Talk:Progressivism

A better heuristic?

Reading through discussion points, it's clear the term "progressive" needs a better heuristic for readers. The section comparing progressivism to liberalism, conservativism, and socialism provides a poor typological structure for conveying meaning. Now, I would need to read more about the early progressive movement, but most of the cited sources above fit within a framework that views progressivism as an ORIENTATION to the foundational political philosophies of liberalism and communitarianism.

This heuristic comes from Stiles (2006) who did an analysis of current environmental education policies/philosophies in the United States. Stiles supports his framework with a number of sources, and it makes a lot more sense with cited sources above and in the main article. The heuristic is as follows:

progressive / liberalism (e.g. liberal democracy ala Rawls,1971)
conservative / liberalism (e.g. libertarianism, neoliberalism)
progressive / communitarianism (e.g. socialism)
conservative / communitarinism (e.g. communism, social conservative movement in the united states)

Liberals and Communitarians by Stephen Mulhall and Adam Swift (1996) is a must read as well.

Citation:
Stiles, T. (2006). Place stories: (Re)locating the interests of youth in environmental education. Dissertation at Arizona State University.

R33f3rman (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The comparison section is confusing because the terms progressive, liberal, conservative and socialist are used ambiguously. However I cannot see how your use of the term progressive fits in with any of its uses in the article. Basically the article lists how the term has been used in reference to different political groups: parties called "progressive", American politics in the Progressive, New Deal and Great Society era, and modern liberalism. The article itself needs to be re-written. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Progressive" is simply a political ideology of advocating for social reform through government action. Aside from the use of loaded words throughout the article, every socio-political ideology is "progressive" in the way it is now described in this article. The problem with calling it "left statism" is that "statism" is a Libertarian term for those opposite to Libertarian ideology, but it is still the opposite of Libertarianism, particularly "right Libertarianism".76.14.54.78 (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou, now we all understand. TFD (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Canada

I removed this wording: "...although the PCs also contained a progressive wing for the rest of its history. Most of these people were opposed to the PCs merger with the more socially conservative Canadian Alliance in 2003." Progressives who joined or re-joined the Conservatives did not form a separate wing and were not "progressive" in a modern sense. Also I added "former" (and capitalized the reference) to "progressives" who supported the Progressive Conservative Party, because the Progressive Party had ceased to exist. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Organize data better

Add tag:

Article would exist better-presented with more subsections and subtopics, for increased clarity, objectivity, and ease of reading.

Neutrality violated by libertarian framing.

The first sentence of the first paragraph is a blatant violation of wikipedia neutrality. Probably also a case of original research (ie. fantasy) since it is unsourced.

"[...] usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice)."

Statist is a libertarian term of derision, and that is the dominant usage people encounter. A brief google search for statism will show that.

A division into economic and social is also typical of libertarian viewpoints alone, as exemplified by their quiz, and has no academic standing.

The introduction ought to be based on statements of progressivism by progressives. Not framed in libertarian ideology.

Mhuben (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Statism" or "statist" is often used derisively by people who oppose State intrusions upon liberty. Nevertheless, it is a good term. Wikipedia's own statism article puts it well: "Statism (or etatism) is a scholarly term in political philosophy either emphasising the role of the state in analysing political change; or, in describing political movements which support the use of the state to achieve goals."

I think, however, the part you deleted needed to be deleted because it was inaccurate - too restrictive. The critical characteristic of progressivism is its means for social change - the political means (as opposed to voluntary social means.) That's why I added "through governmental action" to the definition. PhilLiberty (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Liberals support conservatives?

