On the difference between progressive and radical.

[expatriot]

First things first, I know that we have turned the tables rhetorically on the Bushites by labeling them "radicals." That is all well and good, I agree with the reasoning in such claims but for the purpose of this discussion, radicals is being used in the classic political spectrum definition.

The simple high school civics differential between progressive/liberal and radical is that progressive/liberals are willing to work "within" the system to affect change while radicals have given up on the possibility of positive change coming from "within" the system and instead taking to working outside the system in order to create an alternative "system" that will, according to their goals, replace the old system.

Of course, in reality it is not that simple. The system's "boundaries" are not that black and white. There is an infinite gray scale between the idea of progressive and radical. For example, most (if not all) progressives immediately dismiss the editorial authority of corporate media news hegemony. So this is a very core part of "the system" that many progressives have given up on.

Of course, like all political labels they are relative to the political ideology of the individual who is doing the labeling. To someone who does not doubt the underlying validity and disinterest of CNN's reporting may view those who do not trust CNN's authority as "radical." Progressives, such as myself, who are committed to working with the ENTIRE Democratic Party in order to achieve incremental gains may think those who dismiss cooperation with the DLC as "appeasement" are being a bit radical. And those very same passionate progressive critics of the DLC may see members of the Communist Party of the United States as being radicals and members of the CPUSA may view the SWP as being radical. Oh wait, I forgot... we embraced the term radical in my SWP, CPUSA, ISO days.... our mantra was "Radicalize the activists. Activate the radicals."

So here is the question, what is your personal definition as to what makes a leftist cross the line from progressivism into radicalism.... where is that line and what does it mean in Bush's America?



Here are the dictionary definitions

RADICAL:
One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radicals seeking to overthrow the social order.

Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education..

Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views.


PROGRESSIVE:

Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership

Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.

1. Ahead of current trends or customs: advanced, forward, precocious. See precede/follow.
2. Not narrow or conservative in thought, expression, or conduct: broad, broad-minded, liberal, open-minded, tolerant. See attitude/good attitude/bad attitude/neutral attitude, wide/narrow.
3. Favoring civil liberties and social progress: liberal, liberalistic. See politics.

[madeline_con]

1. Deosn't the new name....

"Global Struggle Against Extremism" play right into the Dems hands?

I mean, can we not use the very thing the DUH-bya administration has now named to unseat them from office?

They are using 'Evangelical Extremism' to usurp the law of the land.

[wli]

4. GSAVE was so that Bushler could go after white people in the US

The "terrorist" stereotype was too heavily associated with Arabs.

[madeline_con]

5. Yes, but the Dems can play the "extremism" card .....

on the Evangelicals trying to take over.

[wli]

7. that would be nice, but remember who owns the MSM

It doesn't look good. They're smearing liberals as "terrorist sympathizers" and imprisoning ACLU lawyers and so on.

[skids]

2. The two words describe different aspects.

If poltics were a vector, "progressive" would be the direction and "radical" would be the magnitude.

Or if you don't like math analogies:

A better word to compare "radical" with is "incrementalist".

A better word to compare "progressive" with is "reactionary." I would say "conservative" but that word has lost all meaning in the current political climate.

Although the word "progressive" does contain a hint of "incrementalist" in its definition, the meat of the word, when applied to politics, is the desire for change, not the step-by-step part, which is usually applied in normal usage. To picture it linearly between radical and incrementalist would be to bypass the core meaning.

[madeline_con]

6. "radical" would be the magnitude

Your math analogy works for me!

[bananas]

3. I like Gore Vidal's definition

This is from 1992, read the whole lecture and it seems as if he's talking about current events.

http://staff.dstc.edu.au/lawley/essays/monotheism.html

The word "radical" derives from the Latin word for root. Therefore, if you want to get to the root of anything you must be radical. It is no accident that the word has now been totally demonized by our masters, and no one in politics dares even use the word favourably, much less track any problem to its root. But then a ruling class that was able to demonize the word "liberal" in the past ten years is a master at controlling --indeed stifling-- any criticism of itself. "Liberal" comes from the Latin liberalis, which means pertaining to a free man. In politics, to be liberal is to want to extend democracy through change and reform. One can see why that word had to be erased from our political lexicon.