Are you a progressive, prog with a cause, or a prog with a pause? + poll

I suppose there are many litmus tests or discussions for what makes a progressive and how much one considers oneself a progressive. One could tote up a survey and presumably measure it as is done for members of Congress, but I imagine there would be immediate outcries should a favorite issue be neglected.

So perhaps one way to approach this is to start with self-identification. Do you consider yourself mainly progressive on all issues, progressive due to a favorite cause that meshes with the progressive agenda, or a progressive that feels you are in the main in sync but have reservations about an issue or two that the majority of other progressives would disagree.

There are some notable progressives or liberals who defy the easy stereotype, and I suppose that is what the discussion is really all about.

Alexander Cockburn is a staunch defender of gun rights. Bill Maher IIRC is pro-death penalty. Just a few examples.

If you have an issue you feel out of the mainstream as far as "progressives" go, post and discuss. Or if you know of a bona fide "progressive" or "liberal" who is to be praised for such deviation or taken to task, feel free to discuss.

•  tips/recs/j'accuse and you refuse

  by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:21:16 AM PDT

  •  but i also

    really like pie... oh the humanity!

    by chiefsjen on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:23:44 AM PDT

  •  What does that

    word even mean?

    by TomP on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:36:59 AM PDT

•  If by "gun rights" you mean an NRA member

  and all that goes with it, there is NO WAY I would consider such a person a "progressive" or just having a "minor" exception.  Advocating cop killing bullets or guns in schools is the opposite of our cause.  That's not to say we occasionally have to tolerate such a person: example - Senator Webb.

  by hcc in VA on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:26:43 AM PDT

  •  And one of the wonderful things

    about democracy is that no one person gets to determine reality for others.

    by NWTerriD on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:50:44 PM PDT

•  "Progressive Economist"

  that pretty much sums up my internal conflicts :)

  by SteamPunkX on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:27:36 AM PDT

•  Like Alex Cockburn

  (and many others) I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment.  I consider supporting the entire bill of rights essential to any hope of achieving real democracy (we're not even close IMO).  I don't think there's anything non progressive about that.  I don't think one size fits all laws about inanimate objects takes the diversity of american society and landscape into account.

  by Urizen on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:33:58 AM PDT

  •  I think this is a difference betw. progs & libera

    ls.

    Being a prog is, in part, about correcting the top-down coastal attitude of 70's-90's liberalism, reaching out populistically to the working class that's gone Red.

    And part of that is a greater tolerance of, if not actual advocacy for, gun rights.

    by slaney black on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:38:07 AM PDT

    •  Good point

      by Urizen on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:56:21 AM PDT

•  I'm progger than prog on a lot of issues

  but I believe in pursuing a policy of dialectical synthesis on abortion (yes, the fetus has a right to life -- and yes, the pregnant woman has a right to liberty, and the question is where to draw the line between them, not which of those rights you can categorically ignore), and I also believe in retaining the death penalty iff the inequities in the justice system that lead to widespread sentencing of innocents get ironed out. Which is something we ought to be pursuing regardless.

  As for the rest, I believe the United States needs a Social Democratic Party, because the vanilla Democratic Party is always getting tugged back toward the center-right.

  by Geenius at Wrok on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:35:07 AM PDT

  •  I think I could fall in love with you.

    Someone who:

    1. recognizes the dueling rights (real or perceived) truly at issue in the abortion debate, rather than boiling it down to one or the other of the silly themes adopted by the two main camps in the debate ("anti-abortionists want to deny women the right to make choices about their own bodies!!" vs. "pro-abortionists want to make it legal to murder babies!!")

    2. is able to aptly use the phrase "dialectical synthesis" in relation to the above thought process, and

    3. not only knows that "iff" is different from "if," but has the audacity to use it in a public writing as though everyone else will know that too.

