights, opposition to the death penalty, and church/state issues. Not quite as suspicious or hostile to the national security state and the use of force as progressives, but not so far either. Would primarily support the use of force for humanitarian reasons, but not to defend economic or geopolitical interests. Ideological purity becomes more important when times are bad.

Me: Anachronistic Democrat, Southern Democrat, Cold War liberal. Primary concerns are economic and foreign policy. Less concern over the motives of corporations but rather the inherent influence that size confers. No inherent hostility to the national security state, just a recognition that constant and effective oversight is necessary both for protection and to make it worth having. Social issues aren't so important; all citizens get the same rights, period. No hostility to a foreign policy that seeks to protect and expand American interests or the use of force to do so. Would greatly prefer skillful diplomacy as a less expensive method (after all, more countries have collapsed internally from war than have been completely defeated). Ideological purity is irrelevant. Pragmatism, though hopefully not expediency, is king.

Anyway, feel free to correct me because I'm sure I screwed something up with this. I tried hard not to knock anybody as well, so if I'm dead wrong, please just tell me. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC