This is somewhat related to the other threads concerning the election, but thought it was worth its own thread. I had sent a PM to a couple friends of mine (we are friends, right?) with my thoughts on where the Democratic party needed to go. I think, in very simple terms, what has happened is that the Republican party has become the more progressive party. Cube Jockey, who I had sent the PM to, responding with the following (PM included in order to jumpstart topic, with permission):



Good points, which go straight to philosophical differences between the parties. I think it important to first state my definition of progressive, which is quite simple. The progressive party is the one which has the most plans for change. I think you can see this from both the last two elections. Bush was proposing the tax cut and major changes in Social Security, among other things. Regardless of your feelings about these initiatives, they are certainly big changes, and therefore progressive. What were Gore's major platforms? As has oft been pointed out elsewhere, the Democratic party has often been put in the role of criticizing the actions of the Republicans. By definition, this puts the Republicans in the position of being progressive--one can't be criticized for action if none is occurring. Even the Iraq war falls into this category, as does funding for new weapons, etc. In this last election, I think the general the perception again was that Kerry wasn't so much FOR anything, he was running AGAINST Bush. This is inherently not progressive.

I think the change in which party carried the progressive mantle started with The Contract with America in 1994. Without discussing the specifics of that, which is a separate thread, one can clearly point to that period as when the change in majority in Congress started, a trend which continues to this day. My feelings are that this is when the Republicans adopted a more progressive strategy, as opposed to simply defending the status quo. I don't think Democrats have gained the progressive mantle back, and that that is what has led to the recent election results, as much as anything else.

This leads to the following topics of debate:

What is your definition of progressive? Do you think your definition is the mainstream definition?

Which party do you think is perceived as being more progressive? Why?

Do you think this is indeed what explains the recent election results (both current and/or going back to 1994)

What is your definition of progressive? Do you think your definition is the mainstream definition?

Typically, "progressive" is almost equivalent to "liberal" in the conventional sense. This is mainly because progressive is related to new ideas, just as you alluded to.

Meriam Webster says that progressive is:



Which party do you think is perceived as being more progressive? Why?
To me, the Republicans are the party of ideas. Let's take Social Security: Kerry was for the status quo, even though most people acknowledge that the status quo wasn't going to hack it long term.

Iraq: the status quo was untenable.

ANWR: ditto

Healthcare: the Dems do have an idea here, but it is one that has been tried. Bush also has an idea, which is new and innovative. Sure it could fail, but it is neither the status quo nor a recycled idea.

Do you think this is indeed what explains the recent election results (both current and/or going back to 1994)?

Partially, although I don't think it was the overriding factor in this election. It has, in my view, contributed greatly to the decline of the Democrat party. They certainly have views which resonate with certain groups, but the Democrat implementation of solutions has been poor since the Great Society.

Conservatives, are, by thier very definition, afraid of change, and want things to go back to the "good old days"- - and, many polls have shown a great deal of the loss dealt to the dems in this election had to do with gay marriage. That would be change!

I think of this election much like the election of 68- great changes were a-coming, record turnout, and the conservatives elected the worst possible leader for the changes- just thank God he turned out as evil as he did! I think this is very very similar circumstance- middle america, now known as the red states- are comprised primarily of the same kind of closed minded folks that gave Nixon the landslide back in 68- they didn't want change. They got it anyway, and they got the worst possible leader to deal with it- very similar as now. I see the same kind of clashes coming in the future as under Nixon, with an even larger amount of possible turmoil, since, this time, it was not a landslide, but a bare majority!

What is your definition of progressive? Do you think your definition is the mainstream definition?
According to Merriam-Webster.com, the definition of progressive is as follows:

The operative word in that first and primary definition being progress. So how is progress defined?

I chose the third definition of it because the 1st doesn't apply and the 2nd relates to doing anything. The 3rd definition is, I think, the most common one applied to politics.

That being said, if you are progressive it means that you are not only interested in new ideas and new ways of doing things but those ideas must be to the betterment of society and mankind.

I think that definition is pretty clearly the mainstream definition unless we are going to start spinning the dictionary now.

Which party do you think is perceived as being more progressive? Why?
Being progressive as a party is the hallmark of the left wing and any monickers you desire to attach to it be that Democrat, Liberal, Green, whatever.

Being progressive is not simply the act of getting things done, it is the act of doing things which move society forward. I would call "getting things done" being effective.

As I stated in my PM, in general, that definition does not fit the republican party. That doesn't mean they are necessarily harming society, but they aren't moving it forward either - hence the definition of conservative. Just to take a look again:
- Against homosexual marriage (and many elements against any rights at all)
- Against a woman's right to choose
- For capital punishment
- Against Universal Healthcare
- Against affirmative action
- Against stem cell research
- For obscenity laws
- For infusion of chruch in state matters
- Generally against environmental preservation and regulation

Many of those positions seek to roll things back to the way they were, in other words the exact opposite definition of progressive.

If the GOP manages to spin themselves as "progressive", then boy have they pulled off a pretty good trick.

Do you think this is indeed what explains the recent election results (both current and/or going back to 1994)
It isn't what explains the election results at all. The exit poll data is pretty clear in my opinion (and I can go dig it out of whatever thread it was posted in if necessary), people voted for Bush because of "moral" issues. Those "moral" issues are things like gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research. Bush wants to dial back the clock on all of those, that isn't progress.

The reason the Democrats lost can be explained in many ways, and we are still discussing many of them, but without a doubt I can say that we didn't lose because the Republican party is progressive.

Ever since FDR adopted the platform of the Socialist Party with the new deal, the Democratic party has enjoyed a half century of power and pro government legislation. At the time, the Democratic party could be seen as more progressive than the Republican party as they were more capable of moving their agenda forward.

Starting with Ronald Reagan in the 80's, the Republican Party has battled back to become the majority party. Now the Republicans are in a position to move their agenda forward which can be seen as more progressive. Part of that agenda consists of rolling back some of the work (damage?) the Democrats did while they were in power. As the minority party, the Democrats are now forced to drag their heels on the rollbacks. This can be seen as just the opposite of the meaning of the word progressive.

Is bigger, more intrusive government progress? If so, let the political left have their crown.

What you have just defined is effectiveness not being progressive deerjerkydave. If someone is effective, that means they are proficient at getting things done and in this case pushing their agenda through. Take a gander at the dictionary definitions if you don't believe me.

That in no way suggests or implies that said agenda is progressive or beneficial to society. In fact, by your definition, if the Republicn party were somehow able to push through an agenda brining back slavery you would be calling that progressive.

I will not argue with you that the Republican party has been effective, but to suggest they are progressive denies the very meaning of the word.

Edited to correct a non-word.

Helping the unfortunate in our society to become productive wage earners is part of my definition of "progressive." But that involves providing a hand up in many instances.