"Finally, liberals are more likely to support the Democratic Party in America and a Labour party or Liberal Party in Europe and Australia, while progressives tend to feel disillusioned with any two-party system, and vote more often for third-party candidates". This seems confusing. Very few European countries have a Liberal Party as one of their big two, so the natural interpretation of the sentence is to look at Australia, where the Liberal Party is a rightwing conservative party despite its name. Besides, relatively few European countries have a two-party system, unless you mean two-party in the weak sense of two-party-dominant. In Germany for example, the third-party and fourth-party scene is about a million times more vibrant than the third-party scene in the USA. And only a small minority of Europe's mainstream social democratic parties are called Labour. 86.176.49.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

The basis for this no longer appears to be in the article but what is there now, identifying American Liberalism with "left conservatism" is pretty near the mark. "Liberal" in the universe of mainstream US political discourse equivocally refers to that and what from the in-universe view is considered to be the left end of the entire spectrum of discourse with voices like Chomsky and so forth being side show attractions. Presumably, this, the near total lack of a politically effective left is one of those contradictions in American politics overripe for resolution. So the distinction between "liberal" and "progressive" is overdetermined here, "liberal" doesn't mean what it does globally, and in as much as it's a central pillar of the "centre right nation" cant doesn't mean progressive at all. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ireland

The section on Progressivism in Ireland shows the Progressive Democrats as being Progressive, eventhough they are not Progressive, just because their name says Progressive dosnt make it true, we could also make the same argument about the Progressive Conservatives of Canada, they are not Progressive even though their name says so, I think we should remove the Ireland section from this page considering that the party is not even close to being Progressive, they are Conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.10.54 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I removed them. They and the Progressive Conservatives are already mentioned in the lead as parties use progressive in their names, although not belonging to that tradition. (The Irish party is actually liberal.) The Four Deuces (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Tory party of Canada no longer calls itself "Progressive" since the merger/coup (depending on your point of view) of 2003. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Idea of progress"

The "Idea of progress" (That technological advancement improves society) is completely unrelated to Progressivism (The theory that 'progressive' (meaning Incremental) change through government intervention is the best way to change society.) - This is a complete malapropism. The history section needs to be written from scratch, as it currently has absolutely no accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.182.207 (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

as a eupemism for general "liberals"

the last section debunked this , however many individuals and sources disagree. 79.176.49.28 (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Progressivism as insanity

The recurrent insertion of material asserting that Progressivism is a form of insanity, especially in the head section, render the page unusable as a reference. I'm not familiar with the details of Wiki conventions, but such things often seem to find a home under a "controversy" section.

I would point out that the link, <http://about-psychology.com/progress.html> appears to refer to the work of Docjp, who put it here. I do not think this can be considered an authoritative source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.25.19 (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It does not qualify as a reliable source, since it is self-published. Even if it were published by a reputable source, we would have to establish whether the opinions were notable and then present them in a neutral manner. Please see also no original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me to even be taking this repetitious act of flagrant vandalism seriously. MondoManDevout (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

changes or reform

Advocating changes and/or reform is a pretty neutral description. One could argue Hitler was progressive because he proposed (and carried out) sweeping changes in Germany.--77.248.75.39 (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt the article to make a point. That was vandalism and I have reverted it. "One can argue" almost anything but this is not the place for original research, personal opinions or analysis. Neutrality is what we do. If you want to argue politics then please find a web forum where that sort of discussion is appropriate and do it there. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

australia section

the section implies that both sides of the political spectrum are progressive is this possible or is it a contradiction where neither is progressive and they are merely opposing points of veiw.

Digmores (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible. One side might wish to progress to the left and one to the right. This is probably true of many countries where there are no truly conservative or reactionary parties. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

hmmm what i mean is can a party be described as progressive if it is changing its own political perspective or is considered to be progressive by introducing new ideas. Or is progressiveness linked into the idea of social equity, individual freedom, social democracy, free markets. (Any of these things in isolation on in junction with one another.

