From now on we are "progressives".

[catbert836]

Not liberals!

Liberal, to the common American, means cowardliness, peacenik, tax-and-spend, immoral attitudes, etc. Even our leaders refrain from calling themselves that.
Progessive means going forward, bright American future, and depending on how well versed they are in American history, Teddy Roosevelt.

The problem in a large part is the language. We can't win by using their language, and one of their terms is liberal. We need to start calling ourselves by our own terms.

[Paul Hood]

1. Fine with me that makes our opponents regressive. n/t

[catbert836]

2. Dosn't it, though!

I love this black-and-white language.

[onebox30]

109. I have been trying to use that label for years.

It dosen't seem to catch-on for some reason, but it describes their policies and platform quite aptly.

[Up2Late]

3. I agree 100%

We really need to start a "take back the Language" forum or something.

That is one of the things they have been doing for 10 or 15 years now, but discipline and repetition is key. You have to use the same language every time to make it work.

For example: :think:they are NOT Pro-Life, they are Anti-Choice
NOT Neo-Conservatives - Neo-imperialists or
Neo-Fascists
Other new terms I like are: "Free Lunch Republicans"
"Pro War Republicans"

Do we need to change Neo-Fascists?:evilgrin:

[Paul Hood]

4. We have one it's called Frame the Debate its in the DU Groups. n/t

[Erika]

5. Republicans because of their cutting funds to the needy and

promoting war are "antiChrist-Christians".

[Selatius]

6. This is going to be more difficult than smearing "liberal" was for RWers

Try getting this to stick on FOX, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. It'll be more difficult. They're corporate controlled, and I fear they'd sooner find a way to subtly suggest that "regressives" is just an invention of the left than take it at face value like Bush's justification for war in Iraq.

[Up2Late]

8. I agree

But you have to do what they would do. Keep using it anyway and always remember the 5 Republican rules if you start to get into trouble
(I sometimes call them, the 5 rules for staying out of prison)
:smoke:
1) Admit Nothing
2) Deny everything Emphatically
3) Demand Proof
4) Make Counter Accusations
5) Assault the other persons Creature

If you watch, this is there basic strategy anytime one of their policies is questioned. It's How O.J. walked too.

[txaslftist]

26. You shouldn't assault anyone's creature.

[comsymp]

40. ok, THAT was funny

:: visions of villagers armed w/pitchforks ::

[Up2Late]

83. woops! guess I need a Grammar checker too

LOL yes I meant Character :silly:

[sampsonblk]

7. Just my opinion: that's why we lose

A liberal by any other name... Look, the more we retreat from what we are, the more ridiculous we look. No matter what we call ourselves, we are still a bunch of (mostly) liberals. And there's nothing wrong with that.

On the other hand, conservatives are mostly wrong on all the important issues. Why on earth would we retreat from something good, and given them a pass for believing in things that are wrong and bad? Its time to fight back, not retreat.

I suggest we stop being so weak, and start standing up for ourselves and our views for a change. And that starts with being proud, forceful liberals, instead of embarrassing ourselves by claiming we're really not liberals at all. Everyone knows we are.

[Dream of the Flood]

11. Agreed

We need to be proud of what we are. Take the word back. When you are called a liberal derogatorily, say, "Damn straight!" or "Liberal and proud!" The more we acquiesce and fold and drop back, look down shamefully and try to deny what we are, the weaker we become and the more we prove their misconceptions correct. I use both words interchangeably.

There is this notion that Conservatives/Republicans are real Americans, and by denying what we are, we are saying that we buy into that image. We are like Peter, who fearing persecution, denied association with Jesus, even though he knew better. By camouflaging our true colours we are hiding all of what we know is right--we are saying we don't believe in our values enough to broadcast them. We cannot play to people whose vote we'll never have, whose minds are not easily opened. We must stand up and be proud of who we are. Instead of trying to hide our liberalism, take it back and explain better what liberalism really is. Liberalism espouses the teachings of Christ more than zealots like Fallwell and the like. Perhaps liberalism needs a PR campaign, not a name change. We're not a bunch of Marxists or anarchists out to destroy capitalism as we know it. We are not out to destroy Christianity--in fact many of us are Christians as well. While many on the right wear religion and "family values," liberals actually do their best to live as Jesus taught, even if they are atheists or subscribe to another religion. When Christianity is perceived by them as getting a good bashing from the "liberal elite," it is only because the hypocrisy they exhibit in their perversion of the religion makes them the caricature they so often complain about in the "liberal media" or by "Hollywood types" in motion pictures and TV shows.

If we are not proud of who we are, how can we convince anyone else?

[FormerDittoHead]

21. Yes and No... I agree the name change would be a good idea...

>A liberal by any other name... Look, the more we retreat from what we are, the more ridiculous we look.

True. We can't simply change our name and expect people to think that we're not the "evil commie liberals" that they've been trained to hate.

The fact is that, if we REALLY want it to "stick", Progessives have to stand up AGAINST "liberals", especially in the sense which the neocons (I really don't want to use the word "conservatives") PERCEIVE.

Only THEN will the perception change.

Prime examples of their trained beliefs:

Liberals think bigger government is the solution to all problems, and we'll all end up working just to pay taxes for government programs to support lazy people. (read: blacks)

Liberals want to outlaw religion.

Liberals want to impose immoral beliefs on children. (read: convert your children into homos)

Liberals are baby killers and want to take the practice of abortion to it's "logical" conclusion: euthanasia on the elderly.

Liberals want to make American weak militarily, and lower our standards of living in order to appease the UN. (new) To make the US more vunerable to terrorist attacks.

Liberals simply want to control society because they think that the rest of the country are idiots and can't think for themselves. They will use the guise of the environment, health care, and political correctness to control every aspect of your lives. (communists)

(end of examples)

Now, I can tick off every one of these beliefs and show you where these believes are either out and out wrong or that the Republicans are in fact WORSE.

