# What defines a "progressive" and is Hillary one? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 4, 2016, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-a-progressive-and-is-hillary-one/745165 "2016-02-04T19:15:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-a-progressive-and-is-hillary-one/745165/61 "2016-02-08T01:07:05Z")
You can see Hillary’s entire platform on her [website](https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/). Can anyone find one issue where she isn’t a centrist? This isn’t a bad thing. I’m voting for her because she’s a moderate, and I suspect her entire platform is crafted as moderate in order to win the Presidency. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-a-progressive-and-is-hillary-one/745165/62 "2016-02-08T01:49:57Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Taxation to fund the fire department is authoritarian, regardless of the obvious merit. That waters the term down so far that it becomes meaningless. Every government (and most anarchies) in all of human history would be “authoritarian” by that definition. It makes more sense to use the word judiciously, pointing to regimes that are intrusive and invasive in their use of authority, like North Korea, but excluding the term from being used against such moderate governments as Canada, New Zealand, or Japan. If you hold that Canada is an “authoritarian” nation, you’re using the word senselessly. ---
**Author:** ![Kaio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c68b51/32.png) [@Kaio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaio)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-a-progressive-and-is-hillary-one/745165/63 "2016-02-08T06:26:30Z")
Well, I think there’s been some actual drift in the meaning of “liberal” in American politics, too. Democrats used to be the liberal party. Nowadays by international first world standards, they’re moderate at best. American politics have been moving ever further right; so now we need a term to distinguish between the liberals-who-are-really-moderate-to-conservative, and liberals-who-are-actually-still-liberal. And yes, still interested in progress. When the status quo sucks, there is little merit in maintaining it. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-a-progressive-and-is-hillary-one/745165/64 "2016-02-08T14:31:30Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Immune, no. But you give a progressive the 2 axis test, and you see how often they wind up in the authoritarian quadrant. In U.S. politics, the authoritarians are generally far more conservative. > > And that’s a silly definition of authoritarian. All want to use the power of the government for their purposes. The other choice is no government at all. > [@Trinopus](#): > > That waters the term down so far that it becomes meaningless. Every government (and most anarchies) in all of human history would be “authoritarian” by that definition. > > It makes more sense to use the word judiciously, pointing to regimes that are intrusive and invasive in their use of authority, like North Korea, but excluding the term from being used against such moderate governments as Canada, New Zealand, or Japan. > > If you hold that Canada is an “authoritarian” nation, you’re using the word senselessly. Using the term as I’ve described is useful as a measure of degree. It’s not like authoritarian is a binary construct. Using the political compass for reference, the Y axis represents a scale that goes from libertarian to authoritarian. And apropos to this thread, [Clinton comes in higher than Sanders](http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016)with respect to authoritarian-ness. I do note that all the Republican candidates come in higher still. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-a-progressive-and-is-hillary-one/745165/65 "2016-02-08T16:31:08Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > You know how Hillary’s been running all around, talking about how Bernie will ruin everything that Liberals have accomplished in the last eight years by trying to make big changes? And how we should all be happy with little improvements rather than swinging for the fences? > > Progressives are the people calling her a disingenuous old cow over it. > > That’s because Hillary is not a Progressive. She’s barely a Liberal. She’s less liberal than Obama, for example (and he’s not exactly a Liberal poster child, either.). Hillary is a centrist. She generally approves of liberal goals, but she’s not willing to upend the status quo for them - especially if there’s money involved. I don’t believe for a minute that Hillary would have pushed for gay marriage or the ACA, to pick two examples. Everything she does, she does with an eye to the polls for next election. > > I’m a Progressive. I’ll vote for Hillary, if she wins the nomination, and I’m sure she’ll do a reasonable job if elected. She’s sane and smart, which puts her well above her Republican challengers. But I don’t like her and I don’t trust her. I’m not convinced that she’s more electable than Bernie, even though I’m awake to all of Bernie’s shortcomings. I’d respect her a lot more if she didn’t lie about who she is. There have been a number of posts along these lines here and I have to agree with them, albeit reluctantly. I will vote for HRC, but I won’t expect much. I will even vote for her over Bernie in the primary, although I agree with nearly all that he says. But I wouldn’t give a fig for his chances of winning and, if he did, of accomplishing much. Sure he says that a win by him would be accompanied by a revolution in American political sensibility that would give a majority in both houses. Sure it would and pigs would learn to fly. Here is my take on the difference between liberals and conservatives. Neither is in favor of small government and both would like somewhat less regulation and also somewhat more. They differ mainly in who they want to regulate. Liberals want to deregulate individuals while increasing regulations on coporations. Conservatives want exactly the opposite. And I guess progressive is just a less weighted synonym for liberal. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-a-progressive-and-is-hillary-one/745165/66 "2016-02-08T17:05:10Z")