    I swoon.

    by NWTerriD on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:58:34 PM PDT

•  Raving Maoists

  are to my right, because they are statist authoritarians.

  by ActivistGuy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:36:52 AM PDT

  •  fair enough, I want to hear the views..eom

    by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:40:03 AM PDT

•  I'm against tariffs

  because they're a regressive tax. Although I'm not in favor of so-called "free trade" agreements.

  by slaney black on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:39:26 AM PDT

  •  what's the solution?

    by NWTerriD on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:00:46 PM PDT

    •  Easy; don't have tariffs

      You don't need other countries to do it in return. We could just reap the benefits of not taxing the poor and middle classes disproportionately. Same rationale for abolishing sales taxes (and the two are basically the same thing).

      Expanded market access from other countries lowering their tariffs is also nice. But there are plenty of ways to encourage it that don't involve signing hideous pro-corporate regulatory agreements and playing politics with your workers' purchasing power.

      Now I'm talking best of all possible worlds here.

      In the real world, I'd be content with FTA's emphasizing labor and enviro rights and not going too harsh on stuff like intellectual property enforcement.

      by slaney black on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:02:04 PM PDT

•  I don't even know what the terms mean anymore

  Conservative used to mean good (Edmund Burke philosophy of conservatism).  But now Liberals claim at least some of Burke's philosophy.

  Conservatives now don't really act conservative at all.

  Liberals/progressives used to not care about consequence.  Actually, for many, this is still true.  

  Here's what I think...

  I think we all have a responsibility to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps IF WE ACTUALLY HAVE BOOTSTRAPS.

  If we don't, then we need to subscribe to the "we are our brothers and sisters keeper" philosophy and get the folks some damn bootstraps.

  I believe hard work cures alot.  But it doesn't cure all.

  I believe we are the stewards of the earth and we have a right to use her but we have a responsibility to restore her.

  I believe we ought to have a reasonable balance between those that have and those that don't and right now, we're out of balance.

  Competition is good.  But we need ethics.

  We should be sensitive.  We should thicken our skins.

  I believe in Social, Environmental, and Economic Justice - but I don't always know what that means when we get to specifics.

  What was the question?

  by broui on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:47:55 AM PDT

  •  States my own views on the subject

    to a tee:

    Here's what I think...

    I think we all have a responsibility to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps IF WE ACTUALLY HAVE BOOTSTRAPS.

    If we don't, then we need to subscribe to the "we are our brothers and sisters keeper" philosophy and get the folks some damn bootstraps.

    by NWTerriD on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:05:01 PM PDT

•  Traditional Christian, therefore

  progressive.

  My politics are shaped by my faith.

  1. Love God with all my heart, mind, and soul.

  2. Love my neighbor as myself.

  Everything else is subordinate to these two commandments,
  ESPECIALLY the rest of the Bible.

  by slowheels on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:49:30 AM PDT

  •  Unfortunately, you seem to relegate

    your neighbor's (and your own) welfare to a status secondary to the welfare of your deity.  What if instead you put the welfare of your fellow human as your first priority, and let that stand as evidence for your obeisance to your god?

    I intend this as a positive suggestion to you, not as a rant against your religious beliefs.

    by cn4st4datrees on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:04:26 AM PDT

    •  You misunderstand

      They are one in the same.

      The WAY a human expresses love of God
      is, of course, by loving one's fellow humans.

      And THAT is the entire point. A Christian has only two commandments. And they are exactly the same.

      Jesus said it better,
      but I figured a quick paraphrasing would suffice.

      by slowheels on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:20:58 AM PDT

•  I'm a Canadian Muslim Ex-pat

  In Canada, I am known as a conservative.  In the USA, I'm a raging liberal on many issues.

  I'm religious and socially conservative(ish)

  Since coming to America I've become pretty obsessed with the constitution, which, makes me a bit of a privacy nut and a gun nut, even though I hate guns and don't own any.

  My faith (Islam) and my Canadian roots both instill a strong sense of social justice and responsibility, so I'm definitely a "we're all in this together" kind of guy.. lefty alert!!