We're not talking about reality, however, we're talking about perception. I believe that calling ourselves Progressives would be a GOOD move, however, and to "oust" the "liberal faction" from the Democratic party to distance ourselves from the above PERCEPTIONS...

[VioletLake]

22. "...and to 'oust' the 'liberal faction' from the Democratic party..."

Good luck with that idea. ;)

[FormerDittoHead]

29. Then the Democrats will continue losing

If it's not broken, don't fix it, eh?

You guys just don't get it, do you? "Liberal" has been a dirty word with the MAJORITY of Americans for over TWENTY YEARS.

How much did Clinton use that word? I don't remember him EVER using it because he KNEW better - AND HE WAS RIGHT.

I'm not suggesting you change any "values" - just the words and way it's expressed so that the right wing spin doesn't keep WINNING, AND YOU KEEP *L*O*S*I*N*G*

(some of) You people are in DENIAL.

The BASIC rules have changed for over 13 years now, ever since we lost the congress, but you guys are still playing by the old rules and you're *L*O*S*I*N*G*.

[VioletLake]

30. Thanks for your concern.

I'm sure we'll manage somehow.

:hi:

[catbert836]

31. Thank you!

Couldn't've said it better myself!

[Crunchy Frog]

81. How many times did Kerry use the word "liberal"?

The Democratic party has been allergic to that word for decades, so I think you're kind of beating up on a straw man here.

I do think the party should oust any "liberal" who wants to outlaw religion. We don't need that sort of thing in our party. Let us know which Democrats take that position so we can begin our campaign to oust them.

I don't give a damn what labels the party chooses to use. I am and will remain a liberal. If the Democratic party doesn't want me because of that, I'm perfectly happy to reregister as a Green.

By the way, I'm not playing by any rules. I don't make the decisions about Democratic party strategy. I didn't choose the Democratic nominee. All I did was donate a little money, do a little volunteer work, and vote. I think I'm like most people on here in that respect. Maybe it's the party leadership you should be addressing, rather than "you people" who don't have much influence on the party anyway.

[sampsonblk]

82. WE don't lose because we're "liberal"

We lose because we're weak, and our leaders have been afraid to stand up for what's right. What you advocate is more of the same, I'm sad to say.

If we retreat from what we are, we deserve to lose.

[Debs]

87. Democrats WON

The popular vote three presidential elections in a row, try to keep up. How is that we keep losing? Stop trying to foist GOP talking pointss on the intelligent people that populate sites like this, its not Freerepublic

[FormerDittoHead]

62. Note the quotes

The reason I used quotes around "oust" and "liberal faction" was that these 'acts' would be SYMBOLIC for the purpose of PERCEPTION, in the same way Richard Nixon was 'ousted' from the Republican party during Reagan's first campaign...

In advertising, the second most powerful word after "sale" is NEW...

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FormerDittoHead]

32. You don't get it - VALUES != PERCEPTION

Look at this list that I made reprinted below. Tell me ONE FREAKING THING YOU AGREE WITH:

>Liberals think bigger government is the solution to all problems, and we'll all end up working just to pay taxes for government programs to support lazy people. (read: blacks)

>Liberals want to outlaw religion.

>Liberals want to impose immoral beliefs on children. (read: convert your children into homos)

>Liberals are baby killers and want to take the practice of abortion to it's "logical" conclusion: euthanasia on the elderly.

>Liberals want to make American weak militarily, and lower our standards of living in order to appease the UN. (new) To make the US more vunerable to terrorist attacks.

>Liberals simply want to control society because they think that the rest of the country are idiots and can't think for themselves. They will use the guise of the environment, health care, and political correctness to control every aspect of your lives. (communists)
(end of list)

OK, which one of those perceptions do you actually agree with?

GUESS WHAT MR. "LIBERAL" - The *V*O*T*I*N*G* *M*A*J*O*R*I*T*Y* of Americans believe that's what *L*I*B*E*R*A*L* MEANS!

REALITY CHECK:
The Democratic LEADERS don't argue with the above definitions!

REALITY CHECK:
The mainstream media ACCEPTS these definitions, as it doesn't challange them!

I believe that *I*F* you guys can't think outside the box long enough to just change the *words* you're using to better describe REALITY, the words that have been *SUCCESSFULLY* TWISTED by the right wing media spin machine, then maybe the Democrats DO deserve to continue losing, and the third party crowd know something!

How well can the Democratic party serve an ever changing society, in an ever changing world, if they're too stubborn to even change some of the (outdated) words and phrases it uses?

Now, tell us all, what do you plan to do (besides losing more elections) to change the perceptions above? Are you going to let the Republicans take us back to the 1880's, lead us into another Great Depression, hope that another World War starts and THEN the people will be "ready"???

IN THE LONG RUN, WE'LL ALL BE DEAD!

READ THIS BEFORE YOU REPLY:

I'm not saying that you change ANY of your *VALUES* (unless of course, you actually agree with any of the items in the above list). You've got to change the PERCEPTION.

GET THIS: there is NO WAY you can start from HERE to MAGICALLY make the word "Liberal" (not the CONCEPT, YOU MORONS) a good word. It's too late. You have to approach this from a DIFFERENT direction.

The Republicans have WON and will continue WINNING because they understand the IMPORTANCE of PHRASING THE ARGUMENT. And you're not going to win it by using the OLD PHRASES that have been DISMISSED by the the MAJORITY of Americans.

They have won this because we have LET the Republicans take over talk radio (which led to losing of the Congress) then the mainstream media with crys of it being 'liberal' while we did NOTHING to respond.

But you're not alone - even Michael Moore says should simply ignore radio as a medium. At least Al Franken gets it.

I'm repeating myself, but that's because I don't think you GET IT - I'm not asking you to ACCEPT what I'm saying, I'm asking that you UNDERSTAND what I'm saying without SPINNING it to mean something else.