Vox had a very good article on this: > **[2 ways of assessing political candidates, and how they explain the...](https://www.vox.com/2016/2/7/10930018/assessing-political-candidates-clinton-sanders)** > > Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology,... > [@](#): > > That’s just wrong. “Progressive” is an ideological term. It refers to a position on an ideological spectrum, namely to the left. A progressive’s opposite is a conservative. > > “Moderate” is a practical term. It belongs to the second category of assessment. Broadly speaking, it refers to a candidate who focuses on consensus building and incremental progress, someone who doesn’t believe the US political system is capable of sudden, lurching change, or just doesn’t want that kind of change. > [@](#): > > You can’t be a centrist progressive, because “center” refers to that ideological spectrum. But you can certainly be a moderate progressive — someone who supports the ultimate goals of the left, but who believes a cautious and incremental approach is the best (or only) way to get there. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-a-progressive-and-is-hillary-one/745165/67 "2016-02-08T21:01:00Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Using the term as I’ve described is useful as a measure of degree. It’s not like authoritarian is a binary construct. Using the political compass for reference, the Y axis represents a scale that goes from libertarian to authoritarian. . . . Agreed; that works. A police department is “more authoritarian” than a fire department, even though neither is “authoritarian” in its fundamental definition. (A really corrupt police department might become so – New York City in the 1880s, Chicago in 1968 – but the stereotypical English county constable in an Agatha Christie novel is not.) ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-a-progressive-and-is-hillary-one/745165/68 "2016-02-09T01:45:31Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > Vox had a very good article on this: > > [2 ways of assessing political candidates, and how they explain the Clinton-Sanders conflict | Vox](http://www.vox.com/2016/2/7/10930018/assessing-political-candidates-clinton-sanders) Not _too_ serious with this pedantry but then what happens when a progressive wins a majority of the votes? When the positions espoused by a progressive become those endorsed by the mainstream, when the center adopts those positions, are they then, by definition, no longer progressive positions? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-a-progressive-and-is-hillary-one/745165/69 "2016-02-09T01:59:15Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#): > > Hillary? See You Next Tuesday. No no no… Tuesday is when Wimpy will pay you back for that hamburger you bought him today. [See You Next _Wednesday_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/See_You_Next_Wednesday). ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-a-progressive-and-is-hillary-one/745165/70 "2016-02-09T02:59:25Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Not _too_ serious with this pedantry but then what happens when a progressive wins a majority of the votes? When the positions espoused by a progressive become those endorsed by the mainstream, when the center adopts those positions, are they then, by definition, no longer progressive positions? Nah, we get to keep labels, even when they’re obsolete. March of Dimes, etc. Mexico has the PRI – the Institutional Revolution Party. How’s that for a contradiction? When they’re the party in power – as they were for decades – how can they possibly be “Revolutionary?” I know a guy who, when asked his political alignment, answers, “Whig.” ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-a-progressive-and-is-hillary-one/745165/71 "2016-02-09T05:33:39Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Not _too_ serious with this pedantry but then what happens when a progressive wins a majority of the votes? When the positions espoused by a progressive become those endorsed by the mainstream, when the center adopts those positions, are they then, by definition, no longer progressive positions? Well yes. A progressive in 1990 may be a centrist today if their positions did not change at all. Progressivism (and centrism and conservatism) shifts with the ages (oh, and not always in one direction) ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2016, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-a-progressive-and-is-hillary-one/745165/72 "2016-02-09T21:20:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’ve never quite gotten my hands around the meaning of the term “progressive”, especially as opposed to “liberal”, in American politics. I know there are quite a few self-proclaimed progressives on this MB, so I’d like hear it form the horse’s mouth (so to speak). [Here ya go](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB_i3TyLmDg). Listen carefully from about 1:29 onward. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-a-progressive-and-is-hillary-one/745165.md?page=3)