The GOP appears to be concerned with "me" and "mine" before "ours" and "others." That is not progressive. Republicans appear to be more incensed over a welfare mother scamming the system than corporate CEOs embezzling millions of dollars and robbing employee pensions.

Would Jesus be dismissed as a liberal and a Socialist, too, because he focused so much attention on the poor and downtrodden?

Socialist, liberal, progressive...whore, prostitute, escort.

As a word obtains a negative connotation the ones who are described by that word change their name.

Progressive is a term, that in American politics, applies to those who favor socialist policies. As most Americans began to see the failures of socialism the socialists decided politically it would be better to adopt the liberal mantra. Now that liberalism is fully recognized as socialism, and liberalism has become a dirty word, the term progressive has been revived by the socialists/ liberals. A rose by any other remains the same. Crap, by any other name, also remains the same.

Conservatives do not need to find another label. Most Americans label themselves as conservatives. Conservatism is such a benevolent term that big spending liberals, such as GW, embrace the term conservative.

Today's progressive seems to me to be a form of liberalism that thinks that it is always right. I think the election was great. This was probably the most successful Republican election since the Radical Reconstruction. The progressives thought that their views and their way of life was superior to everyone else's. Now they lost and they blame America. They think that most of America is brain dead or was somehow duped. This isn't true. It may come as a great shock but not everyone thinks the same way. As Gen. patton once said, "If everyone is thinking alike, someone isnt thinking." I think that the more progressive Dems are just too much for mainstream America. Instead of showing people a new perspective, they ram it down everyone's throat and believe they are automatically correct.

From personal opinion of course, the conservatives are more progressive. Know why? The progressive Dems are not progressing to anywhere new...they are going towards socialism which has been tried and failed. The conservatives however are trying to stay true to traditional values and other principles the country was founded upon while making progress into the 21st century. As Abraham Lincoln said, "What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"

Do you have anything to backup your statements here? What you are doing is completely intellectually dishonest and really has nothing to do with this thread. You claim Democrats/Liberals/Progressives are bitter about losing the election and for a lot of people you'd be right. However, that doesn't characterize the political ideology at all. By your logic should we assume that all Republicans are poor winners and like to gloat? I'd also ask the question, wouldn't you be acting exactly the same way if you had lost this past Tuesday? I think you would.

This thread isn't about the election, please don't hijack it.


Once again, we apparently have problems with the definition of progressive. You are talking about being effective and I will fully admit that Republicans have been more effective for the past decade or so. You are also trying to equate liberalism/progressivism to socialism and again you are wrong, but of course stereotypes and generalizations are always good weapons, eh?

I'd very much like to see you answer the questions for debate here on how being against homosexual rights, against women's rights, minority rights, for the death penalty, and being for legislation of morality is progressive by any kind of definition which might be generally accepted. I can't see how any of those things are for the betterment of society.

Title of the thread:





Exactly my point. YOU can't see how they are for the betterment of society...so automatically the Repubs are not progressive. Look no futher than my quote by Abraham Lincoln. Conservatism is "conserving" the tradition and values and this nation was founded upon and using that knowledge to combat new challenges in the 21st century. Ya see everything you listed is in a negative connotation. I could just as easily turn it around and say that Repubs are for the preservation of marriage, for the rights of the unborn, minority rights (i dunno how the repubs are against minority rights if thats what u r implying), for justice of the victims, and finally...legalization of morality?...

LAWS ARE MORALITY. Come on. The reason we have laws is to enforce morality. Lets not kid ourselves into thinking otherwise. If the government was not for the legislation of morality than there would be NO ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS. Because that is enforcing morality.



I never characterized the whole political ideology or i would have said it. I am not afraid to express my opinion and i dont skew my words. I mean what i say. I was only using a for instance. If i thought the entire left thought that way i would have said so. Furthermore, yes i would be acting the same way. There is nothing about the election that influenced my views in any way.

Backup of claims? Well some hands-on experience for one. I know a lot of left-leaning people who i am friends with and who are reasonable people. But then there are the others who are just off the wall (just like there are for the right). They have a name for everything. Against affirmative action? Bigot. Against abortion? Sexist. For the Patriot Act? Nazi. For Reformation of Social Security? Evil.



Then enlighten me on where the Progressive Democrats are heading? More and more government. More regulation, higher taxes, more useless programs. The government is supposed to help people sustain their own lives...not run it for them. People want freedom but they do not want the responsibility that freedom requires. As the Democrats become more and more left...they adopt more socialist ideas just like some European countries. Universal Healthcare? Noble effort...but it wont happen. Not feasible in a free market society.

Maybe i am making generalizations, but that in no way means i am wrong. Progressive want to radically change this country into what they feel is an ideal state. But not everyone sees it that way. You have to show people why your point of view is more reasonable and not just say that this is the way it should be.

Really? And which poll did you get this from, or was this prognosticated in some other manner?

Let see--the opposite of progressive is regressive, right? And one who refuses to move and grow or learn stagnates, right?

Conservatism is "I'm keeping what's mine," and hopefully that phrase isn't followed by "to hell with everyone else and what they need."

Why do you think that the modifier "compassionate" was added to the term conservative regarding George W. Bush when he was running for office? Because as wide ranging social programs gain for their promoters the epithet "socialist," the promoters of conservative causes are seen as those who don't give a damn about their neighbor in their quest to acquire, acquire, acquire, and who care more about paying fewer taxes than seeing to the well-being of a child who isn't theirs.

Conservatism has as many negative connotations as liberalism does, and for good reason. In any case, the GOP is not a progressive party.

Of all the post-election threads this one has me puzzled the most. There seems to me to be a fundamental failure here to understand what being a progressive is. There is nothing about the contemporary Republican Party that indicates a shred of progressive thinking.

The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them.

---Mark Twain

Following his elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Leon Higginbotham wrote Associate Justice Clarence Thomas an open letter where he inquired, Other than having picked a few individuals to be their favorite colored person, what is it that the conservatives of each generation have done that been of significant benefit to African-Americans, women, or other minorities?

Asked and answered. Not much. Where has the contemporary conservative and his chosen political party, the Republicans. been when it comes to civil rights, unemployment insurance, child welfare laws, the 40-hour work week, punishing corporations that pollute, the American labor movement, gay and women's liberation and floridated water? On the wrong side of the issue and history.

