Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » New definitions!

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: New definitions!
Member # 6179

 - posted      Profile for cb   Email cb       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Picked this up from the Gay Patriot blog:

Yesterday, when reading this comment on the press conference between President Obama and Brazilian President Luizcio Lula da Silva, Obama’s talking progressive policies, Lula is talking about free trade and business, I noted how, in common parlance, that word, “progressive” has come to mean the opposite of “free trade” and many other freedoms. Indeed, it seems to have become synonymous, at least for those who use it, with an increasing role for the state.

Who decided that big government means progress? Had those who did so studied history, they would see that it’s quite the opposite....

Liberal used to mean giving people the freedom to act on their own. Now it forcing people to toe the line of “progressive” government.

When I was first on my very own (age 18) I had $50 and a fiber board suitcase which held my other shirt and some underwear. I went to college where I worked for my tuition and lived by my wits. My studies in the “liberal arts” reinforced what I already knew: there is no free lunch.

Today, liberals and “progressives” put a great premium on “wants” and “feelings.” In some respects, we can never satisfy our wants and you allow your feelings to take charge of your life if you have no gratitude for the wonderfulness of life itself.

Posts: 347 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that saying liberals put a great premium on "wants" and "feelings" is about as condescending as if I told you conservatives put a great premium on "self-interest" and "fear".

I would hope for a less ridiculous portrayal of what the actual practitioners of these philosophies hold as values.

Less sweeping generalizations, more serious discussion please.

Edit: If we must get into a discussion of the term "progressive", it is helpful to start here:

Progressivism is a political and social term for ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in an egalitarian direction for economic policies (public management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies. ... Social progressivism, which states that governmental practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves, forms the ideological basis for many American progressives. Alonzo L. Hamby defines progressivism as the "political movement that addresses ideas, impulses, and issues stemming from modernization of American society. Emerging at the end of the nineteenth century, it established much of the tone of American politics throughout the first half of the century."

[ November 05, 2009, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Progressive roughly equates to "trying new things." To the extent that progressive agenda surfaces in the sphere of government, doing something new means doing it with government.

The inability to stop doing old things with government as new things are introduced is not a uniquely progressive problem.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As for progressive being used in opposition to Free Trade, I suspect it might be because Free Trade doesn't ensure that producers will be paid what they need to maintain or improve their quality of life. It seems to drive to the lowest possible prices.

Back when international agreements set the price of coffee and bananas and such, the prices were, IRRC, at least twice as high as Fair Trade prices. It was also suggested that much of the difference in price went to the farmers that actually made the stuff.

I'd say it's pretty progressive to make sure people get a living wage for their work, even if they don't live in the Global North. It'll also take government intervention to do it, unless someone figures out a way to drastically change how goods are valued without it.

ETA: I like scifibum's way of describing the problem of getting the government to do things.

[ November 05, 2009, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator

Quick Reply

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1