- This topic has 2 voices and 4 replies.
-
Posts
-
There's an interesting article at Heritage which discusses the mis-use of cliches by some American conservatives, such as “America is a Christian nation”:The Tyranny of Conservative ClichesI pretty much agree with what the author is saying, except for her comment about socialism. She seems to make a significant divide between "Progressivism" and "Socialism". Historically such a divide exists, but ideologically I am not sure that this division is useful, since both are rooted in a very similar (if not the same) mindset. That is, one seems to be the child of the other.
Isnt the difference between “Progressivism” and “Socialism” a case of half a dozen of one and six of the other?
If you go to that link, the Heritage site offers a breakdown of the differences between the two (the following page is actually a great overview of many conservative basics): http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/basics#who-were-the-progressives-what-did-they-believeThey point out that Progressivism began in the 19th century and is characterized by "expansive government", stronger central authority, etc. My problem with this is that the historic Progressives seem to be different than modern-day progressives, a la "liberals". I would therefore agree that the modern progressives and socialists are similarly aligned. If there is a difference, I would say that progressives are socialist-lite.
That is the point I was trying to make. The difference between Progressive and Socialist is more in degree than in kind. While the argument is technically correct, the Socialism label is more oratorically powerful than Progressive. hence the reason it is used more often.
It is my understanding – not based on anything except a hunch – that the label “progressive” was adopted by liberal politicos in the past decade because a) the word “liberal” carried a negative connotation, and b) the word “progressive” suggests “improvement”, “moving forward”, etc. I really do not recall it being used at all until perhaps 6-7 years ago, and it immediately struck me as a means of using language as a way to toy with perceptions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
