What defines a "progressive" and is Hillary one?

[GrumpyBunny]

@John_Mace

And since she’s running around now claiming to be a progressive, I’m curious what actual progressives think about Hillary Clinton.

This progressive thinks that Clinton would claim to be a Klingon if polls indicated that they were a large block of potential voters.

She *might *have been progressive back in the 90s, when she was for single-payer. But now? Not so much. And not for her smugness – god knows there are smug liberals and progressives – but because she’s in bed with Wall Street and insurance companies.

ETA: and I agree with everything that Merneithsaid about Hillary. I’ll hold my nose and vote for her if she’s the candidate, but I don’t like her at all.

[ISiddiqui]

@Merneith

Yeahhhh, no. The conclusion of your article says:

Progressives are not the mainstream of the Democratic Party. We’re the bomb throwers who are fed up with trying to work with the conservatives.

I would also point out that that article is rating her Liberalness based on how she voted eight years ago, during very different times and congressional makeups.

If you are the 11th Most Liberal Member of Congress and that isn’t enough to be considered a Progressive, then it basically becomes Tea Party like in its exclusiveness.

Progressive doesn’t equal Radical - those are the bomb throwers. As stated upthread - most people consider “Progressive” to be the new term for “Liberal”, which has become tainted.

[ISiddiqui]

At the very least the Kos articles shows that Clinton being less liberal than Obama isn’t true.

[thelurkinghorror]

Liberal doesn’t even mean liberal. By the original meaning, still used in parts of Europe, it is a center to center-right alignment. Sort of like libertarian except less obnoxious on your Facebook feed.

Hillary is always exactly progressive as she thinks she needs to appear to voters at that moment (e.g. gay marriage). Right now in the primaries she is attempting to tack left. In the past it would have been harder to classify her as such.

[John_Mace]

@GrumpyBunny

This progressive thinks that Clinton would claim to be a Klingon if polls indicated that they were a large block of potential voters.

@thelurkinghorror

Hillary is always exactly progressive as she thinks she needs to appear to voters at that moment (e.g. gay marriage). Right now in the primaries she is attempting to tack left. In the past it would have been harder to classify her as such.

I was hoping to avoid that kind of analysis, but that’s probably impossible since it seems to be true.

Anyway, I got a laugh out of the Klingon comment.

But the, what is a progressive? Does Bernie qualify?

[madmonk28]

The Clintons are pretty much Republicans, if I wanted to vote for a race baiting war monger, I’d be in the GOP.

[ISiddiqui]

Only if the Republicans were like the Clintons!! I’d actually consider voting for one of them.

[Gatopescado]

Hillary? See You Next Tuesday.

[septimus]

@Merneith

Progressives are not the mainstream of the Democratic Party. We’re the bomb throwers who are fed up with trying to work with the conservatives.

Bomb-throwing isn’t progressive; it’s radical. You are a radical leftist.

I, OTOH, am a radical centrist – ready to throw bombs at people who misuse words.

[Merneith]

@septimus

Bomb-throwing isn’t progressive; it’s radical. You are a radical leftist.

Well, yes. That’s what I’m saying. Progressives are the radical edge of the Democratic party.

I, OTOH, am a radical centrist – ready to throw bombs at people who misuse words.

No, that makes you a radical linguist.

@ISiddiqui

If you are the 11th Most Liberal Member of Congress and that isn’t enough to be considered a Progressive, then it basically becomes Tea Party like in its exclusiveness.

Even if I agreed with the methodology of that guy’s definition - which, I don’t - he’s talking about a congress from a twelve years ago.

And that guy’s methodology only measures how often Clinton voted like the other Democrats at the time. This was largely a time when the Republicans were in charge. There wasn’t a lot of liberal legislation being proposed. Hell, most of the time the Democrats agreed with the Republicans!

That ranking just shows how often she voted with the party mean. If the Democratic Party itself is not acting very progressive, then that doesn’t mean that she’s being progressive if she aligns with them. It also doesn’t mean that, if she deviates from them, she’s doing it for progressive reasons.

Progressive doesn’t equal Radical - those are the bomb throwers. As stated upthread - most people consider “Progressive” to be the new term for “Liberal”, which has become tainted.

No. First off, I will never admit that the word “liberal” is tainted, just because a bunch of losers think “libtard” is a clever insult.

Secondly, progressive is not a synonym for liberal. Progressives are the people who weren’t afraid to call themselves liberals back when Bush was in office.

Liberals agree with liberal ideas. Progressives want action on those ideas.

@ISiddiqui

At the very least the Kos articles shows that Clinton being less liberal than Obama isn’t true.

I stand by my assessment that Clinton would not have had the guts to push through a healthcare plan of any kind. It wouldn’t have been prudent. And I believe that she would have pushed hard for Civil Unions, rather than marriage, because it’s a centrist compromise. I don’t for a minute think that she would have supported a push for gay marriage or the end of DADT.

OTOH, Bernie Sanders voted against DOMA, the first time, in 1996. That’s progressive.
The Clintons define centrism. And look - there are arguments to made that centrism is a smart position. I’d respect her a lot more if she would make those arguments and defend those positions rather than insisting that she’s the Most Liberal Liberal from Liberalvania.

