Do we need a progressive movement in the US?

[BurtWorm]

Poll question: Do we need a progressive movement in the US?

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

1. We need a LIBERAL movement.

The word "progressive" has been hijacked by the DLC'ers to use to their own ends far too often. Hillary Clinton refused to call herself a "Liberal", but she called herself a "progressive" and within the same week, spoke of the "obliteration" of Iran.

And then there is Will Marshall's "Progressive Policy Institute" which is nothing more than the PNAC agenda, slightly repackaged for the DLC (Marshall is actually a PNAC signator as well)

Those kind of "progressives" are not who I want involved in any movement to restore this country.

[Nite Owl]

2. You're right

not progressive but Liberal. Far too many get away with using the Progressive label and they are not interchangeable.

[mike_c]

3. frankly, I'd use willingness to revel in being labeled "liberal"...

...as a political litmus test for anyone wanting to represent that movement. No politician who hides from being characterized as liberal will ever truly be one, IMO.

[BurtWorm]

4. I mean a left wing, liberal, progressive political movement.

But your point is well taken.

[HughMoran]

6. Doesn't matter what it's called

It needs to have goals and integrity.

[BurtWorm]

8. What goals do you think it should have?

I have some thoughts on that myself. I think it needs something that moves people, literally, out of their seats and into the streets.

[HughMoran]

11. Goals need to 1) be widely populist 2) motivate people 3) make life better for average people

The specifics aren't as important as the methods. A movement should have a solid democratically voted on power structure to minimize corruption. Unions are an example of effective organizations (not all, but many) that have goals & elect their leaders. Perhaps the Progressive Union of Grassroots LIberals for Change or PUGLIC - lol.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Despite all this latter-day grafting of connotations,

the term "Progressive" has a very specific meaning for people like me. When I hear the term, I think of people like Robert LaFollette and Gaylord Nelson in my own state. think of Frank Zeidler, last of the long tradition of Socialist Milwaukee Mayors. I think of "progressives" as occupying a territory to the left of liberals.

[BurtWorm]

5. To those who argue that there already is such a movement...

I ask where is it?

I saw it with my own eyes in 2000-2004. It seems to have lost quite a lot of power and cohesion since then. What happened to it? What's holding it together?

[kctim]

9. No

Progressives do not yet have the numbers needed to be effective.
Democrats and progressives should stay combined in the Democratic Party.

[mike_c]

14. what do we do about the lack of political representation from democrats...?

I mean, those of us on the far left are continually asked to support dems and help elect them, but we almost never receive any actual representation for our interests from dems after they're elected, at least during most of my voting life. Therein lies the problem with keeping the progressives in the democratic party-- in many ways, it's actually antithetical to progressive objectives since, once in office, dems are just about as likely as republicans to work AGAINST progressive ideals.

I was a staunch democrat for nearly 30 voting years until I came to understand that the democratic party is no more likely to help us achieve progressive objectives than the republican party.

[Naturyl]

10. We need a LEFTIST movement.

I think even Repukes would prefer that we quit beating around the bush and trying to use sanitized, de-clawed, mainstream-acceptable terms for ourselves. If we're leftists, then let's be leftists. I'm one.

[H2O Man]

12. "Other"

We need the Progressive Left to become better organized and far more active.

[AlabamaLibrul]

13. "[...]could endanger Obama's re-election, as the anti-war movement killed LBJ's." So?

They're both leading useless wars.

They need to see what the people have wanted for a decade, or they have only themselves to blame for progressives endangering his re-election.

[bvar22]

15. Any Party that will adopt THIS as their platform will get me as a member:

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.*

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."--FDR

I will go to The WALL for THAT Political Party.
The Centrist "New Democrat Party'...not so much.

*A small caveat to the bolded quote, "established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed."
I would add "gender, or sexual orientation".

So that the final statement would read:
...security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, creed, gender, or sexual origination.