I'm trying to win this for the good of American, not for the good of the Democrats or the party tradition or what ever sentimental reason you guys want to hang on to the old RETORIC.

I'd be willing to call myself Mr. Chicken Penis if it means getting the country out of the tail-spin that we're headed in.

I'm no longer a Rush fan. I believe that Republicans are EVIL.

But I believe that the only way the Democrats will win elections will be by changing the *perception* of what we stand for, and that's not going to happen using the same WORDS.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[comsymp]

45. Gotta say, he makes a few valid points, though, Q-

About the perception and lack of willingness to combat the RW propaganda. I strongly disagree with his remedy, as I posted downthread, but he described the current reality (or perception thereof) pretty accurately, IMO.

[FormerDittoHead]

57. Here's another lesson we can learn... PLEASE READ

During his first campaign did Ronald Reagan refer to RICHARD NIXON as a good president? (or at all??)

HE DIDN'T - AT ALL.

Because he knew that those were DIRTY WORDS.

He "ousted" Richard Nixon and all that he stood for from (image of) the party.

How many times did you see Nixon on the Reagan campaign trail?

YOU DIDN'T - AT ALL.

Do you remember Nixon at the Republican convention?

You can't. Becasue he was OUSTED. He was DIRTY and would insure the party LOSING again.

They *changed* their *MESSAGE* with a fresh face and a fresh message and they WON. BIG TIME. (PS: I HATED Reagan)

[FormerDittoHead]

50. You just don't get it. I feel sorry for you.

You choose to resort to ad hominum arguments and you say you don't want to sink to their level...?

[Debs]

89. Bunk

Liberal was slandered by the right. They made it into a bad word we CAN rescue it. Our IDEAS are right, in the long run the truth is stronger than lies. The media is a problem but I agree with Lincoln you cant fool all the people all the time. I will stick with the truth. You have already declared yourself to be my enemy saying you want to oust me, a longtime liberal. And you are a Johnny-come-lately new convert telling ME how we should run things. Its not going to happen

[Debs]

85. I am a liberal

YOU want to oust me Bubba? Bring it on

[Debs]

84. I agree

I refuse to give up the good name liberal

[sampsonblk]

95. I am a liberal - Amen!

I also refuse to give it up, and I refuse to be ousted without my permission.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. This is puerile, pusillanimous idiocy

What are you going to do when the monarchists systematically demonize the term "progressive"? I guarantee you they'll do it.

So you're not a liberal. Big damn deal. If you don't think the right is deliberately preying on our image fear to put the skeer in us, you're bent. They will whittle away at the word "progressive" until people like you quiver and scamper off to another name of refuge as you distance yourself from the label of "progressive".

Liberal, to the common American, doesn't mean anything like what you've said. You've just been suckered into thinking that. Even a snotty, posturing tough-guy contrarian like Bill Maher defends the word; he says: "look it up; there's nothing bad about that word".

You are doing much more harm to the cause than you even know.

Whether you are one or not, disavowing the term "liberal" is tantamount to surrender. Conservatives are the tight-assed haters of anything different; liberals accept difference and are tough enough to be able to live in a world where there are competing ideologies. Conservatives are ultimate cowards because they're unwilling to let anything exist that doesn't march in lockstep with them. Disavowing the truly courageous is pathetic.

Spew your frustration as you please, but remember this: if you're quaking in the face of people disliking your allies or affiliates, you're at their mercy. Reactionaries don't give a tinker's cuss what their deriders think of them; you should learn from your enemies.

As you try to distance yourself from icky appellations, you show your own lack of fortitude.

Dammit.

[demwing]

10. I think you're over reaching

And I disgagree with your comment "Liberal, to the common American, doesn't mean anything like what you've said."

To the common American, Liberal means whatever Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity say it means.

Do you know why?

Because we've sat back and let them define the term for us while we watched sheepishly and did nothing.

Now we must either fight to redefine that term, and in the process ourselves, or use another term, define it first, and define ourselves on our own. Once we own it, we have only to maintain it.

Which path seems more logical?

[MsConduct]

12. Ah, logic. Now there's the rub. I've never met a logical 'con'. n/t

[demwing]

14. Agreed to a point. BUT -

Don't make the mistake of underestimating the enememy.

We think we're fighting rednecks and bigots.

We are, but some of those rednecked bigots run multinational corporations, hold advanced degrees from top Universities, and have successfully protected their ass-ets through years of criminal mischief.

These are not stupid men and women. They plot.

[MsConduct]

75. You are right. I don't underestimate the educated, rich plotters

on the other side. It's their ignorant minions who follow them blindly, without question that I have the real problem with.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. Yield no ground

That is more logical. You're fighting against simplistic thugs.

Whether one identifies with the term or not, running from it is an invitation to continuous assaults.

"They" are not as pervasive as you think.

The endless rationale of defeatism is nauseating enough, but when cloaked in inevitability, it's truly disgusting.

Look at it this way: whether you like it or not, the term "liberal" will always be linked to anything that's not rigid and simplistic. You can't escape it, and showing weak-kneed lack of conviction will only whet the appetites of your enemies. I'm stuck with you, and you're stuck with me. Don't blame me, and I'll try not to remind you of your foolishness.

Got it?

Why is it that those who recommend appeasement and mollification somehow consider themselves steadfast? The true cowards are those who let their enemies define them and then shrink from any resistance. Once upon a time, the term "conservative" was such a devastating tag that people ran from it. The proof of this is that even after 20 years of ascendant conservatism, the greasy haters still needed to add the oxymoronic adjective of "compassionate" to it to dare to walk in the light of day with the appelation.

You advocate cowering self-hatred, and you can't exist without the rest of us.

The term "liberal" hasn't been vilified beyond repair in the general population, and being cowed into thinking it has is the sign of ignorance. Standing by it (if not up for it) will garner much respect, and when the act of doing so meets resistance, it opens the opportunity for tactical gain.

