get elected.

I swear to God every time I hear that word I think we’re back in the 60s

Progressives are more grass roots, change oriented, and may even work within existing community or national organizations.

Liberals are more social engineers, using the power of government to effect change, within dominant existing political power structures.

Progressives are more on the outside of political office, and lower in that hierarchy. The groups overlap a lot, but not entirely.

edge wise. It’s just semantics. Just words. The part of the human condition that drives me nuts. There’s more variability of views within those supposed groups than between them. Damn near one circle on a Venn diagram.

Of course that doesn’t stop the regular sanctimony eruptions around here. 🙄

Liberals often, but not always, share values with progressives, but differ on strategies.

Centrists, on the other hand, stand for nothing other than maintaining the status quo, and vigorously resist any form of change, but especially change that upsets their donors and their own comfort.

Because -- at least when it comes to federal elections -- there is a sizable contingent of my fellow progressives that claim they want progress and change but will then, say, sit out an election and help a fascist like Trump get elected.

That is the exact antithesis to progress, change, and what it means to be an actual progressive. No real progressive would allow so much hardzfought progress to be rolled back like has been done over the past decade.

But abstention in the face of unacceptable choices is a form of standing up for one’s values.

Questionable, debatable, even jaded and cynical, perhaps, but measurable nevertheless.

Abstention, like workers witholding their labor in a strike, may appear to some to be the only remaining method for exercising their power.

Not agreeing, supporting or recommending that course of action, just noting that it exists, and cannot, or should not, be ignored.

P.S. the CPC has 100 members, so a “sizeable number” of progressives are not sitting out elections.

It's just that those values do not include those that we progressives hold most dear: actually achieving progress and bettering the lives of as many people as we can.

But I do not question the values of the abstainers, only the efficacy of their choice.

It is in Australia, however voters have the option of checking “abstain” rather than voting for a candidate.

However, until a law is passed making it so, voters can vote with their feet, or, if you will, seats, by staying home.

Ignoring willful abstentions (as opposed to apathy) is a perilous strategy. 9 million fewer voters cast a ballot in 2024 compared to 2020, even though millions more than that had become eligible in the interim.

Some Dems are figuring this out, and taking steps to address it.

I don’t think Republicans even believe in the will of the people

...but fact of the matter is, there is no true difference, at least not here in the USA.

To me, it seems as though "liberal" got turned into a slur by Republicans, so some on the left started calling themselves "progressive" instead. And then recently, with the new fad being to bash the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad Democratic establishment -- dun dun dun! -- "liberal" became what some on the left referred to those on the left that were not sufficiently far enough left as they demand.

So, big picture, in our 50% +1 takes all system, it's just yet another way to divide those on the left so that it makes it harder to keep our coalition together to win elections.

We were liberals until Ronald Reagan poked fun at the word & instead of defending our values, we called ourselves progressives. Now, the right & the media, consider liberals, progressives, socialists, & communists pretty much the same. We don't pal around with Putin or get love letters from Kim, but somehow we got stuck with the communist label.

We suck at messaging. As the republican party has gone hard right, we've depended too much on "We're not republicans." I've heard more criticism from the democrats about the democratic socialist wins than I have about the fascists taking over our government. WTF?

For distraction and power. I’m not a liberal democrat, I am progressive. Please define the difference.

the regressives like to emphasize the anti israel, palestinian terror stuff (neither liberal nor progressive)

or the litter box in the bathroom bit (which is just ridiculous.)

i am a progressive in the sense of the 1912 party platform. the platform is on line, but copilot sums it up ......

Core Principles
The platform declared that the party was born from the “conscience of the people” in response to “grave national problems” and a sense of justice. It pledged to uphold the Constitution as a tool for the people, not for the benefit of corrupt elites. Key principles included:

Government by the people: Advocating self-controlled democracy and representative government.

Public welfare first: Prioritizing the general interest over narrow party interests.

Ending the “invisible government”: Breaking the alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics The American Presidency Project+1.
Major Policy Planks
The platform called for:

Direct democracy reforms: Direct primaries, recall, and referendum to give citizens more control over political processes.

Regulation of business: Stronger antitrust enforcement and corporate accountability.

Labor and industrial justice: Protection of workers’ rights, fair wages, and safe working conditions.

Social insurance: Programs for unemployment, old age, and disability.

Inheritance taxes: To reduce wealth concentration.

Farm relief: Support for farmers facing economic hardship.

State and federal reforms: Changes to laws and institutions to promote equal opportunity and industrial justice Teaching American History+1.

One loves things and uses people

The other uses things and loves people

that benefit everyone. Economically, a liberal will tend towards free trade, while a progressive may be interventionist.

... and I vote, and I served in uniform, and I'm watching y'all.

To my mind, progressive sometimes think that withholding their vote is as important as voting. I don’t agree with that. I think it’s counterproductive.

