Grumpy old man mumbling

[otkaznik1]

The word ‘progressive’ makes me hiccup whenever I stumble over it. Recently it became a buzzword of the left. It is well known that the left often usurp words that they are using in a way totally opposing to their original meaning. Orwellian pattern. They call themselves and make others call them liberals. And it is exactly like progressive. OK, liberalism is a vaguely defined concept that allows for various interpretations. It would take infinitely long time to come to an agreement on the very definition of liberalism. But progress may already be better defined. In my humble opinion progress means a movement where direction is set. It means that the movement happens from what was in the past toward what will be in the future. When those people speak about progressive they pretend they know how and where the history moves. While it is far far from being clear if there is a direction in the history or if there is movement at all. True, Karl Marx claimed that he had proved it for certain. As Lenin said “Marxism is omnipotent because it is true”. And the religious Marxists know (believe) where the history goes. But people do not have to share this belief. Particularly after so many faux pas of the recent century. So when I hear or read the left self-acclaimed “progressives” I have my hiccup.

Comments

[juan_gandhi]

Well, have not we learned something about history, after all?

[tijd]

It’s not that complicated. “Progressive” is the opposite of “conservative”. You can also bitch about modern so-called conservatives appropriating the term “conservatism”.

As for where the progress goes, it is also simple. It goes toward higher equality and a more egalitarian society. As long as they don’t confuse “equality of rights” with “equality of outcomes”, this is actually helpful for the country and its economy.

[otkaznik1]

I appreciate your comment on "conservatives". It is right on the money. I would not hurry to embrace your simplification of the progress notion. You appear to assume that the used words "equality" and "egalitarianism" may be well defined while it is far from obvious. The modern political agenda is all about the definition. In any event my point is simple - I am very suspicious whenever I hear that somebody knows about the goal of the history.

[gomberg]

They've called from Canada. They do not see why these would be opposites.

[tijd]

Of course, all terms exist in a context.

In Richard Nixon's first campaign for Congress in 1946, he promised a "sound progressive program".



We must adopt a sound progressive program in which government will work with and through private enterprise toward our goal of assuring housing, clothing, food, education and opportunity for every American.

Things have changed since then...

[gomberg]

I, actually, like the word. Like any other political label, it is not supposed to be taken literally (in this it is no different from Democratic or Republican). And it is certainly not supposed to mean the same thing in different countries and times: Teddy Roosevelt and the good old Canadian Progressive Conservatives would like to have a word on that. It is certainly, of the most part, devoid of any Marxist associations, at least in the Americas. Democratic party, obviously, has multiple wings, and they need their designations. A distinction between "liberals" and "progressives" is long overdue. Nor is it just the Democratic party that needs the word: a Progressive Republican party would do a lot better in parts of California and New York than the simple Republican party does now.

If you do not like the word, just mentally replace it with Strawberry. I mean, the "Strawberry wing of the Democratic party", a "Strawbery politician" both sound nice. Vaguely pinkish and quite inoffensive (except, I guess, in Mexico).

[otkaznik1]

My problem is I pay attention to semantics. Rephrasing Oscar Wilde, if they say a spade I see a spade. Every now and then people around me drop the word “progressive” sincerely believing in their political stances to take the world to a happy end. I am too old to convert to this kind of religion. Moreover over my long life I had plenty opportunities to see the fallacy of it. Thank you very much.

[gomberg]

Methinks, you simplify the language too much by insisting on the archaic usages and interpretations. Languages change: and not even always in a linear fashion, but back and forth :)

[otkaznik1]

Mea culpa. I am an old dog and hardly can learn new tricks.

[gomberg]

But these are not any "new tricks". This is how it has been always. I mean, when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive in 1912 you were surely not, yet born :)

[otkaznik1]

My comment applied to the language changes. As for Teddy Roosevelt and other politicians, obviously nobody has monopoly on bullshit. And of course my initial observation would not assert the opposite.

[gomberg]

Language has changed ever since apes learned to grunt. It would be a remarkable innovation if that that somehow stopped. The meaning of the word "progressive" has certainly been somewhat different in 2000 from what it is today - still more so back in 1960. And, of course, its meaning in Canada and in the US has always been only approximately similar. That it will mean something completely different by 2025 is also quite likely. But, then, it is true of most words you use: and, certainly, of most political designations. Linguistic and political evolution, like their biological counterpart, is unstoppable, if goalless and undirected. That, in the end, is the only meaning of progress that makes sense :)

[otkaznik1]

Perhaps I should share this. I’ve just been thinking about answering my daughter’s question what I think about internet and the communication revolution caused by modern computer technology. After so many years I finally understand real sense of social networking. Trying to prove you are right and your opponent wrong is an exercise in futility. Whatever wrong opinions you hear from your opponents you can always find there some thoughts that would push you to some conclusions you would never derive without. Thus least of all I want to prove something or to overturn one’s arguments. I can clearly see the difference in presented opinions and ready to apply relevant comments to my thoughts. This is the only result one may wish to achieve.
Yet on the linguistic side. Of course you are right and any language being a living organism is to permanently change. Like, say, a human being. But following this analogy you could readily see that while a person in his old age is quite different from the same person in his youth he is still the same person.

[gomberg]

I certainly did not intend to prove anything: I know it is a useless endeavor :)

As for the words... I mean, they are as complicated as human beings - multiple meanings, homonyms, homographs....