A progressive challenges the status quo. A conservative defends it. An example of this is the decision the Ford Motor Company made that allowing people to burn to death in the Pinto was more cost-effecitve than fixing the design flaw:

The financial analysis that Ford conducted on the Pinto concluded that it was not cost-efficient to add an $11 per car cost in order to correct a flaw. Benefits derived from spending this amount of money were estimated to be $49.5 million. This estimate assumed that each death, which could be avoided, would be worth $200,000, that each major burn injury that could be avoided would be worth $67,000 and that an average repair cost of $700 per car involved in a rear end accident would be avoided. It further assumed that there would be 2,100 burned vehicles, 180 serious burn injuries, and 180 burn deaths in making this calculation. When the unit cost was spread out over the number of cars and light trucks which would be affected by the design change, at a cost of $11 per vehicle, the cost was calculated to be $137 million, much greater then the $49.5 million benefit. These figures, which describe the fatalities and injuries, are false. All independent experts estimate that for each person who dies by an auto fire, many more are left with charred hands, faces and limbs. This means that Ford’s 1:1 death to injury ratio is inaccurate and the costs for Ford’s settlements would have been much closer to the cost of implementing a solution to the problem. However, Ford’s "cost-benefit analysis," which places a dollar value on human life, said it wasn't profitable to make any changes to the car.

A progressive would never sacrifice a life to make a "cost-benefit anaylsis" work.

Jim Hightower described this schism this way. "Conservatives have historically seen people falling through the cracks in society and said that's the way things work, survival of the fittest. Liberals see people falling through the cracks and say we've got to do something about those people falling through the cracks so we need a strong government that can provide programs and assist those people. Populists say there shouldn't be any cracks, let's fix them."

Conservatism by its very nature is resistant to change, hostile to social revolution and places far more value in obeisance to authority than questioning it. Progressives see a problem and seek a solution. Conservatives see the same problem and ask how much is it going to cost them to fix it?

Senator Kerry and Vice President Gore were not progressives. They were professional politicians having spent most of their lives playing the political game and moving up the food chain. Very few true progressives are politicians. The job of becoming a skilled politician means you've had to prostitute your principles at least a dozen times over and compromise and cut deals to get anything done.

Neither Gore or Kerry and certainly not Bush, advocate positions or programs that would radically shift power away from the corporations and the powerful elites of the country and into the hands of ordinary middle and working class citizens.

Cutting taxes is not progressive. Reforming and saving Social Security (a "socialist"plan that was decried by the right when it was introduced) is not progressive. A mandatory living wage and guaranteed health coverage for all is progressive. Empowering big business is not progressive. Empowering small business and the people that work for a living is. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was progressive. The 1992 Contract On America was not.

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

You confuse, my dear Hobbes, acts of political calculation as programs of social uplift, equality and justice. There isn't the slightest bit of uplift, equality or justice in Mr. Bush's ill-conceived excursion into Iraq. That is, unless you think those virtues should only apply to Haliburton and other war profiteers. That is, unless you believe America was right to depose Saddam because he was evil while it ignores the evil the Sudanese government inflicts on their own citizens in Darfur.

To equate the philosophy of the progressive for fights for real and systemic change with the 2004 Republican Party is a searing illustration of how words can be stood on their head. Progressive? What's so progressive about killing and wouding thousands of American soldiers who were sent off to fight an illegitmate war based on "evidence" that was fabricated, cooked up and misread in order to support a plan of action that had been decided long ago?

Just doing something is not progressive. Being a progressive means working to change wrongs and set things to rights. A progressive would never have taken this country to war on the ambitions of neo-conservative imperialists. A progressive would never chip away at the walls that separate church and state.

And a progressive would never vote for a party or a man who is the antithesis of everything being progressive is about.

I think both parties are progressive in their own rights. And just as regressive. The Democrats have made greater strides in recent years in areas concerning social acceptance for gays and other 'alternative lifestyles'. But at the same time, they have been in direct opposition of some of their supposed goals, that of tolerance of opinion and diversity of thought. The Democrats are the first to brand something as 'hate' when it goes against their ideology.

Republicans, (or more to the point conservatives) for all close mindedness of some of the evangelical base, have championed individual rights, responsibility and accountability, which to me, is the hallmark of progressive thought.

Bigger central government is not progressive. Limiting, or denying choice in schooling is not progressive. Lifelong suckling at the public teat is not progressive. Mandatory theft at the point of a gun, in the form of overtaxation and social security, is not progressive. Stifling speech on college campuses and other public venues, that isn't in line with your opinion, is not progressive.

NT was correct in that very few politicians of any political stripe are progressive, they are the status quo. Pork, committee power games and re-election. The only recent politician I can think of would be Paul Wellstone.

What is your definition of progressive? Do you think your definition is the mainstream definition?
Synonym for leftist, and as such is the wrong word to be concerned about. But so far as reform in tort law, Social Security, the tax code and moving toward an "ownership society", the GOP is the place to be these days, of necessity since they're for those things and the Dems are the party of the status quo on those issues at least.

Which party do you think is perceived as being more progressive? Why?
As I synonym for leftist, so that'd be the Dems. But the GOP is more reformist.

Do you think this is indeed what explains the recent election results (both current and/or going back to 1994)
A little bit, but terror and moral values were higher on most voter's priorities.

Battleground Poll August 2004 - The Growing Conservative Majority
By Bruce Walker (09/01/04)



Why do you think Bush proudly proclaims he is a conservative while Kerry ran away from his liberal record in the Senate? No Presidential candidate has claimed he was a liberal since Mondale. On economic issues socialism, liberalism and progressivism are all words meaning the same thing. It is Democrats who lead the cry for more spending on social programs, national healthcare, etc.

The Democrats had better either make progress in liberalizing the American populace or become less "progressive". Simply labeling themselves progressive ain't gonna cut it. From 1992 to 2000 we had a pretty good 8 years, yet the Democratic Party loss control of the White House. From 2000-2004 we had a mediocre 4 years at best economically and engaged in a war where nearly 3/4's of the voters who listed Iraq as the top issue voted for Kerry. Despite this Bush won. The growing rejection of the Democratic Party has yet to be adequately shown in election results.

I see Daschle's replacement is pro-life. Maybe the Democrats are learning.

*Edited to fix quotes

Oh we sure do love our labels. The definitions of which have been argued all over (including this site) for as long as the ability to read existed (or, as is in the case of AD, as long as the format existed). What could we have accomplished if we spent all that time debating issues and solutions rather then what to call each other?


What is your definition of progressive? Do you think your definition is the mainstream definition?

Practically, a Progressive is a Liberal that doesn't like the negative implications the term liberal has gained over the years.

However, as Cube Jockey pointed out:



This would seem like a reasonable definition of progressive thinking. What is missing from this definition is that progressives generally address issues from the stand point that it is OK and even RIGHT to enact the "regressive development" of some of mankind in order to get the "progressive development" of some others in mankind.


Which party do you think is perceived as being more progressive? Why?