The only way we have to influence the way our representative government works is to vote (unless you have money or influence). If you have a preference then you have to vote, otherwise you are just letting others decide for you.

Instead of building consensus on individual issues as you would have to in a parliamentary system, we get trench warfare. "You believe that...so we don't." Hardly ever is there agreement on anything, as there are only ever two sides of an issue allowed to be presented.

At least, that's how it seems to me.

but that is just a dream because it will never happen. We have what we have and have to work within this framework unless we have a constitutional convention.
I view the legacy of our constitution as negative. It should be a "living document" that could be changed if needed. The founders gave us a way to change things but it has proven to not work, so we are forced to continue to operate in a system that was designed over 2 centuries ago when the world was completely different.

So instead of celebrating our Constitution as something that has endured, I think it is responsible for most of the evils that we now are witnessing. It was a amazing plan to begin with but no longer functions as designed because the society is so vastly different that the founding fathers could have envisioned.

Even more parties than in Europe! We are each or own individual party! 100+ million parties! We each get a party! Yay!

But it still takes 50% +1 to win elections, so those of us on the left still then need to come together to form a majority coalition to actually win elections and accomplish anything.

So we are right back where the fuck we started at.

One of the most common usages is that it is someone on the left. FDR administration used the word "liberalism" to describe New Deal programs. The word "Progressive" had fallen out of favor for some reason.



However, the real technical meaning of the word is quite different For instance Reaganomics is considered neoliberalism. Sometimes when people want to slur moderate Democrats, they will get called "neoliberals", which isn't true. For instance I've heard Bill Clinton called a neoliberal. However, Clinton was trying to bring back some of the programs which Reagan cut. He also was stuck with a GOP congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
I really do not know a single Democrat who supports Reaganomics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

However, in common usage it's often referred to Democrats. I remember in the 70's it certainly was. I don't remember the word "Progressive" being used to describe anyone in the 70's, although we studied the "Progressive Era". I don't know why the word went out of favor and why the word "Liberal" became used almost always. I just remember people saying, "He/she is a liberal". Never heard anyone say, "They're progressive". So in the 70's they were using the 1930's version of liberialism.


During the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration rebranded their platform. Progressivism had fallen out of favor, so FDR’s allies appropriated the term "liberal" to champion government intervention, the welfare state, and economic regulation. The "New Deal" redefined liberalism as a philosophy of active government responsibility to protect citizens, rather than minimal government interference. Since then, the term has stuck as a core label for the center-left.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/think-again-how-classical-liberalism-morphed-into-new-deal-liberalism/

Historically, "liberalism" meant the advocacy for free markets, individual rights, and limited government. The shift in the meaning of the word "liberal" to become associated with the left happened primarily in the United States during the 1930s https://www.cato.org/policy-report/may/june-2023/what-does-liberal-mean-anyway

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1403210903legaciesofnewdealliberalism.pdf

OK...techy, techy...TLDR...LOL

Feel free to use whatever terms or understand that many use the terms interchangably! While it not be the most correct usage, it is what it is.

It is good to know the actual technical meaning, but common usage of "liberal" still pretty much means left wing politics, however in the last two decades "progressive" is coming back in favor.

However, if someone calls a Democrat like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton or Obama a "neoliberal", it makes my skin crawl, because I know what they're doing. Yes, both are supportive of free markets, especially on a global scale and they support capitalism, but they certainly are not supportive of Reaganomics. Democrats support revenue for the good of the people and social economic programs with emphasis on those on the lower income scale to provide more equality versus corporative welfare. Reagan believed in cutting government revenue and spending and hell to those with lower income. Clinton and Obama have tried to find a balance between free-markets, while at the same time implementing supportive social programs, such as the ACA. (I have bad grammar and am no wordsmith)

It's one thing to abstain when you can't decide, but withholding votes to "change society", by not participating is veering more to the anarchist side and not "progressive". It's how we get Trump.

For instance, antifa are often non-voters. They see the system as always corrupt and would just prefer to always fight, it no matter who is in power, rather than participate in the electoral process.

However, low turnout voters is totally different than someone who refuses to vote because "they want to send a message".

They think they can accomplish that way

I think liberals and progressives both basically want the same things it is their approach that differs.

Liberals seem to embrace the status quo methods of implementing change. Progressives view the status quo as what got us where we are now and prefer to do things differently.

I'm 75 and kind a mix of both - I basically describe myself as a "lefty". There is nothing, absolutely nothing I like about the GOP, conservative way of thinking. I think they are responsible for the situation we find ourselves in these days....it's been a downhill slide for the last 50 years.

Rush Limbaugh made it his mission to muddy the term liberal.. it got so bad, people started backing away from how we self identified... and suddenly people were identifying as progressives.. now progressive is being smeared as communist.. they ( the words progressive and liberal) mean the same thing.. we listen to all arguments and then make our decisions..

I’m not against what the progressive wing of the party believe in, just not a fan of how the go about it, basically because I do not think what they are trying to do will work, at all. I don’t think that most progressives realize how conservative (little c) the US is, relative to our peer nations.