Digmores (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It can mean anything and this article is just a list of definitions. It has been applied however to specific political moverments in the U. S. TFD (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

United States section - list of Progressives in Congress

Twice in the past year, an editor mysteriously removed three names from the list of Progressive who have served in the the U.S. Congress: Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. All three are well-known progressives: Waters is a current member of the Progressive Caucus, Clinton and Obama both describe themselves as a progressives and both served in Congress. None of the other names in the list were cited, so why are these three well-known progressives being being removed? --216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations:

1) Clinton in her own words defining herself as a progressive (@50 seconds) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc

2) Maxine Waters has been in the progressive caucus since the 1990's: http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

3) Barack Obama at a 2008 town hall meeting near Atlanta during the Presidential campaign: "I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive." I'll even pick a far-left progressive site to cite this admission: http://www.progressive.org/mag/nichols0109.html

Now why are these three additions continually removed by editors, without it being considered vandalism? --216.114.194.20 (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This raises the point that the inclusion of any person on this list needs to be well sourced. ClovisPt (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

None of the other names in the list were sourced, yet they were not deleted. Odd...--216.114.194.20 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:VANDAL: it has a clear meaning and using it the way you are is a personal attack. Clinton and Obama were never members of the Progressive Caucus and were listed as New Democrats. While Waters is a progressive, she is neither a senator nor a committee chairman, and if you want to list her, then you would have to list the 100 or so other people who have been in the caucus. In fact a list can be found in the appropriate article. TFD (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Where did I ever say Clinton and Obama were part of the progressive caucus? I never stated that. I provided non-refutable citations by them IN THEIR OWN WORDS describing themselves as progressives. The first removal several months ago was done without explaination, and thus I reverted. The second removal was done as a specific target against me, not against the content. When an editor selectively picks three additions I made a year ago to remove on the basis of not being cited, but leaves the rest of the names there also without citation, it is clearly a target against my additions, even though mine carried the same (and MORE) rationale for being added. As I was clearly being personally targeted, I have strong arguments to consider that a vandalism of my edits.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The article listed notable members of CONGRESS, not the U.S. Senate. Waters has been a CONGRESS member (House) and member of the Progressive caucus since the 90's.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are we listing members of Congress at all? The most famous progressives in U.S. history have come from various branches of government, including the presidency, state governors, senators, etc. By no stretch is Al Franken one of the most notable progressives in the U.S., for example. I suggest dropping the list completely. We have a whole article on the topic where readers can get details of notable progressives from across the history of progressivism. None of the other national sections list current progressive politicians in the lower houses of their legislatures.   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

July 21, 2011: yet another political ideolog has without explanation again singled out progressives Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for removal frfom this list. This is a political game being played on WP in an attempt to hide these two leading *self-admitted* progressives from being included in the list. Why try to intentionally hide the two most influential progressives from a list that even includes former and dead politicians? --216.114.194.20 (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Because they do not self-identify as or are considered progressives. TFD (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Read the very first entry in this discussion. Both identify themselves as progressives. Why is the left desperate to change history on this? --216.114.194.20 (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

July 22 - again reverted political-agenda removal of progressives Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Either the entire list goes away, or the entire list stays. Political ideologs removing people they don't want seen in this list is considered vandalism. They admit they are progressives, so they are proud of it. Why continually try to hide it by vandalizing this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.194.20 (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. All material added, especially about living persons should be sourced. since your additions are unsourced, I will remove them. Please do not restore without sources. TFD (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

you are ONLY targeting my additions. As I have said numerous times. only one other in the list is sourced, yet you do not remove them. Following links to Waters/Pelosi's WP pages discusses their involvement in the Progressive caucus. ***Further deletion of my valid additions WILL be treated as vandalism. Please keep your political agendas out of Wikipedia.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide an explanation why you left the other unsourced names on the list, and only targeted my additions for removal. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remove those same names off the list on the Congressional Progressive Caucus WP Page. They are also unsourced.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed new edits that were clearly against policy. The fact that there may be problems with this and other articles is no justification to add unsourced text. Clinton and Obama were never progressive's. Clinton's husband was in fact associated with the New Democrats. Pelosi quit the Progressives when she became speaker. But it is not up to other editors to investigate unsourced claims. TFD (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