Wow, I say neither. Come on now, both parties talk a good game at times but look at how they actually legislate. nearly every piece of legislation they pass is about taking care of their supporters, not taking care of everyone or doing right is right for America. Even the first 9/11 emergency spending bill was shamelessly weighed down with pork project amendments. How much good could have been done in America if the pork stopped and the money was used for real progress?

That is business as usual, and the status quo. To me, the actions of both parties are no where near "progressive".

Do you think this is indeed what explains the recent election results (both current and/or going back to 1994)?

I think the explanation of the recent elections is as followed:

The winners successfully demonized the loosers and the loosers in general spent more time pandering to voting blocks then promoting ideas. And of course the winners managed to convince the voters that they were not lying when they said they wanted reforms and change, etc. This applies to all of the recent elections. It applies to both President Clinton and President Bush just to name two, not to mention the elections in the House and Senate.

America is generally a nation of moderates. Most Americans want a way to ensure no one is without health care, without giving up control of their own care or being taxed to death to pay for the care of others. There are several ideas to do this, but neither party is promoting them.

All the two major parties care about is re-election and power. All the third parties care about is ideological purity. As some point, If America is to continue to exist long term, people need to step up and take risks to do what is right for America when it comes to the big two. When it comes to the third parties, they have to discover the art of compromise if they actually intend on getting things done for the good of America rather then simply using their party as a shield that protects them from difficult ideological decisions.

Apologies for hacking apart your post, but I was trying to select the financial bits. Those that indicate that what is NOT progressive is helping big business, letting people fall through the cracks, cost-benefit analysis, etc.

Question - If Conservativism is inherently anti-poor, why are so many super-rich people progressive and so many poor and middle class people conservative?
thomas sowell analyzes the CA election results


Why do so many progressives know so much better what is good for the 'common man' in the USA, and why are they so smug and elitist about it?
NY Times - Kristof is an elitist punk (reg required)

Why do so many progressives think that conservatives are stupid?
Jane Smiley - Slate


Smug, elitist pap doesn't play well with the Wal-Mart shoppers in our heartland, no matter how you package it.


You hit it on the head here - Progressive in its current form is more collectivist than conservatism. Conservatives want to you get what's yours and keep what's yours - heck, maybe even will it to your grandkids. Progressives want more group and even government solutions. Europe has more of a collectivist bent, as do those uber-rich zip codes on the coasts. Here in the middle, we hope to be rich someday, not to tax the rich for a four-figure college grant. Example:
Progressive - "I have a plan" to give you $4000 for college.
Conservative - Get a widely-available, government-guaranteed loan and a job at Chili's and pay our own way.

First, I will state that many of the positions listed by CJ do indeed show where the Republican party has maintained the traditional definition of conservative. However, I think, probably starting with the Contract with America, that an intentional effort was made to expand beyond that role by promoting certain progressive actions.

Most of the rebuttals that I see here rely on the traditional definition of conservative and progressive. This type of reasoning is, in fact, exactly why I thought it might be interesting to explore this topic...as I think that in fact the old rules have been twisted around. This viewpoint is characterized by the following quotes:



To illustrate what I think has occurred that makes the Republican Party more progressive, allow me to use the following quote from Nighttimer.



and combine this with Cube Jockey's definition of progressive:



Now, let's review some of the recent Republican acts or platforms, and how they apply to that defintion.

Tax Cuts. This fits Nighttimers definition of liberal (and hence progressive) in that a problem was seen (excessive taxation of the populace) with people falling through the cracks (those having to pay the excess tax) and put forward a program to fix it. This fits Cube Jockey's definition in that these taxes were viewed as a hindrance on the population, and the removal of them was then allowing for gradual betterment and the progressive development of mankind

Privatization of Social Security would have the same basic argument.

What I see occurring here, and what I was trying to address in this thread, is that you can't view progressive solely from the framework of your own philosophy. At one point, I think that in fact the Republican party did indeed fit the traditional definition of conservation...merely defending the status quo. However, I think that it was determined that this inherently made the Republicans the party of negativity, with no major initiatives to put forward, and that that was a sure path to failure. Ever since then, the Republican agenda has always included at least some Progessive elements in it. Granted, some of these are surely anethema to the Democratic party...but they're progessive nonetheless. There is, I think, a simple litmus test that could be applied to this...see which party or platform, in general, the electorate thinks is moving the country forward. Which brings me to why I brought this topic up, again. I think 20 years ago the Democratic party and their platform would have won that litmus test, hands down. I don't think that's the case anymore...and I do think that explains many of the recent elections...if not for President, then for many of the other offices. And I do think the mantle of Progessive is what the Democratic party will need to regain in order to reverse those election trends.

Then again, this could just be me viewing things from within the framework of my own philosophy, twisting them into a platform I find more appealing...if so, I'm all ears.... here's your chance to convert me

I think what you are angry about OS is politics and politicians, not necessarily some kind of ideology. I do not think that "taking care of your supporters" is necessarily exclusive to either party, the sad reality is that is how you get things done in Washington. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. It has been that way forever and I don't see it changing anytime soon. It is ugly and I'd sure like to see it change, but I live in reality.

As far as the parties go, if you do in fact look at the legislation you will clearly see who the more progressive party is and it doesn't start with an "R". There is one party that consistently is consistently for the environment, there is one party that is consistently for increased civil rights and rights for minorities/women. These are progressive ideals, and they are and always have been at the core of the Democratic party.


I completely disagree that tax cuts are progressive. Tax Cuts are nothing more than the bread and circuses of our age Hobbes. Politicians dole them out to gain favor, but do they really reduce the size of government at the same time? George W. Bush sure didn't, and therefore he is actually raising taxes for our children and their children by running up a huge debt. Take cuts do nothing for the greater good, they simply attempt to buy your vote. No one can credibly argue that humanity is better because some Americans got a few hundred dollars back to go out and consume. That isn't progress, that is politics.

Now, fixing the tax system so that everyone was taxed fairly would be a different story. That would actually meet the definition of progressive. Tax cuts don't fit the bill.


If you want to claim that DTOM, fine. Please provide some specific examples rather than generalizing. Whether or not you are correct highly depends on what you are talking about.


So you found someone ranting about how conservatives are stupid, and you are exactly right to call a spade a spade. But I highly object to you using it as some kind of argument in this debate because this person does not represent us all, nor does it represent the ideology, nor do many people here on AD actually feel that way.

And by the way, I could very easily turn this around and ask you about conservatives who write the same kind of things about liberals. I don't hold you accountable for things that Ann Coulter, for example, says but if you choose to define all liberals by the writings of this person then maybe I should Carlito.