[demwing]

15. Your hatred of those who bend has left you too rigid.

Of course, bending should be a tool, not a career, so I do understand your mood, but again, you reach too far.

You can only see one way to go forward, and so your vision is limited. Shades of grey have become shades of black and white.

I'm not with you?

Well...I must be against you, or at least worthy of little but scorn and contempt.

And those are NOT the leadership qualifications that I'm looking for.

[PurityOfEssence]

74. Call yourself whatever you want, but lick their boots at your peril

I guarantee you, the more you deny the term and those who identify with it, the more you hasten the day when the come up with snotty terms for "progressive" and turn on you like a pack of wild dogs.

That's how these people operate. There are times for fencing, dancing and chess, and there's a time to stand fast.

Some day you're going to meet a smart conservative who pins you down on this, and when you swear up and down that you're not a liberal, he's going to define the term. How will you distance yourself then? "Oh, no, I don't tax and spend; in fact, I hate taxes. And I don't want useless social programs; I think losers and the infirm are unsightly. Hell, I'll suck corporate dick 'til the cows come home, and I don't like any of those weirdo non-traditional lifestyles."

How are you going to distance yourself? "Oh, liberals, they just go too far with everything." You'll get eaten alive, and you'll deserve it. He'll just call you a "liberal lite", and you'll be mocked well over the horizon.

You don't have to be one or love those of us who are ones, but if you cave on it, you're a big part of the problem. Why not just take the party to the center some more? Let's just cave on abortion, tort reform and the environment. We'll win lots of love that way.

Taking a stand means you'll be hated. If that's a problem, then re-think what you're doing.

Don't play the "binary thinker" card of dismissal; you're interpreting it through your own stodginess. Somehow we're all scared of our own shadows, when we shouldn't be: we haven't been getting beaten all that badly even when we fight pathetic campaigns. It's not the time for internecine warfare and knee-jerk moves. Take away the greasy gains in the Texas delegation to the House, and we actually netted a few seats in the House this last election. In the miseryfest around here, you'd hardly know it. We lost Senate seats in Red States, and, by running a better (if deplorable and shrill) campaign, Junior got close enough to steal it in Ohio and Florida. They hold all three branches of government, but their margins are VERY THIN.

Run from the term liberal, and you'll be running for the rest of your life. Go ahead, but don't call it courage or rationality or tactical finesse; it's just scampering away from bullies. There's even room to snicker a bit at liberals when confronted by Nazis without denying them: say that they maybe go a bit too far, but use it as a springboard to point out the greed, recklessness, intolerance and selfishness of the right.

[demwing]

94. Then be Progressive AND Liberal

Here's how I currently deal with the whole "liberal" issue.

NEOCON: "you're just a tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, Hollywood-loving, left-wing, freak show liberal."

ME: "You forgot 'New York Times-reading' you dipstick. Now let me explain this to you slowly so you can follow along. Liberals have been fighting for your 40 hour week and overtime pay, building decent paying jobs for Americans in America, balancing our domestic budgets, winning the Space Race, serving in our military, fighting and winning our wars overseas, spreading democracy around the world and civil rights for ALL Americans in the US since before your eyebrows grew together. While you regressive Conservatives long for the fantasy of an 'Ozzie and Harriet' past that never really existed, Liberals have been fighting for a better future for our children and yours. When Teddy Roosevelt was President, Conservatives had a chance to be great, and dropped the ball. Roosevelt was a Progressive, but now the whole Conservative movement is about endless welfare for corporations and endless war for limited energy resources. You have no concept of progress or conservation!"

"If your granddaughter can takes a drink of fresh water - if your grandson can take a hike in a national forest and breathe clean air, thank a Liberal, because we taught Conservatives how to conserve when we picked up the Progressive mantle from Roosevelt. Progress is the spirit of America, and Liberalism is the spirit of the Progressive movement."

"In fact, call me a Progressive, because I'm more than just a Liberal, I'm an American Liberal. If we Progressives hike taxes, its because we had to pay off the insane debt created by 'borrow and spend' Conservatives. If we have to alter the size of the government, its because the Big Brother Neoconservatives have created yet another program or office to snoop on American citizens. An as far as what I eat or drink, what car I drive or movie I watch, let me make this clear - I'll eat sushi or fried chicken, drink latte's or root beer, drive Volvo's or Chevy's, and watch any fucking movie I want, because I'm an American, and thanks to a Progressive or a Liberal, American's are free. Any questions?"

So, "PurityOfEssence"...do you get it now? I'm not afraid of being a Liberal. I'm proudly Progressive, and that includes being a Liberal, but it isn't limited by it.

Any Questions?

[PurityOfEssence]

101. Then I don't see why you have any problem with this

Obviously, you have the spine to face the forces of simplicity.

This thread was started by someone who wanted to disavow the term "liberal", whereas you seem to have no problem standing up for it and even allowing yourself to be identified by it. Why are you fighting me?

Cowards need to control everything and make sure the terms are clear and without any nuance. Somehow you have no problem facing a world with a belief system that's complex. Huzzah!

If you really want to stop an unswervative, you look it right in the face and don't back down. When they sneer that you're a tree hugger, you parry with an accusation that they want to clear cut the world and destroy the planet for the profit of the already rich. From what you say, this is just your schtick. So why do I prompt such ire? Sounds to me like you should be more angry with the appeasers and shilly-shalliers.

Here's the major point, restated to an annoying degree: if you let the enemy tag and label you, then disavow those labels, you will lose. They'll allow you no refuge, and hound you with the very names you've disavowed. They smell blood. They need to pigeon-hole and dismiss, and the full flight from names like "liberal" only whets their appetite for more. It's the dynamic of bullying: the more you run from the term, the more they tag you with it.

As far as I can tell from this tiff, you should be slagging the person who started this silliness much more than me. I'm of the combative stripe too, unlike those who are afraid of being tagged with unseemly names.