After researching TFD's long history of standing guard on his favorite political pages, ensuring that his thinly-veiled leftist ideology gets bullied through, this incident is starting to make more sense. To claim that Hillary Clinton and Obama are not progressives, when they both self-identify themselves as progressives borders on the absurd. Any attempt to post those citations will no doubt result in TFD starting a month-long war deleting citations as well. We need a non-partisan experienced editor to put a stop to TFD's ongoing blockade of subjects that appear to be damaging to his political ideology. he also needs a stern warning regarding targeting specific editors, instead of content. This incident proves this accusation. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We cannot determine on our own who is progressive or thinly veiled leftist or whatever categories - we need reliable sources. If you do not like that then please get the policy changed rather than argue across numerous articles. TFD (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Came here from a posting on WP:RSN. Any addition to the article will absolutely need to be sourced to a reliable source, and not just on the whim of what an editor thinks is appropriate or the WP:TRUTH. This is the core of the policy on verifiability. Yobol (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The posting is at WP:RSN#Progressivism. TFD (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD AGAIN reverted my additions, but did not remove other unsourced additions. This is my point. I have a document with notes of all of the relevant citations needed from actual transcripts, etc for inclusion in this WP section, but I am trying to prove a point. 1) TFD has a history of being reprimanded for NPOV left-wing political activism on WP. 2) TFD is ONLY cherry-picking three individuals on this list that he for some reason does not want to be publicly listed as being progressive, perhaps because in the USA 'progressive' has started taking on an increasingly negative public opinion in the past couple years. That's the only reason I can think of. My point here is why is TFD not removing ALL members from this list, since NONE are sourced, and only targeting these three, when the others on the list do not meet the requirements for the same policy?

Here's the sources I am ready to create, but should I even go through the trouble, as I fully expect an edit war on my citations as well?

Hillary Clinton

CNN / YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc

Transcript:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/us/politics/24transcript.html?pagewanted=all "I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the ::::::: beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive..."

Maxine Waters (Founding member of the Progressive Caucus)

Congressional Progressive Caucus membership:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71&sectiontree=2,71

Barack Obama

Town hall meeting in suburban Atlanta during 2008 campaign:

NY Times Partial Transcript:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/us/politics/09campaign.html?_r=1&ei=5087&em=&en=b690d55617d9d0db&ex=1215748800&adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1215785058-T9CQHCNICPqGNIpAArg6lA
"I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive."

--216.114.194.20 (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You are just Google-mining for sources to support your views. H. Clinton and Obama were never members of the Progressive Caucus, and you would need sources that describe them that way. Waters of course is a progressive, notice that she is highly critical of Obama, but does not have the stature of other progressives. TFD (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Google mining people quoting in their exact words??? Obama says " I am no doubt a progressive", but TFD is saying that Obama was incorrect about describing himself? TFD, I am not sure what ideology or people you are trying to protect here, but your fixation on trying to protect these three WELL-KNOWN and DEEPLY DOCUMENTED progressives is beyond absurd. So absurd, that any further removal of my PROPERLY CITED additions will lead me no choice but to file yet another NPOV complaint to add to your resume of using WP as a leftist propaganda platform. I halfway expect TFD to now start advocating for removing ALL names, since the only cited ones are the ones he is desperate to hide from public view.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please avoid personal attacks and false statements about other editors in your talk page discussion and edit summaries. If Obama called himself a libertarian, would you add him to the liberarianism article? TFD (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

referred for mediation. I'm not playing TFD's game any longer.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Incoming moderators, please note the name of the list involved: "Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included..." This means current and FORMER, which is a detail TFD is not grasping here.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Better definition

Progressivism is 'authoritarianism for social and economic equality' would be the best definition that just saying statist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.146.180 (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)