  Foreign policy wise, I'm not anti-war (I believe in Just War) but I have been against most foreign policy decisions the US has made in the past 40-50 years. :)

  Economically, I think that a socially equitable framework first needs to be in place and well regulated.  Within that framework, which many would deem socialist by definition, I am very conservative.  ie: I believe in a system that rewards individual effort with success and a system that is strong on personal responsibility, but not at the expense of letting our neighbours suffer while we bathe in excess.

  For example: I think the mortgage companies need to be more regulated and oversight needs to be tighter, but at the same time I'm kinda ticked off that even though I resisted the urge to do the foolish thing with all the sub-prime stuff, I will still have to pay a price to bail out the ones who showed less restraint.

  I do feel a sense of responsibility to my fellow citizen, but I get irritated by the sense of entitlement and the blame-shifting that goes on.

  by Hark on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:49:41 AM PDT

•  I'm a progressive because I believe in

  the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as long as your exercise of this right puts no one else's rights in jeopardy to the best of your ability to ensure it; you have the right to believe, say, and do as you wish, but you must also acknowledge that rights imply duties.

  I'm a progressive because I believe in forming the most egalitarian society possible, where all citizens are entitled to a decent standard of living, especially for those whose circumstances place them at an inherent disadvantage, e.g. physical/mental disabilities, living in an economically depressed locale, poor elementary and secondary educational opportunities, etc.

  I'm a progressive because I believe that it is up to us, and us alone, to work together to make this a better world to live in today than it was yesterday, and a better world tomorrow than it is today.

  I guess I'm a progressive because I'm also a dreamer, but if memory serves me correctly there was once a famous dreamer who got a lot of people to share that dream and who are still working to make that dream a reality.

  by cn4st4datrees on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:51:14 AM PDT

•  Good idea . . .

  to ask the question.  I don't think most people who call themselves progressives have really thought about what it means. You see this in the comments here.  Progressives have to advocate progress!  So being ideologically straightjacketed by a version of the Bill of Rights written hundreds of years ago is not progressivism -- it's conservatism. Likewise, murder by the state given a label "capital punishment" doesn't qualify as progress.  The Big Man's been offing people from the beginning of history.  

  Being a progressive means having clear goals to define your mission.  How do you define progress?  And then you need to get your ass out there and make it happen.  If you don't have a comprehensive vision of change that you can defend as making a better world and you don't do anything to get it, you aren't a progressive.  You're . . . undefined.

  by dhaemeon on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:58:26 AM PDT

•  Like Forrest Gump said, I'm not a smart man

  but I do know what love is.

  I'm no constitutional scholar, but I have studied the 2nd Amendment a bit (a little knowledge being a dangerous thing?).  What is clear about the 2nd Amendment to me is that it's primary purpose was to assuage the fears of the federalists of the time that there was no fear of the establishment of a standing army; the state militias would serve that purpose should the time come, and thus the rights of the citizenry as an entity to keep and bear arms was preserved.  In other words "A well regulated [state] militia" was sufficient to ensure the federal government wouldn't prohibit the possession of weapons outside of membership in a federal militia.  Thus the citizens were protected against an armed federal tyranny wherein they, the citizens themselves, would be defenseless against such tyranny.

  In my view, the 2nd Amendment is de facto obsolete in this context.  Unfortunately, there exists no resolution to the question about the right to private firearm ownership that this brings up.  However as we know, SCOTUS has taken a case under review to address this problem.  We'll see what shakes out of that.

  I wouldn't mind not having any right to private ownership of firearms, provided there was also no right for the government to possess firearms.  Therein lies the conundrum:  were this the case, wouldn't we be utterly defenseless against invasion from a foreign power?  Even as liberal as I am, given the world as it exists in reality today, that would be utterly unacceptable.

  by cn4st4datrees on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:30:45 AM PDT

  •  FWIW I think Cockburn leans toward the

    opinion that any right should be yanked back thanks to the government's actions to restrict.

    I could be wrong. I am also too lazy to check on that right now.

    by Belvedere Come Here Boy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:22:54 AM PDT