If you're willing to accept even a shred of the appelation "liberal", then you're on my side. You should be hammering the snivelling firebrand who started this thread because he wanted to have some kind of politically correct purge of the unseemly.

There's nothing more delicious than taking the worst shot from some monarchist and throwing it right back in its face. They seem to think that if they can call you a liberal, you'll run; when you take the name with extreme pride and attack their greed and ignorance, they're left spluttering. They're programmed, and largely unable to think; when caught in the light of day facing their very premise dismissed, they're on tilt. You can see the shattering of a worldview in these moments, and it's a fine, fine time.

"Liberal" is sort of like gays' embracing of the term "queer" of late; it's a hate word that, when embraced, trounces one's opponents.

Go find yourself some enemy; you're more or less on my side.

Take a hint, too: there are lots of people like me who are doing precisely the same thing. Don't waste that resource.

[demwing]

103. I Dont Agree That Disavowing The Term "Liberal" Makes One Spineless

I don't like the term. I prefer Progressive.

But that doesn't mean I'll run away from liberal principles, or let some jack off Conservative color my life.

I choose the term Progressive because I like Progressive. To me, it includes everything that is Liberal, and adds another dimension.

Also, I didn't think the OP needed to be trashed. It just wasn't very nice, nor accurate.

[VioletLake]

104. You don't like the term,

yet you use it to describe your principles:

But that doesn't mean I'll run away from liberal principles, or let some jack off Conservative color my life.

If you don't like the term, you'll have to start referring to your principles as "progressive."

Why would you do that though? After all, it's ok with tens of millions of people if you call your principles "liberal." So why change your language? The only pepople offended by the word "liberal" are "jack off Conservatives."

Sounds to me like you're letting the wankers color your life.

[demwing]

105. When I say I don't like it

what I mean is that I find the term inadequate to describe my political demeanor. Politically, my principles include, but are not limited to, liberal principles.

Is that more clear? :)

[VioletLake]

106. Clear and cool with me.

From now on, I will remember that politically, your principles include, but are not limited to, liberal principles. And that you prefer the label "progressive." (Just in case a jack off conservative asks... ;))

[demwing]

107. Oh you're a tricksy one,eh?

I'll have to keep an eye on you... lol!

Actually, I'll have to be very careful what I say around you. I have the feeling you enjoy making rash speakers eat their own words.

peace (please?) :silly:

[VioletLake]

108. I enjoy productive conversations.

And I like horsing around as much as the next knucklehead.

Peace O8)

[catbert836]

34. That's just being stubborn

We have to be ready to accept the things we cannot change... and one of them is the definition of the word liberal in the mind of most Americans. When something dosn't work, don't use it. How long has it been since we used the word liberal to describe our candidates? 30 or 40 years? Face it, it dosn't work.
Dammit.

[txaslftist]

58. Loved your post, it's exactly right, but...

could you please not use pusillanimous and puerile.

they make my head hurt

[Prank Monkey]

64. It's a Catch 22

You're right, I've already seen Bill O'Reilly making a shift on his show to talking about "so-called Progressives" and how they're just as bad, if not worse than some of the "liberals."

You give Bill Mahr less credit than he deserves, even as you quote him, but your quote itself is telling:

"Look it up; there is nothing bad about that word."

That completely misses the point. It's not about what the word means historically, its about the way it is percieved and the conotations that it carries around like so much baggage because of 30 years of Right-Wing efforts to defame it.

While I don't agree with the original poster that we need to drop it completely, if you think its OK to just charge ahead with that moniker without at least tinkering with things in some way, you are the one who is mistaken.

[catbert836]

65. I agree

We need to either radically redifine "liberal" or use something else. I suggested progressive. But that dosn't mean we need to drop it totally.

[comsymp]

16. Y'all go right ahead - I'm a Liberal, and proud to be one

Instead of running from the label and its corruption by the Right, I will continue to embrace it, define it, and wave it like a fucking banner. *Most importantly*, I will continue to practice the ideals the term represents, and demonstrate whenever/wherever possible what it really means.

[VioletLake]

18. What comsymp said. :)

Progressive is good too.

[catbert836]

35. WE all know what it really means, but

no one else does. When something is broken beyond repair, don't use it anymore.

[comsymp]

36. Strongly disagree-- not even close to being broken beyond repair.

It's just a matter of setting the record straight.

There's another thread in GD which dovetails nicely with this one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2873572

[catbert836]

43. Well, do that if you want to. But consider this:

The law of opposites.
The opposite of liberal is conservative. What does conservative mean today? Patriotic, flag waving, troops supporting, small government, etc.
The opposite of progressive could be either regressive or reactionary. What do those mean? You tell me.
To redefine liberal, we're also going to have to redefine conservative. And that won't be too easy. It's better to use our own terms, not our enemy's.

[comsymp]

51. Disagree

1) To redefine Liberal, we only have to call Bullshit. Loudly and repeatedly, and probably 'til we're blue in the face. As far as I'm concerned, it's not necessary to "redefine" Conservatism- the Cons have already done that. We merely have to (again, loudly and repeatedly) call 'em out on it. They managed to twist the perceptions of L & C - we are surely smart enough to be able to return the compliment???

2) We were using "our own term" until they perverted it. The question seems pretty simple to me: do we take it back or do we tacitly acknowledge all the mischaracterizations, by running from it? Because that's exactly what we'd be doing. And what happens when Rush, et al, start in on the term "Progressive"? Do we crawl off to another label again... and again?

Once we abandon our positions and Liberal traditions, we're throwing away any possible future credibility, as I see it.

[catbert836]

53. If you think that will work

Go ahead and try it. But as far as I can see, the word liberal shouldn't be used until we're back on top. THEN we can set to work. And explain to me how you can "demonize" the word progressive? It won't work, just as long as we define it first and get that perception into the mainstream conciousness. That's why we shouldn't use liberal. That's what they've already done to it.

