conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form

got a mirror?

personally, i think a progressive can be elected, but the democratic party leadership has not figured it out yet. the republicans are not afraid of their right wing. contrary to punditry, they repeatedly put radicals on their ticket and manage to win. the dems can do the same thing, but they're afraid to try.

I do have a mirror!

And I look gooooooood.

I am not certain if you are right about the progressive thing. The reason why the radicals can run and win, even though they run as more moderate candidates than they are, is because the country is more conservative than we are. The Radical candidates have a larger constituency. I will try to see if there is research that supports that, but there are reasons why states like VA have not sent their electoral votes to the Dem party since LBJ. They are conservative. Same in IL.

And, to be honest, the largest religious denominations in the US are conservative denomiations (SBC and MSLutheran). The RCC is a different animal. It is impossible to say if it is liberal or conservative.

Yes, I know that IL sent its votes to Gore, but I understand that is unusal.

Define progressive. Seems like a euphemistic term. "Your guys" are progressives. "Them other guys" are radicals. More euphemism.

Define, describe, delimit your particular policies and how they are or are not reflective of the populace, and further how they would be in the interests of a majority of voters.

well, technically speaking, the extremes of both sides are radicals. if you reread my above comment when i mentioned that republicans put radicals on their ticket, i was not doing it to call names, but in the hopes that the dems would do the same thing

and "progressive" is a pretty established term for leftist--its been used that way for decades.

tripp, about the "this is a conservative country" argument, there is some merit to that. lots of people also view liberal as a bad word and prefer to identify themselves as conservative. but in polls where they ask about individual issues rather than labels, the progressive position is the majority position on many issues.

besides, when an incumbant is running for re-election, the election is more about the incumbant than the challenger. bush ran more against the clinton era than anything else.

This whole discussion assumes we have something of a working political system where we actually have choices.
As far as I see it we have two parties that are concerned about one thing: not leting anyone else into the game. Our parties are all power brokers. And it has probably always been this way. So it is a little bit naive to talk about progresive vs. conservative or whatever. Historicaly there has been a strong progresive movement in this country but it rarely if ever (as far as my history recal goes) has created electable candidates. Also, I am not sure a progressive power broker is much better than a conservative one.
But then I have lost all faith in our political system, I have a feeling we should all admit we as Americans have failed just like every other political system that has ever existed.
A pesimist perhaps, or at least you have caught me in a pesimistic mood. But to me a failed America is more hopefull that a triumphalist one that continualy forces me to choose between power hungry men who care about their political careers, and occasionaly allows a voice of truth to speak, but not really influence anything.

i would like to see how that really pans out, Upyeroz.

Cliff, do I really need to do that? C'mon. You know what it means.

Tripp, I'm pretty sure that the United Methodist Church is the second largest denomination after Southern Baptists, not the Lutherans. I think Missouri Synod Lutherans are smaller than ELCA anyway.

Tripp and upyernoz:

I beg to differ. That's my whole point. We use these terms without definition, assuming that since they are widely and often used, we know what they mean.

For example, progressive = leftist. Does this really help? What are leftist views? That one take up arms in violence against one's own country if one wants to change the political climate? That one accept the policy of abortion on demand? Gay marriage? A socialist economy? Which are in or out? Violence? Why? Socialism? Why?

This comes more from my endless irritation and frustration with political "discourse" (read "demagoguery") in our nation. No real discussion of issues. The use of undefined terms. And so on.

So, I ask again: What do ya'll mean by "progressive"?

Jennifer:

According to the NYT article you cited on your post today, the UM is the third larget, behind Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists.

Don't know if that's right, but that's what NYT said.

jennifer, I was thinking of politically conservative...and you are right about the UMC. We need a website url for that. Do we kow one.

RCC
SBC
UMC
...
...
?

Cliff...Go here to get at what I think of as left. It is complicated, yes. But it is a great summation.

Or this.

Support for government social programs such as welfare, medical care, unemployment benefits, and retirement programs.
Support for trade unions and strong regulation of business.
Support for the rights of women and minorities, particularly racial and religious minorities, the disabled, and homosexuals. Some further support such programs as affirmative action and multi-lingual education.
Support for strong environmental regulations.
Support for public transit.
Support for government funding to alternative energy research.
Opposition to the death penalty.
Support for abortion rights.
Support for animal rights.
Support for gun control.

I think the discussion has hit on a central issue about the definitions of "progressive" and otherwise, and I hope Tripp will let me draw from the discussion on this page when I write about it on my page.

The way I was using it, progressive means a little bit different from leftist in that progressives tend to care more about solutions than programs or ways of doing them. "Liberals" has become associated with an entrenched order that promoted programs like AFDC (Welfare) which really has serious problems. I hope most people who identify themselves with progressives (cornel west for one) are talking about bridging old differents and stopping the demagoguery and replace it with a set of values which are about equality, results, and pluralism (can a white democrat worth $500 million ever truly be progressive?)

Also, I hope you'll all post a short response over the the page with the "strange little pole"
cysionlines.chattablogs.com

Oy, you're right. I should read my own posts. But in my head, I wasn't thinking of the Catholic Church as a "denomination." I was thinking that only Protestants are denominations. Isn't that strange?

Jennifer,

Well, some of the protestants think the Catholics aren't Christian. What they think of the Orthodox, I have no idea.

Wes:

if my experience is indicative, they think Orthodox are Jewish.

Oh no, I didn't mean that I wasn't thinking of them as Christian. It was more like they are the Church and we're the ones who broke off and started denominations. I thought it was odd that I, as a Protestant, thought of them only as "Church" and us as "denominations."

Cliff,

Jewish? Really? Heavens.