Talk:Congressional Progressive Caucus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article is about one (or many) thing(s).

Members[edit]

Dennis Kucinich stepped down as co-chair but he's still a member, so I've restored him to the list. I've also made some other changes based on the membership list on the Caucus website. Nancy Pelosi was a member but is no longer; according to this article, she's stated a policy of not belonging to caucuses now that she's the party leader. JamesMLane 08:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There are far more members of this caucus than what is listed. I'm certain of it. I'm certain numerous left-wing Reps are in this caucus, but hiding their membership. I can think of at least 15 members who are trying to hide this fact. Jackie Speier (CA), Kathy Castor (FL), Russ Carnahan (MO), Anthony Weiner (NY) and Bruce Braley (IA) come to mind. DavidSteinle (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

This page has been vandalized. Would someone please revert it to Jan 10? Also, please consider locking it, since there appears to be a long history of vandalism.

"socialist" description of Bernie Sanders[edit]

While Bernie Sanders certainly self-describes as a socialist, calling him "the socialist Congressman" in the introduction (and in context of founding the caucus), feels off to me, and insufficiently encyclopedeaic. I have changed it to "the independent (and self-described socialist) Congressman", as a compromise (because I do think that it is germane to the topic).

Notapipe 17:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideology[edit]

Comments on their ideology. Two fallacies in this group's wording: progressive & fairness. Redistributing wealth from those who produce to those who have not developed the skills to adequately support themselves, is not progress & not fair. Economic growth isn't helped by taking money from the people who create value & giving it to others. For one thing, it takes away incentive to better yourself. Free enterprise is based upon rewards & liberty. The many regulations are detrimental too. Their principles sound good, but the Congressmen don't have much idea on how capitalism operates. Some basic economic & business courses would help. Republicans mess things up. Both parties need to reform or we should have a viable third option that adheres to the Constitution & limited government. Scottit68.180.38.41 04:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 8.17.07

I'm curious what does your opinion have in relevance to this article? First of all "progressive" is a fair adjective because it describes their ideology; perhaps you should look up the wiki page on Progressivism. Second of all favoring a more progressive taxation system is not taking money from one to group to just hand to another. The people who would be in the top bracket are millionaires and billionaires and their level of taxes do not affect their lifestyles and can easily afford it. This group favors increased spending on welfare to equalize opportunity by providing benefits to the lower class to help them help themselves, nor do they favor total economic equalization. These people do not advocate dismantling capitalism; they favor increased consumer protection and regulation to prevent financial meltdowns like we've had. Democrats take the middle position compared to free-market conservatives and pure socialists who favor eradicating capitalism. I would imagine that many in congress have a better understanding of economics than you or I, but special interests and greed often take precedent. People such as Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman favor a welfare state and often point to the successes of Scandinavian and European countries with strong economies and large welfare systems. I added this for balance but would prefer neither of our personal opinions to be on this page; from now on lets not inject our opinions into either the talking page or the article.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Progressive means totalitarian political stances such as socialism, fascism, wefare statism, nanny statism and police statism. Perhaps this should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.104.19 (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

POV[edit]

I have removed a sentence commenting on the validity of the Caucus's positions, as well as the unsubstantiated description of the Caucus as socialist. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed the following: In 2000, the Democratic Socialists of America expressed solidarity with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, since they both shared "operative social democratic politics."[1]
Besides not accurately reflecting the text, it's way out of date. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Map of Districts Represented by Progressive Caucus Members[edit]

There is a map of districts represented by Blue Dog Democrats but I notice there's not one for the Progressives. Why is this? And could we have one made?--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea - you should do this. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Too bad I don't have the slightest idea how to do it. --Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I did one, and it's in the House members section, though it's kind of underwhelming, perhaps deceptive, because most CPC members represent urban (and therefore small) districts. The Homosexualist (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think its great we finally have a map, thank you. I don't mean to be rude, but there is one error on the map that I noticed(barring other errors of course that others may notice). In Minnesota, the larger district highlighted is in Republican hands and is, therefore, not a member of the CPC.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I mistook MS-2 for MN-2. It is fixed now. —the Homosexualist (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; great job by the way. Also, interesting picture on your page lol.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

HC[edit]