[comsymp]

61. How can you demonize the word "progressive"?

Short answer: the same way they demonized "Liberal". You may not remember, but we defined that word first, too. Then they came along and redefined it with (virtually) nary a peep from the Left.

See, what happens in the scenario you suggest (somewhere downthread - can't remember to whom) is what would really kill our credibility:


RIGHTIE: You liberal. (subtext: liberal = bad)

LEFTY 1: Bet your ass. And you can thank me for Social Security, Interstate highways, clean air/water, yadda yadda. (subtext: liberal = good)

...OR...

LEFTY 2: Nuh-UH! I'm a Progressive! (subtext: I agree, liberal = bad ; therefore, progressive = former liberal = bad + chickenshit)

[catbert836]

63. It's easier to use our language than theirs is what I'm saying

If you think you can redefine liberal, then go for it. Hope it works out for you. But I'm going my own road.

[comsymp]

67. And what I'm saying is that "Liberal" IS our language.

And one major step we've gotta take towards losing the negative context attached to liberal is to kill the parts that are even partially based in truth: first, stop being such gaping hoo-hoos, quit rolling over and whining every time the big bad CONCINO bully kicks sand in our faces, get the fook up OFF our backs and shove a big, wet, seaweed-laced double handful

UP.

HIS.

ASS.


Then start getting just as loud (and obnoxious, if need be) as the right in calling them on their lies - and hypocrisy. And be able to back up every word we say.

It certainly won't happen overnight, but I guarantee that it will happen.

[catbert836]

68. Like I said

I think its easier to get our own language and define it however we like. 30 years of demonization by the RW hasn't left much stock in the word liberal. So I'm going to get new words for us. If you think we can radically redefine "liberal", then feel free to try. I personally don't think it will work, and even if it does it'll be too hard and take too long.

[Liberal In Texas]

69. You do what you want

but I for one will not play their game.

AND it's time to start making sure when you talk to the neo-cons that you start equating their way of thinking to FASCISM. Because that is what it is.

[catbert836]

71. I agree, it is fascism

And that's what we need to call it, but not only that, we need to call ourselves something that hasn't been demonized for a change.

[Liberal In Texas]

73. One thing about us...

...is there is room for differences of opinion. Libs/Progs. don't march in lock-step like the programmed robots the neo-con fascists are.

[catbert836]

77. And that's the beauty of it!

You go your way, I'll go mine...

[VioletLake]

42. Do you really think

that you're going to draw me into this bogus argument?

I'm just enjoying the delightful hamfist ballet. B-)

[catbert836]

44. Fine. Be stubborn.

It won't work out for you though, in the end.

[VioletLake]

47. :(

:nopity:

[matcom]

17. Sorry. I Am A LIBERAL

a damned PROUD LIBERAL

[MaineDem]

19. Don't be sorry

And I'm with you!

[wicket]

20. Amen to that!

:kick:

[kodi]

79. damn right, sport and damned proud to be one.

I can handle any mother fucking pinhead conservative in a debate on liberalism versus conservatism and I have no inclination to back down on my opinions and beliefs.

as i posted yesterday on Uly's thread....

In dealing with the Right, even the most articulate, and reading their most articulate essays, I am constantly impressed with their lack of substance. They seem to be without principles, calling what guides them a philosophy would seem to be giving them far more distinction than they deserve. Rather their thought seems to be nothing more than crumbs and shards raked together from various sources-- Hobbes, Locke, Smith (invisible hand leading towards utopia), Marx (economic determinism), Freud (where they get their constant urge to play on middle class fear) and numerous others -- and shaped together into a formless mass which they mold to the desired situation. There is no philosophical system on the Right, rather only cynical opportunism masquerading as coherent thought, a fig leaf of virtue to hide their whoring ways.

I have no respect for them because they have no sense of shame. They are more akin to the Bolsheviks of Russia than to anything American (that is the reason that "Busheviks" appeals to me so much). For them everything comes down to attaining and retaining power and cashing in, nothing more.

It is not that the Right, or “conservatives” is a dirty word, rather that it exemplifies a position of no coherent philosophy, except pure, unbridled greed.

[bunkerbuster1]

23. To my liberal friends, I'm usually a "progressive."

to the ratfucker republicans, I'll continue to be a "liberal" because it pisses them off to no end.

[Q]

24. Liberals and Progressives have much in common...

...so to deny one is to deny the other.

You moan about the RWingers defining liberals and then come up with a 'plan' to prove to them that they've been successful. Not too well thought out on your part.

What other words would you like to eliminate to please the opposition?

[catbert836]

37. You're missing the point, Q.

What I said was that the definition of liberal is whatever Hannity or Limbaugh tells the average American it is. We could fight to change that, but in the end there's really no point. It would be a lot easier to switch to progressive. So it would be like this:
Right-Winger: "You're a liberal"
Me: "I'm a progressive"

It works, and saying we're letting them win my discarding liberal is just being stubborn.

[Q]

41. I would be willing to bet that the 'average' American...

...could give a shit what Limbaugh or Hannity has to say. I think you give them way too much credit.

I have an idea. Why not follow your own advice and allow everyone else to label themselves as they so desire?

[catbert836]

48. Maybe. But listen to this...

We can't win the battle by using their terms. If you are going to redefine "liberal" then you are also going to have to redefine "conservative". That's a long, bloddy, uphill battle which dosn't need to be fought.
With new language, you get new meaning. We get to redefine ourselves and our opponents with not too much fighting.
But if you want to stick with liberal, I'm cool with that. I'm not fighting that battle though, if it absoloutely dosn't need to be.

[Q]

93. Look...LIBERAL IS NOT THEIR TERM...IT'S OURS

...and they have been successful using liberal as a derogatory word because they own the majority of the media. It's not much more complicated than that. Start calling yourself progressive and they'll simply rewire their media to do the same to that word.

