DEFINITIONS Please: Liberal, Progressive, Populist, Left, etc

[Cosmic Kitten]

Need some help here fleshing out a few definitions.
We all see how words lose meaning or are turned into pejoratives.

Given the current Elizabeth Warren hullabaloo,
and the Democratic Party fracture there is a need
for clear and well defined meaning for these terms.

When liberal, progressive, left, or Democrat are conflated none of these
words communicate much, and tend to muddy the discussion.

To support candidates and policy we need to speak clearly
or else run risk word twisting by detractors.

For example, Warren appears "Populist" but not very "liberal"
That is fine, no need to defend that.
But Attackers WILL point out she voted republican and point out
the racist, bigoted, sexist tendency of republicans.
Her detractors WILL exploit that gap and drive a wedge
between potential supports who may assume some mutually
agreed definitions which simply don't exist.

Words matter, and messages must be clear and unambiguous.
So what are OUR/the working definitions for:
Liberal, Progressive, Populist, Left, etc?

[Cosmic Kitten]

1. Framing

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5536444

[Maedhros]

2. This article provides one explanation:

http://www.alternet.org/story/146207/the_key_differences_between_progressive_and_liberal,_and_how_%22liberal%22_thinking_can_be_part_of_the_problem

Economic liberalism has typically focused on using the government's treasury as a means to ends, whether those ends are better healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid), stronger job growth (tax credits) or more robust export businesses (corporate subsidies). The idea is that taxpayer dollars can help individuals afford bare necessities and entice institutions to support the common good.

Economic progressivism, by contrast, has historically trumpeted the government fiat as the best instrument of social change -- think food safety, minimum wage and labor laws, and also post-Depression financial rules and enforcement agencies. Progressivism's central theory is that government, as the nation's supreme authority, can set parameters channeling capitalism's profit motive into societal priorities -- and preventing that profit motive from spinning out of control.

[Cosmic Kitten]

5. That article is part of the problem

The article FRAMES the terms through ECONOMICS and Policy.
We need better working definitions, outside that box.

Additionally, it is working within frames the right-wing
and financial elite have created.

It's not clear how working with those frames and definitions
will create a new road map or provide any solutions
that don't require working within the existing power structure.
IOW, generating political and economic power to create change
from within. That's highly unlikely in this current milieu.

Change the frame, capture the narrative.

[Maedhros]

6. For my own part, I define my Progressivism differently.

My friend, who describes himself as an ultra-Liberal, is incredibly hidebound with regard to what's possible in politics. He sneers at proportional representation, for example, and is fond of the "there is nothing new under the sun" explanation for why our government doesn't work. His Liberalism is, for all practical purposes, only defined by his opposition to Conservatives on an emotional level.

My Progressivism is defined by a simple concept: We Can Do Better.

The "way things are done" can be changed. We can find better ways to govern ourselves. For example, we could get rid of the Electoral College and it wouldn't destroy our society. We could have more than two political parties. We could have universal single-payer health care. We could prosecute torturers for their crimes. WE COULD DO BETTER, it's a matter of having the collective will to do so.

[sabrina 1]

7. Good post. The word itself means to make progress which a country

can always do.

But progress means one thing to some people and another to other people.'

Government is supposed to represent the people. So the only thing I would add to your 'We can do better' phrase, is 'We can do better for the people'.

Our government right now does great things for the wealthy, not so much for the people.

To them they have progressed, they have kept wages stagnant, cut social programs, managed to start wars all over the place and turned Corporations into 'people'.

It's a good question to ask, because people are confused as to what these words actually mean. I have seen people claim to be Liberals eg, whose politics are far from what I would consider Liberal.

[Maedhros]

8. Spot on. [n/t]

[Cosmic Kitten]

10. We need people who are solid and grounded

Asking the Govt to fix "us" has never worked.
Why?
Because the people in Govt are weak and broken people.
Every alcoholic or addict, every bigot, every sexual deviate
who can't or won't accept their own personal failings
inevitably does more harm than good to the public.

Just think of all the socially moralizing legislation pushed by
immoral people who are eventually exposed as hypocrites!
Can anyone truly think THEY will ever do the right thing?
Does anyone here think those people will "fix" Govt problems?
THEY ARE THE PROBLEM!

We have the problem and solution backwards.

[sabrina 1]

16. I couldn't agree more. I don't look to the government to fix anything

because we know now they like things the way they are. They have become a privileged class and when in human history have the privileged ever wanted to change that?