Hillary Clinton has been recently taken off the Former Members List of Progressives. It had been noted that she had to resign when made Secretary of state.She has been removed and, other former members and the reason for resignation have not. Only Hillary. She is a Former Member of the Caucus.. -- 19:21, 2 December 2010 User:Codeblue2

I do not think she was ever a member. Do you have any source that says she was? TFD (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Explain the difference between the CPC and other caucuses, like the Blue Dogs[edit]

Could someone please add a section comparing ideologies of other groups in the Democratic Party such as the Blue Dog Democrats? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.227.12 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of position as "left-wing"[edit]

On this wiki being firmly "left-wing" in position means that you're, at the very least, a Democratic socialist. This causus is, at the most, for social democracy, which we define on this very wiki as being center left. Unless someone posts a decent reason to keep the description I'm removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.192.212 (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah there's a major problem with the "left wing" description, neither of the sources outright call them "left wing". Both simply refer to "the left" as a relative term to some other group:
  • one from The Hill simply states "House Democrats pushing hard from the left on budget as 'fiscal cliff' nears" which means it refers to the left of the center, or more likely left of the Republican Party. This is not a proper source.
  • other states "Representative Carl M. Sciortino, who has worked vigorously to position himself to the left of his six Democratic opponents" which doesn't indicate "left wing" as opposed to being to the left of the center. This is also not a proper source.

Trying to make those sources mean "left wing" as opposed to center-left is a real stretch to say the least. This needs to be deleted. AlexanderLevian (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC).

The sources describe them as 'left'. That doesn't mean center-left, it means left-wing. In the US spectrum, that's all that matters. Toa Nidhiki05 13:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No they don't:
  • one from boston.com says "... the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the umbrella group for left-leaning Democratic members of Congress". It only refers Representative Carl M. Sciortino being to the left of six of Democratic candidates. One can also say the Main Street Republicans are to the left of the Republican Study Committee or that the Blue Dog Democrats are to the left of Tea Party movement. It's used as a term of relative position, not absolute position. Even if we add the expression leftwing to the statement about Representative Carl M. Sciortino, it would only mean that HE could be consider "left wing" (still stretching what the article says). But that would have zero bearing on the Progressive Caucus which the article EXPLICITLY refers to as a "left-leaning" organization.
  • one from The Hill only says that the "House Democrats pushing hard from the left on budget as 'fiscal cliff' nears". Once again, it’s not referring to the CPC or outright saying that the Progressive Caucus is the "left wing". The only time they are mentioned in the article, it says "But members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) are warning that they'll fight to kill any budget package that would cut Medicare coverage, Social Security benefits and safety net programs for the poor — all elements of the Simpson-Bowles plan". It doesn't say anything about that organization's position on the political spectrum.

They don't say at any point anything to the effect of the CPC being plain "left wing". Thank you AlexanderLevian (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC).

Tell you what. Put "Left (politics)" in your search bar here. See what page that goes to. Toa Nidhiki05 13:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
More left sources:
Toa Nidhiki05 14:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
None of those are reliable sources, two are well known for right-wing bias, and the other is unqualified.
  • Wall Street Journal has a heavy conservative/right-wing bias. It is a clearly not an reliable source on this issue, (ever notice that Salon and MSNBC are not consider acceptable sources if the situation was the other way around).
  • I have no clue how one can say that The Christian Science Monitor is qualified to make such a claim.
  • The Telegraph is also of a conservative bias, not reliable source for this issue.

Surely you noticed the problem with those sources, or do you want to start using MSNBC for sources about the Tea Party? You have to see the problem at this point. Now address the actual problems with the sources you listed. I have quoted the things twice and have pain-stakingly spelled out the problem with that. Please address those problems listed or the label "Left wing" will be removed. Tell you what. Look up center-left and see what political positions are usually associated with it (spoiler: Social liberalism, social democracy, and progressivism). AlexanderLevian (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought you might say that, so what is your opinion on this Daily Beast article that explicitly describes them as 'left-wing' as well as this New Republic article that implies as such, or this New York Times article that places the caucus squarely in the political left? Toa Nidhiki05 15:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I will gladly add Left wing with these sources, but I will not have total removal of sourced additions to the article. This does not count as good faith editing. I realize that taking left wing down instead of continuing to ask for proper sources wasn't in good faith either. My apologies. AlexanderLevian (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your understanding; this is a perfectly reasonable compromise. Toa Nidhiki05 23:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)