The word 'conservative' has already been redefined by the Neoconservatives. Like you want to do to the liberals...the Neocons drove all the true conservatives out of the GOP so they wouldn't have to share power.

Right now we have the centrist DLC 'New' Democrats taking the word 'progressive' for their own. But they are perverting the word to mean something entirely different from progressive. You can't be a progressive and be against unions and worker's rights. A progressive won't ignore the Constitution to wage illegal, aggressive wars. Progressives won't take fistfuls of cash from industry lobbyists and write them custom legislation. And progressives certainly don't condone government secrecy and corruption as the DLC 'progressives' seem to do.

Instead of changing words to 'outwit' the opposition...why not work for a true opposition party that fights for what it right for the Dem party and America?

[charlie]

46. Hope you've got the next couple of labels picked out

The rightwing spin machine can demonize progressive as fast as they did liberal. And they'll have fun doing it. It's just the same shit in a new bag to them.

[catbert836]

52. So you're saying its better to stick with what

we have that's already been demonized rather that what we don't have that hasn't been demonized yet? If that's what you want to do, but I'm going to find my own terms.

[charlie]

56. Like I said

What's your next new name when Progressive is stigmatized? They can and will do it if it gains traction on our side. Will you defend it when it's sullied? Or run from it, as you're doing with Liberal?

[catbert836]

60. They won't be able to define progessive

As long as we get our own definition out there and defend it like it's the Holy Grail, something we never did with liberal. We could still reclaim liberal, but in the end its easier to get our own terms.

[charlie]

66. Won't be able to define it?

You've gotta be kidding. Of course they can. The problem is so many of our guys have tacitly agreed with the wingers that liberalism is indefensible, acting embarassed and looking at their feet when so charged, plus we've never done a full court press to make conservative a dirty word. Until that changes, you can call yourself whatever you want, it won't shield you from national derision. You'll just look funny rebranding yourself whenever the shit begins to fly too fast to handle.

[catbert836]

70. 30 years of baggage haven't made the word liberal much better to use

They've been attacking the word liberal for that much time. I think it's easier to replace it than redefine it, which will probably take another 30 years when it would be easier to pick our own word and define it as we like, something we never bothered to do before. If you think you can redefine liberal and conservative, hope it works out for you.

[charlie]

72. Replace it

and you'll be fighting a rearguard action inside a year, right back where you started. It won't take years. You'll also have the added pleasure of squalling "I'm NOT a liberal", because they'll also be calling you a stealth liberal.

If you want to fuck with their heads with a new name, call yourself a True Conservative and Republicans Phony Conservatives. You're for personal liberty, the common good, the little guy, and a moderate, non-bellicose foreign policy, conservative principles all. They can't dirty the name conservative, so they can only insist you're not genuine. But you got there first with the faux-conservative charge -- puts them on the defensive for a change.

[catbert836]

76. You don't get it, do you?

Liberal and progressive are in the end different names for the same thing. One works, the other dosn't is all I'm saying.
As for True Conservatives, it could work. We all know a surprisingly high amount of conservative editorial boards on newspapers endorsed Kerry. They're our natural allies in this fight.

[Debs]

90. And yet Progressive WONT

Be whatever Hannity and Limbaugh say it is? Let them start defining OUR terms for us and its the beggining of the end the answer is to fight not to cower. Thats not all he said he also said you should oust us liberals from the party. I assume you agree that much of the energy, and principles of the party come from the liberal wing. If you go that route the party will be dead in the water. He sounds like a trojan horse taking us toward party suicide. Yes get rid of those who uphold the standards of the great democratic traditions. That stand fast for priniciple. Thats the ticket. His name is former rush listener just because he got HIS talking points from a pious blohard doesnt mean we should allow those same right wing screech monkeys to define who we ARE. Its cowardice pure and simple.

[Liberal In Texas]

25. I'm a LIBERAL since the '60's and damn proud of it

We cannot play by their agenda and allow them to demonize us.

Nothing wrong with progressive. However, to stop calling yourself a LIBERAL because Rush says it with a sneer is to admit that he's won his point.

Be proud of what you are.

[catbert836]

39. I am proud

No one says liberal and progressive can't be different terms for the same thing. It'll be hard for the RW to convince people that they are though. The opposite of progressive is regressive, or even reactionary. To the average American, those aren't the best terms.

[txaslftist]

27. Lotsa famous folks defined themselves a liberals...

and actually used the word:

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams.

Don't know if they called themselves "progressives" or not.

Proud company to keep.

[catbert836]

49. You're missing the point.

Progressive and liberal can mean the same thing. Who says they can't? But it's easier to get our own language than it is to redefine the RW language, part of which is the word liberal.

[txaslftist]

54. No... I didn't.

The language of Jefferson, Washington and Adams is OUR language. They called themselves liberals, and it meant a good thing, freedom for people and a society that cared about its members without breaking their backs.

If we abandon the word because the wingnuts have sullied it, they'll just take whatever new word we use and sully it, too.

We are liberals.

Get used to it.

[catbert836]

59. And therein lies the problem!

It may once have been our language. But it's not ours anymore, its theirs, like it or not. How many of our candidates have been defeated because of the word liberal? So many I don't care to count. Clinton never used the word "liberal" once, at least I never heard him say it, and he was president for 8 years! As soon as we learn that lesson we're in for big dividends.

[Q]

91. Nonsense...it's our 'language' if we want to use it...

You seem to be working from the assumption that the Democratic party is one big happy family working together towards a common goal. But essentially it's the 'Centrists' versus the Liberals and Progressives. Throwing away the word liberal won't change that reality.

Coincidentally...the Clinton DLCers also want nothing to do with liberals...the word or the ideology. They're promoting a 'third way' that pretty much looks like the Republican agenda with a few crumbs thrown in for the Dem faithful.