Hey, CJ, this wasn't personal. I quoted Jane Smiley and Nicholas Kristof, who are I suppose, nominally progressive and noted their elitist condescention. I've heard it personally from my wonderful progressive business partners in Seattle, and as far as in print, I could today add Maureen Dowd to the list. I even saw a photo of a protester in San Fran holding up a sign that said, "[expletive] Middle America." I wasn't saying that anyone here had done the same...although Wertz in another thread did post state-by-state IQ's, all in good fun of course.

The reason for making this argument is that the progressives are never going to get their ideas across as long as the Democratic party (topic for debate - which party is more progressive) considers anyone who disagrees with their progressive ideas as being stupid. Or, in Teresa Heinz' words "idiot" or "Neanderthal." If the dem party is both progressive and elitist snobs, then maybe they are headed down the road of the third parties, only interested in their ideological purity, while conservaties build pragmatic coalitions and win elections. Then, there may be a chance for a real progressive party to take hold.

And it didn't occur to you that this may just be anger about the election? People are angry about the election, and you need to realize that. I honestly think that if you believe conservatives wouldn't be doing the exact same thing if they had lost you are deluding yourself. If you are trying to equate TV personalities and talking heads to all democrats/liberals/progressives then you are going to be dead wrong every time. Again I'll ask, would you want to be stereotyped by the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter and O'Rielly?

If not then don't try and stereotype democrats/liberals/progressives with the words of this woman (who I had never even heard of before today) or Moore or Franken or anyone else on the left you don't particularly like. These people are not the democratic party and they certainly don't speak for me and I'll wager not for anyone else here either.

An ideology isn't defined by people, it is defined by ideas and both sides of the political spectrum have their extremists, embarassment and shrill commentators. It is completely invalid to argue against an ideology on the basis of these people. You claim that all democrats are "elitist" and you are completely and without a doubt wrong. You are cherry-picking the voices you want to listen to, and taking advantage of the fact that people are very angry about the election and trying to use it to your advantage and that is very intellectually dishonest. If you were right, I think you'd have to make the assertion that every single liberal here on AD is "elitist" and you'd also be very wrong and lose that argument.

Look...nobody is stereotyping. But when a person turns on the television...who do they see representing the left? They see Michael Moore...they see the thousands of people disrupting the RNC...they see the Hollywood Elite and people in the music industry telling them how to think. Whether or not it is there right to voice their opinion is not the issue. The issue is that ordinary people dont care for it. The liberal of today is painted as a snobby elitist. On Crossfire the day after the election or so...a woman said she "felt betrayed by her country" for voting in Bush. That is the type of attitude that we are talking about. That disagreeing or thinking another way is unfathomable to some people. Of course this is true for both sides of the political spectrum but it is more blatantly apparent in the liberal elite and liberal media. Proof? Look at the election...look at the vote. People are not accepting many liberal progressive policies because they do not see them as progressing to anywhere they want to be.

Going back to the whole tax cuts thing. Tax cuts help all the classes. The rich...like it nor not...create the jobs. If they do not have any money they won't invest and no jobs will be created. Raising taxes takes more money out of their pocket and less money into the economy. During the campaign i heard Kerry and his elitist supproters talking about how they would gladly pay more taxes or give their tax cuts back. Well of course they would! They are making millions. Tax cuts...tax raises doesnt effect their livelihood...only their investments. Raising taxes hurts everyone else because they are more conservative with their spending. God, with all the local, state, and federal taxes we place on people, its amazing that people are able to maintain their quality of life.

Progressives want to raise the minimum wage. I support this to an extent...but what good is a wage increase if you are taxing them like crazy?

I still believe that the Repubs are the true progressives. They are trying to stay true on the values this country was founded upon while going into the 21st century. If anything, the Dems want to maintain the status quo. Think about it. If people were becoming more wealthy...what base would they have? The Repubs want to have people keep most of their money and spend it as they see fit. The Dems think that the government knows how to best spend their money...which isnt always a correct.

Wow, look at the staggering hypocrisy here. In the very first sentence of your post you say you aren't stereotyping. Yet before you even finish you write "Kerry and his elitist supporters". Hmm, not stereotyping eh? This is the type of thing that absolutely disgusts me, you are saying that Michael Moore represents me, yet I can't claim that you fall in line with Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh and O'reilly?

What we are seeing here is not only a demonization of the ideology but you are suggesting that Republicans are progressive. I have heard exactly two reasons (from Hobbes) why Republicans are progressive and I personally completely disagree with tax cuts being "progressive".

What Kerry and his supporters were talking about is something that I thought was supposed to be the forte of the Republican party, you know... being fiscally responsible? Bush is the one mortgaging our future, Kerry was the one advocating being responsible.

So in an attempt to actually remain on topic leder, please do tell me how the Republican party is progressive. I'd like to see your list of items you think make them progressive.


Yes, passing legislation to weaken the 4th amendment is "staying true to the values the country was founded upon", as are the numerous other things I have listed in this thread. The Democrats aren't the ones trying to maintain the status quo leder, that would be the dictionary definition of conservative. And regarding your "Democrats think the government knows best how to spend your money" remark, which party was it again that has greatly increased the size of our government over the last four years? I'll give you a hint, George W. Bush belongs in that party.

CJ, no offense meant but I think you are stretching here. Leder said "during the campaign [he] heard Kerry and his elitist supporters talking about..." Now I don't believe you were ever on the podium speaking for Kerry or did I miss it? I agree that this is grouping all of he Kerry campaign people into one group, but I really don't see it as an attempt to include you or the entirety of the Democratic Party.

Something to consider for people on both sides. The Moores and Frankens, and the Coulters and Hannitys are the talking heads moderate America sees and hears and considers the spokespersons of their individual political ideologies. Right or wrong is irrelevant, it is how each side is perceived by the middle. Perception always trumps reality if reality is less visible. If either side wants to put a more reasonable face on their political thinking then they need to get reasonable talking heads on the air.



It would be conservative, and in many ways the Democrats are. They have a conservative approach to social programs (by the definition of the word). They (with some exceptions) fight change and work to maintain the status quo of many programs that are in need of an overhaul.

I TOTALLY agree with you that the Republicans have pretty much abandoned they platform in regard to fiscal responsiblity, states rights, etc. But where is the out cry from the Democrats in regard to free speech when colleges institute speech codes? Ideology frequently takes a back seat to politics on both sides of the aisle.

As I a said earlier in the post, when we talk about the actions rather then the rhetoric of politicians we can't really apply the ideological titles because the politics of, as you called it, "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" transcends ideological identity.

Neither party is actively promoting a positive "Progression" for America in my opinion.