I do think that staying too long in that atmosphere can and does corrupt even good people with good intentions.

They need to go there, do the job they were hired to do for the people, then leave and go back to their homes.

But that isn't going to happen, unless the people make it happen.

On the good side, it looks like the people have begun that process. Over the last few elections, the voters got rid of quite a few who were entrenched there forever. The replacements aren't any better in most cases, and in some even worse, but the process has begun.

Now maybe the people can kick out the replacements who are not doing their jobs and find and promote better candidates and slowly, maybe, the people can do THEIR jobs and hire only people who work for them.

[Cosmic Kitten]

19. that atmosphere can and does corrupt even good people with good intentions.

YEP, those people are morally weak.
People who cave in to desires, favor, or privilege
are unfit for public service.

Yet the public refuses to cull such weak and rudderless people!
Why?
Are they sympathetic because they think those people "had good intentions"?
Do they identify their own weakness with those public figures?

It is gut churning to watch moral relativists enable bad behavior
and then wring their sweaty hands to decry how hard it is to do their job.
At least Warren, Sanders, and a "few" others actually stand up.

The reality is if Populist don't define their selves,
what we represent, and the values worth fighting for
the MSM and right-wing will do it for us.

[AllyCat]

13. You got that right. I ran for School Board

And I used the Dems VAN software for my walk lists. All but one of my opponents came up as a strong democrat...yet each of them voted in favor of the most restrictive employee handbook for our school staff in the entire county. They continue to allow the President and Super set the agenda and tell them how to vote. They ask no questions. It's appalling to watch.

[Cosmic Kitten]

20. Thanks for making the effort.

I hope you receive local support
and you will keep trying.

[sabrina 1]

31. Sorry about that. But it is the reason why I pay no attention to polls that say

'80% of Liberals support (fill in the blank).

It is appalling to watch such lockstep approval of policies and politicians who are clearly not representing those who elected them.

[Cosmic Kitten]

18. Yes, so you do see the value in shaping the words...

we use to communicate the message?

[aspirant]

30. We shouldn't define ourselves

with multiple words or phrases that people must go to the dictionary for definitions

If you stop people going into the mines of Ky and ask them what a "Populist" is, how many would know?

[Cosmic Kitten]

9. I define my Progressivism differently.

That's the issue.
If anyone can hold any arbitrary definition
the words are meaningless.
Or worse.

YES

"there is nothing new under the sun"

That is a truism of sorts.
What is lacking is personal integrity, personal responsibility.
Notice how "personal responsibility" is owned by the right-wing?
It's a "Liberal" value yet the right-wing authoritarians OWN it.
The Left needs to get in the linguistics game, pronto.

YES

We can find better ways to govern ourselves

AND THAT is the BIG deal.
People do not live from their CENTER.
Corporate Culture has turned us into spectators, consumers, statistics.
You want to find better ways to govern ourselves?
People need to get a grip on their personal lives, stop being reactive.
Become pro-active, with enlightened self-interest.
That would be "progress"

[Maedhros]

11. "Enlightened self interest?"

That's straying a bit close to Rand for my tastes.

[Cosmic Kitten]

12. Seems like a semantics issue...

Which is the point of this thread.

People use terms like Populist, Liberal, Progressive
and it has no clear meaning, ie;
is it social progressive, economic progressive?
Social liberal, economic liberal?

This movement needs to define and cement
IT'S intended meaning, IT'S frame of reference
to avoid being twisted, co-opted, or turned into a pejorative.
The narrative cannot be directed if the frames are not controlled

As to "Enlightened self-interest",
the Humanist definition is intended

Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states
that persons who act to further the interests of others
(or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong),
ultimately serve their own self-interest.

At best, Rand suggests SELFISHNESS, or Un-enlightened self-interest?

[Maedhros]

14. You pose a question in your OP,

then proceed to sneer at every response you receive. You seem uninterested in engaging in meaningful debate, in favor of flatly denying every point raised by responders. Entering a discussion with you is a fool's errand.

Bye.

[Cosmic Kitten]

22. Sneer?

Aren't the definitions you provided neo-libral?

It appears that by subscribing to "meanings" created
to support the current economic status quo one would
by default be working within a frame designed to
justify the current economic/political situation?

Please, by all means clarify any misunderstanding.
How is defining liberalism, or progressivism in the context
of economics speak to those concepts as a whole?

[Eleanors38]

15. 1st paragraph: Avant Conformity...

