Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 09 Nov '13 00:02
    http://inthesetimes.com/article/5747/the_difference_between_liberalism_and_progressivism

    quote:

    "Some background: Economic liberalism has typically focused on using the government’s Treasury as a means to ends, whether those ends are better health care (Medicare/Medicaid), stronger job growth (tax credits) or more robust export businesses (corporate subsidies). The idea is that taxpayer dollars can help individuals afford bare necessities and entice institutions to support the common good.

    Economic progressivism, by contrast, has historically trumpeted the government fiat as the best instrument of social change – think food safety, minimum wage and labor laws, and also post-Depression financial rules and enforcement agencies. Progressivism’s central theory is that government, as the nation’s supreme authority, can set parameters channeling capitalism’s profit motive into societal priorities – and preventing that profit motive from spinning out of control. "

    "Liberalism sans progressivism–i.e., public money sans regulation–turns the Treasury into an unlimited gift card for whichever private interests are being sponsored. "

    Unquote.
    Not the reference to "private interests". This suggests that the traditional liberalism of our times is, essentially, controllable by corporations and the wealthy. Citizens United, anyone?
  2. 09 Nov '13 02:35
    Originally posted by JS357
    http://inthesetimes.com/article/5747/the_difference_between_liberalism_and_progressivism

    quote:

    "Some background: Economic liberalism has typically focused on using the government’s Treasury as a means to ends, whether those ends are better health care (Medicare/Medicaid), stronger job growth (tax credits) or more robust export businesses (corporate subs ...[text shortened]... ur times is, essentially, controllable by corporations and the wealthy. Citizens United, anyone?
    I think any political grouping can and will be used by corporations and the rich. The relevant question is who is buying and who is selling?

    Liberalism in the 19th century was today's libertarianism. Progressivism began near the end of the 19th, with T. Roosevelt its first big advocate in the US. Ted was wealthy, and represented wealth. He passed the progressive baton on to Woodrow Wilson, but by the end of WWII progressives had a bad name, and somehow were redefined into liberals. Liberals often now attempt to avoid the moniker, but I don't see a contemporary differences between modern liberals and progressives.
  3. 09 Nov '13 02:52
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I think any political grouping can and will be used by corporations and the rich. The relevant question is who is buying and who is selling?

    Liberalism in the 19th century was today's libertarianism. Progressivism began near the end of the 19th, with T. Roosevelt its first big advocate in the US. Ted was wealthy, and represented wealth. He passed th ...[text shortened]... he moniker, but I don't see a contemporary differences between modern liberals and progressives.
    According to this analysis, it could come down to positions on farm and corporate subsidies and obeisance to private interests, to find a difference. But I suppose finding a difference between opponents is not that important, is it?