CJ, this is getting straight to my point....you can't view progressive from only one perspective. Doing so is circular logic...defining progressive by the ideals of one party so that that is the party that fits the definition. The whole point of this thread is to attempt to step out of that box. Tax cuts are a perfect example, and also points directly to where the difference in the progressive actions between the parties occurs. In Nighttimes Hightower quote, progressive was defined as basically using the government to better mankind. That is a very limiting definition, which I reject. Why does the government have to be the lever? Generally, conservative platforms will seek to improve things by removing government involvement. Why is that less progressive? It is certainly NOT defending the status quo, which had been put forth as the opposite of progressive. Ditto for SS reform....any type of reform, for that matter, is INHERENTLY progressive. Which party has recently proposed the most reform? I think anyone would have to admit that has been the Republicans (at least among the major two parties).

Semantic debate on the issue aside, I still say a concerted effort was made by the Republicans to take the progressive mantle away from the Democratic party, and results since then point to that efforts success. You can call it Progressive, you can call it change, you can call it reform...whatever you call it, whichever party can make the best case for it will likely be the one to succeed in any election..even, but to a lesser degree, reelection campaigns.

I agree Hobbes, Reforms are Progressive, based of the definition of both words being to make change. As for the Republican Party being the party of reform, I am reminded of the old Wendy's commercial: "where's the beef". Where's the Reforms? for that matter, where are the Republicans? At least the Republicans as they used to be. The Republicans of Reagan, 1994 and the contract with America?

Fiscal Reforms? The GOP (even outside homeland security, the war on terror, and the war in Iraq) have increased general spending and expanded Government. It was the Republicans, formally the party preaching the need to eliminate the Department of Education, that increased the size of that department by 34%. It was the Republicans, formally the party strongly supporting the idea that we need to get government out of our private lives who are now waving the flag of morality and proposing all sorts of government vehicles to push their version of it on the rest of us. It is the Republican party, formally the Party that championed States rights, that has been using every option they can think up to fight California's legalization of medicinal use of marijuana in their state (a policy that was approved by referendum by the way).

What has the Republican party done in the last 4 years to improve states rights, reduce the size of government, improve individual liberty, or reform anything?

Your argument is well taken when it comes to Tax cuts improving lives and opportunities, but if spending remains out of control how long will it be before the "progressive" tax cuts of today become the "regressive" bills of tomorrow?

"- Against stem cell research"

Republicans are not against "stem cell research" from what I have seen. Embryotic stem cell research is where the controversy arouses. FYI Stem Cell research has increased 3 fold under GWB.

I feel like I'm living in Bizarro World. Vacillation, mismanagement, poor planning, and destructive policies = strong leadership. Hatred, intolerance, and inequality = moral values. Now, retrograde conservatism = progressive policy??? Jesus Christ.

As CJ pointed out in early on in this thread, "progressive" does not just mean "change, unspecified". Revoking child labor laws, removing women's right to vote, and restoring slavery would all be "changes" - but would they be "progressive"?

Once upon a time, language meant something.


What is your definition of progressive?

I'll go with the dictionary definition which CJ cited: "gradual betterment; especially the progressive development of mankind".

Do you think your definition is the mainstream definition?

Who knows any more? War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, black is white, up is down, and Bush is president. My definition, the dictionary definition, should be the mainstream definition. But in the Orwellian world of America, 2004, the very meaning of words seems to no longer apply.

Which party do you think is perceived as being more progressive?

Quite obviously, that all depends on who is doing the perceiving. Some here are trying to so distort the language that the word can even be applied to the most retrogressive factions of what is becoming the most conservative party in our history. To my perception, neither major party is progressive - though the Democrats definitely have an edge. The Republican Party interested in "the progressive development of mankind"? Give me a break! Some of the Republican leadership may be interested in the short-term betterment of the United States (at least those in the United States endowed with privilege and wealth), but most are simply interested in the immediate betterment of themselves. Hello - this is the party that puts profit before people, corporate greed before the future of the planet, and - solely to secure their power - stunted, medieval bigotry in the guise of "morality" before human rights. At least there are a few in the Democratic Party who take a slightly global view, who have some idea of the long-term betterment of everyone. The globe, by the way, is where one finds "mankind" - not simply within the boundaries of one's nation, one's state, one's corporate headquarters, or one's home in Kennebunkport.

Do you think this is indeed what explains the recent election results (both current and/or going back to 1994)?

Frankly, I saw little progressive policy on either side in this election - nor much going back to 1994. I can't imagine that the notion of "progressive politics" had anything whatsoever to do with the vote. Then again, this am Bizarro World.

Time is short, it's almost home-time, and I'm hungry , so I'll try to be brief**.

I agree with CJ's definition of the meaning of "progressive".

It derives from "progress", and so it's very hard to see how some ideas can be said to be "progressive" in the strictest sense - an anti-abortionist's idea of revoking Roe vs Wade isn't PROgress because it's REvoking something.

However, like most words in English, it really depends on where you are and what you think of as a worthwhile goal. That same anti-abortionist could easily say than revoking Roe vs Wade represents "progress towards a more moral America" with a straight face.

Of course, it would be underlaid with the meaning "a more Christian America", because if "moral" is a way of saying "Christian" without scaring the horses in modern US discourse, just as "progressive" is used as often as a euphemism for "liberal" or "socialist".

{ASIDE}: Which I find amusing from these transatlantic sidelines - almost every poster who criticising the other side for their use of euphemism to disguise their "true" motives goes on to use a whopping great big cotton-wool NewSpeak phrase that does exactly the same thing for their position. Free market capitalism = corporatism/fascism. Tomayto = tomato.

Having said all that, even I can see that the "FairTax" proposals of some libertarians and republicans are genuinely progressive in the dictionary sense.

But at the root of all this, is "progressive" automatically "good" and "regressive" automatically "bad"? Has it been "progress" to move from neighbourhoods where everybody knew everybody and you could leave all your doors unlocked? Yes (privacy) and no (crime, anonymity, etc). Would it be progress if sci-fi dystopias came true (Terminator or Matrix for example)? Technologically, yes, but in almost every other respect - no.

Rather than trying to scoop up a whole party under the label "more progressive than the other lot" on the basis of who I agree and disagree with most to start with - "so-and-so is progressive because I agree with them, with these cases in the pro- and con- columns" (as most people seem to be doing here), I can't help but think it would be a more useful process to look at individual policies on their own merits case-by-case, keep a tally, then tot them all up to work out who is most/least progressive. A kind of "these policies are progressive because... and they belong to the parties on this split, therefore, adding up the attributed scores, this party is 50% progressive and this one is 30% progressive, so 50% wins".

It's human nature to start out with a point of view then try to find the reasons that justify it (it's why we have to be trained to be scientists, and it's also the main reason why bad science arises), rather than starting from the facts and coming to a conclusion. This is doubly difficult in subject areas we care passionately about.* But I think it's the only hope to move forward (and be "progressive" - did you see what I just did ? ) from the partisan vitriol that passes for discourse all too often. Even here (though less than most other places, IMO).

