Talk:Progressive

From dKosopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

--Pyrrho 20:28, 16 Jun 2004 (PDT) wegerje et al, I am wondering about having a catalog of political ideologies... that is, an index to pages such as Progressive? I have watched the wiki close enough to think that there are not many such pages, if any (might have missed some if they don't get edited much)... Any ideas how to do this. Part of me says it's a ThinkTank page with some "rules"/"methods" for creating such pages. Another part of me says it's just an index with a link to a lot of wiki articles on ideologies. The second case of course raises the question of how does this fit into the dkosopedia organization as starting from the main page.

cheers.

--wegerje 12:44, 17 Jun 2004 (PDT) Would it fit under "Butter-Ideologies" or something?

---Ohwilleke 18:05 17 Jun 2004 (MDT) I don't think you are correct about there not being ideologies pages already although they are more narrow. There is one group on the International Relations page, there is also a version of "Approaches to Religion" one and in particular religions on the Religion and Politics page. In the architecture of the Main Page, I would suggest putting "Ideologies" in the reference bar, perhaps as a new main entry.

On the definitional issue over Progressive, I would suggest a heading that states that this is a term that hangs in the political balance, the inclusion of multiple definitions, and exposition under each definition of relevant material related to that definition: Examples of Progressive as not uber-liberal (e.g. the Progressive Policy Institute), and examples of Progressive as very liberal (e.g. Progressive Punch, a non-profit oriented that way).

I think an ideology is something with much more meat than a meme, indeed, one could imagine links to relevant memes in each ideology.

--Pyrrho 20:09, 17 Jun 2004 (PDT) Good points... we should get the existing pages into a central location for reference. And ideologies are way more important than memes. The relation to using the think tank approach was just the idea that maybe a common methodology for making these articles makes sense. I actually have to rescind that idea... it's not think tank output. These ideologies are philosophies with their own histories and character and as you point out, a certain innate long lived nature (even ideologies that have few modern adherents live on as philosophies). I also agree with you now that it doesn't really go under "issues"... not sure about reference section... if it were a vote I'd say somehow in the same section that other profiles go since these basically are profiles of schools of thought which in fact will probably have links to biographies of people and organizations that strongly relate.

--Pyrrho 16:19, 1 Jun 2004 (PDT) wegerje, btw, I note with glee your use of the idea of marking pages CONTROVERSIAL etc. It's too early to worry about most of the wiki this way, but it's nice to have a test case for this sort of process.

--wegerje I had changed the Progressive page with an idea and then JohnLocke took out my change completely (rather than attempt to integrate it.) So I thought, perfect case for "Controversy". Also there was some comment on the Third Party page that sparked some minor controversy so I stuck it there too. But then the others just gave up so I took off the Controversy notice. It's a standard message over in wikipedia, which you insert with just the word Controversial between curley brackets "{}"

--Pyrrho 15:18, 31 May 2004 (PDT) "Progressive is a political philosophy of liberalism which argues for incrementalism toward a goal in the spirit of progress over perfection."

wegerje I know this is at odds with your definition and the traditional definition. A few words: I think this is the direction that is leading to the idea of being called "progressives" rather than liberal. Now, I have preferred the former to the latter for many years, and this I admit is a function of "liberal" having become a bad word to a certain degree, but not just that. This sense of "progressive" is the sense in which Dean can been called progressive even though his health care plan is incremental, his NRA rating high, etc. etc.. A progressive of this sort may be far left, maybe centrist, the emphasis is on taking steps in a direction... "progressing" toward ideals without an ethical purity litmus test which while positive can be counter productive. And to defend this idea against the accusation that it's a sell out on principle let me add: the problem with ethical purity is it grants some idea of perfection to the ideals themselves, and however good the ideals are we cannot argue their perfection, and we cannot impose them in a dictatorial way on culture. But rather than give up on our ideals the progressive achievement of them gives us all wiggle room as the world evolves to adapt.

PS: the experiment is a good idea since this is in fact a term we are constructing as much as using. I think in the end there will probably properly be a couple senses used.