[Loach]

You can call yourself a bagel with lox and cream cheese if you want. If you get enough people to agree then that’s what you are. The fact remains that in common usage in American politics progressive and liberal are interchangeable.

[Gyrate]

I tend to think of progressives as the liberal liberals, but YMMV. Anyhoo…

@Merneith

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 not even sure she’s a “centrist”. She’s an opportunist who votes with an eye to what will benefit her politically. I think she leans left by preference but would take us into a war in a heartbeat if it made her look good.

And yet I’d still vote for her because she’s not usually actively malevolent, unlike the various Republican alternatives. And in the unlikely event Bernie gets the nomination, I’ll vote for him.

[adaher]

@GreasyJack

IME, progressive means basically the same thing as liberal, it’s just that the right-wing media succeeded in making liberal into a dirty word and so liberals had to come up with a new word for liberal. Younger liberals tend to self-identify as progressives more, but I think that’s mostly just because they grew up in the Rush Limbaugh/Fox News era and have internalized the negative implications of the word liberal more than their older brethren.

And when progressive is turned into a dirty word, what’s next? Words mean things, and progressive is a very different term than liberal. Progressives believe in progress, while liberals believe in freedom. When someone tells me they are a progressive, it tells me that liberty is going to be taking a backseat to several other causes.

But yes, Clinton is a progressive.

[Merneith]

@Loach

You can call yourself a bagel with lox and cream cheese if you want. If you get enough people to agree then that’s what you are. The fact remains that in common usage in American politics progressive and liberal are interchangeable.

I don’t agree that this is the common usage in American politics. If it were, we wouldn’t be having this argument. If it were, Hillary wouldn’t have to fight to claim the title. She doesn’t have to argue about being a feminist or a Democrat. She just is and we all know it. But being a progressive is something additional.

@adaher

Words mean things, and progressive is a very different term than liberal. Progressives believe in progress, while liberals believe in freedom.

Oh honey, everyone believes in freedom. It’s an even more useless word than “liberal”.

But, yes. Progressives believe in progress. Not just leaning left, philosophically. Actually implementing liberal programs. That’s why I keep talking about Hillary and gay marriage or a healthcare plan. I don’t believe Hillary would have implemented those programs.

[adaher]

How do progressives feel about the surveillance state? How does Clinton feel about it? That’s a key liberal/libertarian issue, and I don’t get the sense that Clinton’s on the side of the angels there.

[Loach]

@Merneith

I don’t agree that this is the common usage in American politics. If it were, we wouldn’t be having this argument. If it were, Hillary wouldn’t have to fight to claim the title. She doesn’t have to argue about being a feminist or a Democrat. She just is and we all know it. But being a progressive is something additional.

Sure, every politician just is what they are and no one will try to paint them as something else.

That is the entire election process. The candidate tries to paint themselves one way and their opponents try to paint themselves a different way.

[Ximenean]

@Mk_VII

‘liberal’ isn’t a word we use very much here, except for members of The Liberal Party, an electoral irrelevance for much of the past century, though they had a taste of coalition government in the last electoral cycle. ‘Progressive’ would be how many here on the Left would describe themselves instead, especially if they don’t want anything to do with the Lib-Dem party.

In the British context, I see the term as being akin to its meaning in “progressive rock”. That is, they both look back fondly at the 1970s and think everything’s gone down the drain since then.

[Shodan]

@Trinopus

What’s her view on free trade? (This being one of the places Obama seems to differ from the liberal line.)

She is in favor of people voting for her based on her position on free trade.

Regards,
Shodan

[Colibri]

@madmonk28

The Clintons are pretty much Republicans,

Only if you’re posting from the 1950s.

[AHunter3]

If you made a list of the types of legislation that Hillary Clinton would propose, support, and/or incorporate into her administration’s “to do” list, and then struck out any and all items she’d put on there for purely tactical reasons, then, yes, most of them would be progressive legislation.

There are politicians who are “true believers” in the ideological causes they embrace; these are the ones who will NEVER, EVER propose, support, or otherwise sully their hands with any act or bill that violates those principles and who, furthermore, will consider no cost too steep if it’s necessary for the attainment of those ideological goals.

In contrast to them, there are politicians whose commitment is to the overall job (their elected position) AS job, doing the entire thing well, and their embrace of the ideological causes, while serious, is secondary to that; in order to successfully enact Legislation A they may compromise and wheel and deal with the opposition and end up proposing mixed-bag bills or signing things that violate some of the other causes they’ve embraced, always weighing things against each other strategically; and they will take other things into consideration such as the price tag, the possibilities of social or economic chaos, risks to national or global security, the reputation of their political party, and a whole slew of other not-so-noble-sounding matters, always trying to do as much of their ideological agenda as is practical meaning not too costly etc.

Hillary Clinton is absolutely the latter variety of politician. It doesn’t make her “not a progressive” nor does it make her some kind of evil power-hungry unprincipled fake. It does, I suppose, make her a quintessential politician.

EDITED TO ADD: I’m a Clinton supporter but I do not disrespect the FIRST type of politician. (I worry about the ones whose values I do not share but I get as fired up as anyone would when the idealistic types run and they’re proposing MY agenda, MY ideals etc.