I am a pragmatist.

They can win in certain places but across the country, absolutely not, especially in most state wide elections.

Even the R’s can’t get their agenda (except for lower taxes for the wealthy) passed in Congress. Everything has to be done by EO. And then the courts have to get involved.

If they want to get things done, they need to start at the local election level., imo.

It's one of the major problems for me. I consider myself progressive in that FDR level change is required to fix what the incrementalists have more or less stood by and allowed to happen over the past 40 years (with many actively participating in it as they lined their pockets, those wily stock prognosticators).

You don't get to this level of economic decline for the working classes, the harm to unions and the erosion of social safety nets, without allowing it to happen to some degree. Look at California. Now, let's discuss reining in utilities like PG&E, dealing with the housing crisis, and stop cutting social services. Sacramento will laugh you out of the room. That's nice, peasant, but we're making deals over here.

We've seen the influence of corporations grow over the decades, and rather than fight that with every ounce of their being, they figured they'd co-opt them. But they didn't. The corporations co-opted them.

Oh, people still get improvements here and there, but it's truly crumbs in the scheme of things as the looting of the American treasury and the American people continues apace.

But, the two sides generally agree on some basic things. Social liberalism for the most part. The Supreme Court for the most part. It's economics where the division is most profound.

When the system is one step forward, two steps back, I just don't enjoy the "One Step Forward For Life!" people. And when you note it, it's "Oh, so you don't like a step forward? What are you, a regressive?!" It's tiresomely disingenuous. And you know who's usually pro-one step? People who are largely insulated from the next two.

But it's been blowing up in some faces the past ten years. Yes, it has.

and vice versa. In politics the usage is the same.

and not as patient as liberals. They push for changes, even significant ones, to happen sooner than later. They favor widely expanding the social safety net and support systems through federal government action. FDR was fortunate to follow 2 disastrous GOP administrations, so he had strong majorities in Congress to back up his policy initiatives. Wouldn't it be great if Republican voters finally came to their senses by November about how catastrophic the Trumpublicans are. A watershed election could happen that would put Dems in control and Progressives in key leadership positions.

Labels are poor argument. Does it matter enough to expend resources on this question?

Let's work together to defeat fascism at home.

Of course, my definitions are a bit dated; more pre-social media groupthink, so YMMV...

I learned/observed that the important difference is that self-defining Progressives do work with a future result in mind. They hit the pavement, incorporate liberal policies in their businesses or other organizations and activities. They lead group activities for results.

Liberals don't necessarily work or act, liberalism is more of an ethical stance or creed to them. They will tend to provide data, ideas, or otherwise represent.

Progressive currently applies to a group identity with forward thinking goals; Liberal applies to individuals with wide or liberal ethics, just as Conservative applies to individuals with narrow or conservative ethics.

Both are important, and depending on the person being labeled, they can be interchangeable.

The old meaning was pretty much interchangeable, liberal/progressive. The good vs evil Us vs Them redefinition that started over a decade ago is purely to divide,

"The term has been highly historically malleable, and even today gets defined in a number of ways. Moreover, however you define it, no one is 'progressive' in all areas. ... It was not the first time the term 'establishment' had been weaponized, but never so effectively, to just the right people at just the right time. And as 'establishment' became the blood-sucking vampire, 'progressive' became the talisman of defense. Since then ... the branding of Democrats into 'progressive' and 'establishment' (or sometimes 'centrist') has come to dominate how candidates are identified -- and often self-identify.

"I think it's time to seriously ask ourselves: just what good is this relic of a disastrous election doing? Not only doesn't it accurately represent the diversity among Democrats, but it clearly fosters fragmentation and resentment ... .But surely, we can give up the old magic incantations, the old revolutionary/sell-out discourse. There is NO huge 'ideological divide' there. ... And so 'Medicare for All inexorably slides down the slope to trashing Obamacare ... while the phony boxing match between 'progressives' and the 'moderates' has Trump and Mitch snickering over the mess." -- Susan Bordo

In recent years Liberals, which I believe most elected Dems would say they are (I;ve never heard of a Democratic Conservative caucus), complain they are in the minority and it's hopeless to try to get anything past the Rs.

I hear that regulalry from Mark Pocan D, Wisconsin when he's on Hartmanns radio show.

There used to be liberal Republicans, too. Mostly from northern states.

He said the tone for environmentalism here in a state that really needs it.

I was working at my first job when he was governor at the newspaper. The years and years later, I covered when he went to change his registration to Democratic. There is now a wildlife park and welcome center named after him

Where the progress that Progressives support is towards more liberty, they are also liberals.

A minority of Progressives support progress towards something other than more liberty. A portion of liberals don't support progress. But the Venn diagrams are largely overlapping.

A progressive used to be a former Republican, but now
progressives have coopted the liberal agenda because
they are afraid to be called liberals.