*Anger at the election result from those who didn't like it, and hubris from those that did, mean that just now almost everything qualifies as something people feel passionately about. Perhaps a thread on the meditative effects of raffia work on 19th century Kabuki theatre might lower the debating temperature? (The downside of dispassionate political debate is, of course, that everyone agrees straight away, which makes for kind of a dull experience.)
**Edited to add Hmm. That didn't work, did it?

What is your definition of progressive? Do you think your definition is the mainstream definition?


Progressives are any group seeking political or social change. This can be good or bad, good as in the patriot movement of the revolution, or the abolitionist movement that eventually bought an end to slavery. On the flip side you get communism and fascism, both are radical examples of progressive idealogy challenging the status quo with a radical new theory that does not pan out very well.

My definition is very broad it is simply any group soliciting change in their particular form of government.



Which party do you think is perceived as being more progressive? Why?

I think the Democratic party, this has to do with their labeling themselves as such for national consumption.




Do you think this is indeed what explains the recent election results (both current and/or going back to 1994)

People are reluctant to make changes of any kind when things are going relatively well. The majority of people in America are willing to leave well enough alone so long as they are doing well.

Julian, excellent post. Allow me to use it to clarify my viewpoint here, and where I hope it might go.

First, the title of this topic is somewhat misleading. In general, I don't think there's any doubt as to which party is the most Progessive...that will be the Democratic party. However, I think what has happened is that the Republican party has become progessive enough so that the Democratic Party can no longer lay exclusive claim to the label. I also think they've gotten very good at positioning their platforms as being progressive, even if in fact they're not. This position allows them to keep their conservative base, and yet also grab a fair (maybe more then fair?) share of the middle, forcing the Democratic party to either become more negative, or shift even farther to the left--either of which is, ultimately, good for Republicans.

I like the idea of examing things issue by issue. In fact, I would suggest that as a framework for examining almost any issue. It follows up on the idea of Wertz's Moral Politics thread--in that progressive is of course a relative viewpoint, in both viewing the issue and its potential solutions. This thread puts forward the idea that each ideology has in mind the betterment of mankind...just different viewpoints on what that means and how to achieve it. I was mainly tilting at the stereotype windmill, where only Democrats are Progressive, and all conservatives do is defend that status quo. That windmill, I think, fell some time ago ('twas more than a flesh wound!)...making a new framework for examining issues/platforms necessary. This thread was an attempt to get away from that stereotype...get out of the box, as it were.

FWIW, and this will probably spark the need for a whole new thread, but the Republican Party has actually been Progressive on certain issues for a long time...even including the Civil Rights Act cited by Nigthtimer--an act which had more Republican support than it did Democratic, as shown in the following links. (Not intended to start a whole 'nother path here, just to reinforce the thought that Democrats really can't lay sole claim to the mantle).

Conservatives Can Be Proud of Their Civil Rights Record

An Analysis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

My definition of progressive is continuously evaluating current policies and their effectiveness, and being willing to swiftly implement change as needed. Another part of the definition, IMO, is being an advocate of "liberty and justice for all." Advocating social equality, I think, is a defining point of progressives, which regressives - advocates of the status quo - want to change things back to the way they used to be.



Without a doubt, I think the Democratic Party is viewed as being more progressive if we looked at it from a tunnel-vision sort of view (excluding obviously more progressive parties like Libertarians and Greens). The Democratic Party may have stood for the status quo in the past, but now they push for social equality and various governmental reforms.



I don't think that you can conclude that because Bush 43 was elected with a 2 percent lead, that the Republican Party is viewed as more progressive. Nothing has changed about what they stand for; the only conclusion I think you can draw is that Americans want regressive policies instead of change. Apparently, progress is a bad thing. Americans want to go back to back alley abortions; Americans want to go back to times when our government was not respected. Americans want to go back to times when blacks' votes did not count. Americans want to go back in terms of social equality.

Let's take a time-out for a moment and take a look at the "progressive" ways of the Republican Party (and the ONLY thing I can give them is the Civil Rights Act of 1964):

*Fighting to keep sodomy illegal (progressives would advocate for greater personal freedom, as that has been the trend with progressives ever since the birth of America)

*Fighting to keep rights from homosexuals for no valid reason other than their personal religion (progressives would move in the direction of granting more rights to more people)

*Advocating churches be responsible for social programs like welfare assistance instead of the government (this is against two progressive qualities: separation of church and state - since churches don't pay any money to the government, the government should not pay any money to churches - and the right to receive assistance without being discriminated against for your religion)

*Being pro-death penalty (With all other first-world nations with the exception of Japan, it has been the trend to eliminate the death penalty - but not only do we have it, we execute juveniles and the mentally retarded!)

*The "war on drugs" (Progressives would advocate greater personal freedom, and as such the right to put anything into one's body that they want to)

... and that just scratches the surface.

What is your definition of progressive? Do you think your definition is the mainstream definition?
CJ's definition came closest to the mark for me. I would add reform to the mix as well, though they are definitely not mutually exclusive.

Which party do you think is perceived as being more progressive? Why?
Well, I thought I would take a stab at specific issues in today's society and apply the definition that seems to be gaining some momentum.

Homeland Security
Before you jump the gun and say this was a Bush accomplishment, lets take a look at the facts. The facts say that the concept of a Department of Homeland Security was actually the brain child of a bi-partisan commission headed by Gary Hart (Dem) and Warren Rudman in 1998 and chartered by that progressive President, Willam Jefferson Clinton. link Also note that the Bush Administration originally resisted the idea of a HSD and only began to champion its cause after 9/11. link .

Gay Marriage
This is unabashedly a classic issue for progressives. The reality of today's society is that homosexuality is both pervasive and persistent. Kerry had it right when he argued that homosexuality isn't a choice. If that premise is correct, which idea is more progressive? Making sure that the federal government excludes an entire class of it citizenry from the right and opportunities inherent in marriage? Or leaving that issue to develop in communities and embrace the idea on their timetable? There are only 2 amendments on the books to my knowledge that have attempted to tell our society what not to do. One was slavery, which I think everyone can agree was a pretty good "thou shalt not" to have. The other was prohibition, and we saw how successful that was.

Abortion
Again, which idea is more progressive. Telling a woman she is the ultimate arbiter of what happens within her body or the state dictating her reproductive rights?

Environment
In the delicate balancing act that is big business vs. protection of our environment, there is a tricky distinction of what constitutes progressive. Ensuring that future generations actually have a world to live in might be generally accepted as a progressive ideal. However, investing our country's resources in finding non-carbon based, renewable sources of energy could be considered progressive and is arguably an area that both party could capture if given the desire to do so.