You've suggested that 'many' Dem candidates have lost because of the WORD liberal. And then you claim there are so many that you can't even count them. But could the alternative be that no liberals have even campaigned for office in decades? Could it be that the 'New Democrats' who have taken over the party have helped the RWingers smear liberals to keep them out of leadership positions?

Clinton never used the word liberal because he wasn't a liberal. He was one of the first Democrats in recent history to sell out the party to corporations and special interests NOT beholden to the party base. He gave his corporate GOP friends more than they could have ever dreamed of: the beginning of the destruction of social welfare, further weakening of unions, trade agreements unfair to American workers and a telecommunications act that became the precursor for far-right conservatives to take control of the free press.

The 'lesson' you seem to want us to learn is to compromise without getting anything in return. To trade our principles and values for cash. To help establish a one-party state that works for corporations instead of the people.

How naive is it to think that changing the word 'liberal' will help us win elections? How about sticking to the principles that made our party strong in the first place and return to being the party of the people?

[dawg]

33. Hell No!

I like my 70's rock music "progressive". I like my politics "liberal".

You don't win by conceeding every damn thing to the conservatives.

[catbert836]

55. No, I'm not.

It's better to use OUR language than THEIRS is all I'm saying.

[wadestock]

78. Limbaugh very effectively demonized the word

It is now part of our culture.

Clark was THE ONLY one I've seen take a real stab at changing that around. Look to him for the type of guidance on how to make "being a democrat" something one should feel immensely proud of. He ought to write a book on that. That would be infinitely more relevant than Clinton's book. That's the direction we have to take.

I've been immensely depressed about all of this and couldn't even enjoy X-mas because of these scum bags taking over the country, but you have to look at it this way. This was a self made victory that rode the heals of 911. They ain't gonna pull it off again after people get a full whiff of the stench.

But you're right, I like to call myself progressive. I think it forms a possible means to develop more of a camaraderie. That's the one thing the freepers really have on us is a sense of camaraderie.

Think about this and you'll get closer to the real problem with the party. The party has to separate itself completely from acting like the other party, especially in how it thinks it can win. I would recommend a Total Quality Management approach. Keep focused on what are your strong points and how you can deliver. Keep the team focused on the objectives and areas of strength. The rest comes naturally.

[ieoeja]

80. Not Me

For one thing, I am not all that progressive, but I am liberal as all get out. In fact, as an individual whose core beliefs are very liberal and who tends to oppose sudden, radical movement away from the status quo, I would have to say I am more of a conservative liberal than a progressive liberal.

Except that I do occasionally support slow movement towards what would be by today's standards radical goals. So I suppose I support a conservative approach in favor of progressive goals that do not conflict with liberal American values which could make me a conservatively progressive liberal. Or to put it another way....

I believe in baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet.

In the years that I been livin’ lots of things have surely changed.
Lots of things have come and gone, some even came back again.
But through all the many changes, some things are for sure.
And you know that’s a mighty fine feelin’, kinda makes you feel secure.

‘Cause I love baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet.

[Radical Activist]

86. It also means "Fighting Bob" LaFollete and Henry Wallace

to those who really know their history. That's fine with me. Both were midwestern populists and practically socialists. I think that's exactly the direction we need to go. For a modern equivalent, Durbin and Feingold come to mind.

[catbert836]

88. Yes, I agree.

That's the way to go. Populism/Progressivism/Socialism. LaFollete's problem was that he wasn't part of a big party.

[ieoeja]

92. Economics: conservatively progressive

See post just above yours where I say I conclude that I am a conservatively progressive liberal on some issues. Economics is one of those. I remember someone at DU once saying something very close to, "no one makes more than 100k a year unless they inherited it, married it or are criminal". As someone who just missed making 100k this year (which means I will almost certainly break that barrier next), grew up poor and has a time or two flat out refused to do something at work I considered unethical (though legal), I can attest to the fact that the quote I gave is pretty darned stupid.

On the other hand, while I am always wary about stepping on someone's natural rights, I don't think our current basis of economy is natural. In a technological society we could probably satisfy our needs with 10% of the population between the ages of 20 and 40 working full time and everyone else retired. In a natural economy we would all work fewer hours and retire earlier as technology made that possible. Instead, in the United States the reverse is true.

And that is just plain stupid. Now, how to get to something that makes sense without causing a complete meltdown I don't know. But it will never happen as long as we do not want it to happen. And at the moment people do not want it to happen. Once we convince them of that we can begin taking babysteps (my conservative nature) in that direction. But the convincing comes first.

[Radical Activist]

98. That's on oxymoron

Why not just call yourself a moderate?

I think you're right that change won't come until people want it. Yet, I think if we're going to take a baby step forward there has to be some people arguing for a big leap so we have a vision to strive for.

[gmoses]

96. call it what you want, do we have an answer for Wellstone yet?

"Public policy is not about techniques of communication. Over and over again, I hear my Democratic colleagues talk about how to better deliver our 'message.' But the question is not how to communicate our agenda, but whether we have an agenda worth communicating."

-Wellstone

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/547/

[Radical Activist]

97. He was the only Senate member of the Progressive Caucus

I don't know if a Senator has joined since then. Wellstone also spoke about conviction politics. He knew how to win and I wish the party would have listened to his way instead of the corporate moderate wishy washy approach.

[gmoses]

99. What Would Wellstone Do?

He wins with conviction politics, calls himself progressive. What kind of agenda brings his legacy back to life?

[okieinpain]

100. not me I'm still a liberal

[intheflow]

102. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The reason we've been calling ourselves liberals is because the label progressive became political poison during the McCarthy Era. Prior to the 1950's, "progressive" was associated with labor, public health, housing, public education, peace, and all those other things we "liberals" say we stand for.

I have always preferred to call myself progressive because was a term we co-opted to make ourselves more appealing to the right. It is only right that we reclaim the term now that we want to redefine ourselves as people on the left.