To sound worldly, knowledgeable, hep & in-the-know, we repeat the slogans every other "hep" cat has said, not realizing it's the same drone on any site not devoted to Kim Kardashian's butt.

I tire of this. The only remedy is Act-shown.

[Cosmic Kitten]

24. Avant Conformity... Act-shown.

we repeat the slogans every other "hep" cat has said,
not realizing it's the same drone...

Right, so are you saying the "memes" are landing
but not inspiring or activating engagement?
Is this like people who have a Che T-shirt, but don't know Che?

If so, is it because the memes contains is no "Act" to be "shown"?
Isn't that where "leadership" needs to fill the void...
to marry values and ideas with inspired action?
Maybe it's a matter of people Waiting for someone
or something to show them the way?

[Eleanors38]

25. Actually, I was thinking Alicia Bridges' "I Love the Nightlife"

disco piece from the 70s. "Act-Shown."

When folks experience powerlessness, they initially deny its relevance, then deny their ineffective free agency, then aggressively deny the possibility of anyone elses agency; the most fashionable face-saving way involves tearing down anyone with the naivete (potency) to even wish something bigger than self. We're at that stage.

Oh, yes, there is a lot of frenetic Waiting.

[Cosmic Kitten]

28. lol disco, yeah, right over my head ;~)

Interesting take on powerlessness, denial, and rejection.
Where does that idea come from?

[Cosmic Kitten]

17. That seems very vague and limited in scope?

If you think and want something better
everything on the table needs to be understood.

The basic reason the left is losing ground
is because they have lost the battle of WORDS.

If your "progressiveness" is defined by "We Can Do Better"
how does that send any coherent message about values?
We can do better at what? For what? For whom?
The banksters can say "We Can Do Better"
and it would mean something very different from
what MOST people would assume.

If the Populists intend to gain any ground
there needs to be a focus on WORDS
Hearts and minds, Sun Tzu...
change the frame, capture the narrative.

[cheapdate]

26. My definition of "liberal" is this:

A "liberal" is someone who believes, at the very least, that the government has no business in dictating morality.

[Cosmic Kitten]

27. Absolutely, morality is a very personal thing

[Bluenorthwest]

3. I don't need to want Warren to be President to agree with her on this bill, my own Rep voted

against it along with the entire Progressive Caucus in the House, which he helped found along with Maxine Waters and Bernie Sanders back in 1987, when Elizabeth Warren was in fact a Republican who would the following year vote for George Bush.
The fact that her boosters dismiss enormously important issues as being 'wedge issues' does not make me eager to support her.
The person in this case who needs to do some defining is Elizabeth Warren. She can certainly speak her mind when she wants to, it should not be hard for her to talk about her other views, aside from money and then also, money. Senator Warren needs to do that. She needs to explain how she could support all of that really awful stuff. And how she came to reject it or in the areas where she is still conservative, she needs to own that.
I don't think she knows much or cares much about any minority population and her Republican past politics did savage harm to many minority groups of which she seems largely unaware.
You can not wave that away with breathless words about the markets.
That thread yesterday with 'Was AIDS really that bad' being asked by Warren boosters was not a good idea for those of you who want to see her advance. Really hard to get passed something like that.

[Cosmic Kitten]

4. Warren is an example, NOT the point

If you agree with her on the bill...
can we assume you are a Populist?
That you are against the elite and privileged
and for the 99%?

[demwing]

21. Pin of the Week

critical conversation, thanks for the push! We'll keep your post pinned for for 1 week!

[Cosmic Kitten]

23. Haven't you hear? It's a battle of words ;~)

[Cosmic Kitten]

29. Democratic Definitions?

left-wing politics are political positions or activities
that accept or support social equality, often in opposition
to social hierarchy and social inequality.
It is typically justified on the basis of concern for those in society
who are perceived as disadvantaged relative to others and
an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities
that need to be reduced or abolished

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview
founded on ideas of liberty
(which is especially stressed in classical liberalism)
and equality (which is more evident in social liberalism)

Liberty in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted
with determinism. In politics, liberty consists of the
social and political freedoms guaranteed to all citizens.

Political Freedom It has been described as a relationship
free of oppression or coercion; the absence of disabling conditions
for an individual and the fulfillment of enabling conditions;
or the absence of lived conditions of compulsion, in a society

Progressivism is a broad philosophy based on
the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in
science, technology, economic development,
and social organization are vital to improve the human condition.

Populism is a political doctrine that appeals to
the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears)
of the general people, especially contrasting those interests
with the interests of the elite.