Sarbanes Oxley or Corporate Governance
Given the blowup of companies like Enron and Worldcom, SOX was implemented under the banner of corporate governance reform and was arguably a bi-partisan effort (Sarbanes-Dem, Oxley-Rep). Perhaps this is an example where the compromise between progressive and conservative ideologies generates an effect that both moves society forward but does not do so at the risk of crippling free-enterprise. I'll mark this scorecard even.

Education
No child left behind was arguably a progressive reform or attempt to hold our school systems accountable. The fact that Bush & Kennedy were co-sponsors again makes this ideal arguably progressive for both ideologies (though arguably for marketing purposes).

However, the current conservative focus on trying to move more and more funds into private vs. public schools is an interesting dichotomy. Which would be more progressive? Reform of state sponsored schools, embracing home schooling public funding for private schools? Not really sure I know at this point as I think cases can be made both ways.

The net-net of this review is the idea that the Democratic party is arguably the most consistent champion of progressive ideals, but by no means do they have a monopoly on it.

Do you think this is indeed what explains the recent election results (both current and/or going back to 1994)
Not really. If you believe the poll numbers that the country is moving more conservative (which is natural in response to 9/11, just see WWI responses) then progressives are indeed the minority voice for the moment. Those winds change, just like anything else. That doesn't mean progressives don't have a role or voice in government during this time, it just means we have to fight harder for those ideas to become reality. Such is life in political cycles.

Doc

Well, what the Republicans did in 1964 was great, but that was then and this is now.

When I look at the current leadership and bright lights of the Republican Party I see an overwhelming sea of whiteness. Mel Martinez's status as the Senator-elect from Florida aside, the GOP hierarchy is still too white, too male and too unrepresentative of the country they would lead.

Think about it: The superstar that emerged from the Democratic National Conventinon was Barack Obama. Posters on this board treated Obama like a rock star. Who elicited that kind of broad, bipartisan excitement at the Republican National Convention? Arnold? Rudy? J. Kenneth Blackwell? It sure wasn't that nut Alan Keyes whose negativity and religious zealotry turned off Republicans as much as black Democrats.

But there are no black Republicans in the Senate and none in the House. The Congressional Black Caucus added three members, all Democrats. How does that happen if the country is supposedly becoming hospitable to Republicans? I have yet to hear a single prominent Republican decry the party's inabilitiy to get black candidates elected.

The dearth of diversity among the GOP leadership should be distressing to a party that seeks to wrest majority status away from the Democrats. While Bush can point to a Colin Powell, Condi Rice or Alphonso Montgomery as examples of his Administration's commitment to placing blacks in positions of prominence, it still doesn't mean the Republicans have committed themselves to replacing the Democratic Party as the vehicle African-Americans use to reach high office. The personal success of a few chosen black people does not equate with having a place at the table where white Republicans make policy decisions.

On the other hand, despite the fact that President Bush only increased his percentage of the black vote by a miniscule two percent (from 9% to 11%), the cultural issues of the GOP being pro-life and anti-gay marriage did win support among African-American voters.

In this era of partisanship, African Americans are a weird amalgam—a group that is fundamentally socially conservative, yet hates the Republican Party.

For years, this paradox has endured to the Democrats' favor—but don't count on its being eternal. The coalitions that make up political parties shift constantly. The South, with its trove of white working-class votes, was once a fortress for the Democrats, but now it's solidly Republican. The Democrats' black base is no different. Post-Abraham Lincoln, African Americans voted Republican. Post-Franklin Delano Roosevelt, they voted Democrat. Just like that.

In the 1980s and '90s, many of the issues Republicans rallied around—affirmative action, crime, welfare reform—seemed like code words for racist positions. But this time, as the cultural divide widens again, the issue is gay marriage. Much of black America is either Southern or has Southern roots. As Republicans make their traditionalist pitch, why wouldn't a significant portion of intrigued black voters—call them McCain Republicans—eventually be swept into the fray?

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0445/coates.php

For the Republican Party, they have some traction with blacks on wedge issues, but that is a far cry from actual support. A party that is truly "progressive" has to be resolved to make a serious commitment to winning back the African-American vote.

I don't see it.

NT, is it the Repubs fault for not 'reaching out' or is it black voters' fault for voting as a monolith since '64? In 4 or 8 years, Hispanics will be deciding elections at the congressional and national level, and 'the black vote' could be consigned to the same limited status it enjoys today - voting for democrats, good or bad, win or lose, while being ignored between elections and occasionally ignored during elections (See John Kerry presidential campaign Sept. 2003 - June, 2004).

You're right - Despite the appointments you note and Rod Paige, diversity was primarily achieved by appointments in the Bush administration, and there is a lack of a 'bench' in terms of Congressional caucus. As far as 'diversity' goes, looking at the original cabinet, Bush had 1 arab american, 2 hispanics, 2 asians, and even a Democrat. I know that Bush has appointed less black judges than Clinton, but I'm left wondering how many "strict constructionist" black judgeship candidates are out there, given that 88% of Blacks vote Democratic...

On a similar note, and apologies if I'm being too forward here, but when a black candidate announces that he's running as a republican, how many seconds elapse before Kweisi Mfume issues the "uncle tom" talking points memo. How many death threats does a JC Watts receive before he decides that it's not worth it? It is, to say the least, a challenging task to recruit black candidates to the Republican fold.


While we disagree on the type of issue, at least black voters might make an impact on the discourse in the future. As for the wedge issue of school vouchers, I can only be heartened that Democrats continue to lose on this particular wedge, and maybe we can educate some future leaders in the community as they sneak through the cracks and end up in good schools in places like Milwaukee and DC.

NT, could not agree with you more...this is an issue the Republican party has been struggling with, and certainly a black mark on any claim to being progressive. As you and I have discussed before, and your articles point out above...I think the Republican party does have a message that would resonate with many minority voters. They just haven't shown the willpower to push it wholeheartedly. I have seen, probably starting with Dole, that they have started to at least push forward a statement of inclusiveness (which I do think is heartfelt)...but less talk and more action is certainly needed. Until such action is forthcoming, this will be a large Democratic voting block, and one which is growing faster than the traditional Republican groups. That's not a good omen, so change is inevitable--either within the party, or within the results. For me, it goes beyond pragmatism, though....I am personally disgusted that such an effort is not being made, as I think it goes against the beliefs I have of the conservative philosophy. That philosophy, in my mind, has no room for prejudice--rather, it is founded on treating each and everyone individually as equals. This is one area where Republicans, I think, do a terrible job of getting their message out...the only reason I can think of is that they're afraid of the consequences. For me, if we have to keep those votes in order to win....I'd rather lose.

Also, this has the makings of an excellent separate thread (what could Republicans do to encourage more black/minority candidates and garner more black/minority support), but this may not be the proper time. I'd be most welcome to hear your thoughts on that sometime, though.