-wegerje 09:10, 1 Jun 2004 (PDT) My own personal history with the word began in the 60's when we 60's radicals began beating up on Liberals from the the left. At some point (70's) I found myself comfortable with the Progressive label. By the Reagan 80's and the right-wing intensified onslaught on Liberals I felt sorry for them but still had my own criticisms. Now I still have the same criticisms but of course recognize the need for strategic allaince against the neocons.
There is still, for me, the issue of Liberals wanting to co-opt the word for themselves. I have seen that here at the dKos community. Some have thought that Progressive was to the right of Liberal even. It may be that the voting here at dKos yeilds a self-definition of Progressive that I am not comfortable with. It may further happen that that "re-definition" becomes the one common in the larger world. Well, then, if Liberals succeed in co-opting the word Progressive, then, I will need to come up with a new term that distinguishes me from them.
PS: Yeah, I like the idea of self-construction and seeing how we vote the different conceptualizations up and down.
--Pyrrho 12:47, 1 Jun 2004 (PDT) Just theorizing... but the idea that progressive is to the right of Liberal I think relates to my proposed defintion. But it's not really to the right NOR to the left in that definition. It's not on the ideological scale. That is, a Centrist and Communist could both be progressive by that definition because it's not about ideals directly. It's sort of "Progressivism" as a -strategic methodology- in the service of the ideals of a humane and equitable society. Personally, I feel like abstaining from a vote... but I did want to present this other meaning. "Liberal" just doesn't convey as much as "progress". Taken in common meaning, sometimes you want to be liberal, sometimes not. If you are sharing your last food on a raft at sear, you don't want to give "liberal" portions... but in all cases you want to be progressive, to achieve progress. The term embodies liberal ideals but focusses on achievement. One bright side... if the term gets "stolen" this way by centrists... it rhetorically strengthens progressivism. It may appear to bring it rightward, but it also appears as if people are moving leftward toward the term. Dean as a "progressive" has definately affected the term I think.
-wegerje I agree with those who said Dean came late to the progressive talk and has yet to show he can walk it. I hope he does. The rest of your comment has a nice theoretical ring, but right we'll be trying to tease out the feet on the ground versions.

hi! thinking of doing some editing here

Hiya, there's been a lot of discussion recently on the site about this, so I'm thinking of doing some editing. Seems like it might be a bit of a minefield, though; I have some very strong feelings about this and I imagine lots of others do too.

I haven't seen how a wiki operates under conditions like this and I'm a little new to this medium, so please inform me here or via email (da {at} speakoutca {dot} org). Maybe the best purpose we can bend this page to is collecting all the various points of view and their critiques in one place. That's what I'm going to shoot for at least.

Israel/Palestine

IMHO, nothing in this entry really distinguishes progressives from liberals. Inferring, then, that the purpose of this entry is to describe progressive attitudes towards Israel and Palestine, I offer what I hope is common to most progressives, namely, support for an end-of-conflict, two-state peace settlement between Israel and Palestine. --One of the people 17:32, 31 May 2007 (PDT)

We do not all know that Israel "is dependent on U.S. foreign aid for much of their economic stability." According to the CIA World Fact Book, Israel's estimated gross domestic product for 2006, in purchasing power parity, was $166.3 billion. Annual U.S. aid generally is put at $3 billion, which is only c. 1.8% of GDP. Nor is it self-evident how, or that, that aid encourages violence. --One of the people 17:23, 31 May 2007 (PDT)

Somebody needs to pull Bart away from editing this page and put someone with a couple of brain-cells in their head in charge. This is an incredibly contentious issue among progressives, there is NO consensus on the issue, and taking a stand one way or another on Israel/Palestine is NOT a tenet of progressivism. Superduperficial 21:10, 29 May 2007 (PDT)

Bart, while I agree that the I/P conflict is a -- not the -- root cause of Islamic terrorism, and a solution to the problem is necessary and can only hold if it includes the creation of a Palestinian state, the language on which you insist for this section does not pass the non-inflammatory test. In addition, there seems to be no effort made to hammer out the proper language. Neither dKos nor dKosopedia will come to a solution to the I/P problem, but at least we can try to dispassionately present the various sides. Doing so will require discussion that doesn't devolve into shouting. --Centerfielder 06:39, 30 May 2007 (PDT)

How about a general statement on the need to examine root causes of terrorism in general? We should make it explicit, of course, that such an examination does not, in any way, 'excuse' terrorism and that progressives do not ever claim that terrorism against America is justified. Rather, any smart, competent response to terrorism that ensures America's national security will require an honest examination of the causes of terrorism, beyond Bush Administration platitudes that they 'hate us for our freedom'. (To be sure, terrorists do hate many of our most important freedoms, as anyone who's read Sayyid Qutb can tell you, but there's far more to it than just that.)

Or, hell, we could expand it out to a statement about looking at the root causes of lingering problems rather than arbitrarily pretending that everything can be resolved with brute force, as the Right often does. That ties together foreign policy with issues like the progressive opposition to the drug war, for instance.

Or we could just say "lack of consensus, take it out" and leave it at that. But I'd like to get something in there about our underlying principles that lead us to wherever we stand (even if they lead each of us to different places), rather than simply a list of positions that happen to be important to whoever edits this entry. Superduperficial 01:12, 31 May 2007 (PDT)

Do whatever you want. I am leaving this hootenanny. BartFraden 01 June 2007

Two things, one minor, one major:

1. Bart, use four tildes to 'sign' your comments - the info gets added in automatically. I've fixed yours a bit, but it's a good Wiki rule of thumb.

2. Let me get this straight -- you can't have it *exactly the way you want it*, and so you're going to 'take your ball and go home'? WTF, mate? Your POV should be reflected in the final consensus, same as everyone else's. Don't leave pouting, stick around and help us work on this. No reason to skip out now. Superduperficial 11:52, 31 May 2007 (PDT)

Personal tools