I ask because the parties have functionally flipped at the moment. Democrats are doing whatever they can to keep what was already in place (i.e. "conserve") while Republicans are on a bit of a war path trying to change everything (i.e. "progress").
This is precisely the issue I have always had with considering oneself "progressive". The end goals you are aiming for are the important factor to call out, the fact that you are simply progressing means only that you don't want to stand still.
My understanding of progressivism, as it is commonly used in the US, is that its based on often unspoken assumptions that the goals being progressed towards are "good" or "right" and that others' goals, therefore, are not. That isn't really a progressive ideology in my opinion though, and sounds more like an elitist approach to authoritarian rule.
I still don't get what the underlying ideology is though (sorry if I'm being obtuse here).
> seeks to advance the human condition through social reform – primarily based on purported advancements in social organization, science, and technology.
"Advance" here has the same issue as "progressive" - it needs direction to be meaningful. This doesn't say what we would be advancing towards, though it does say a few ways we may be able to get there.
For comparison, liberalism and conservativism are much more clear.
Conservativism can be (very roughly) boiled down to "don't break a good thing." Said differently, keep a high bar for change and default to trusting the people before us got here for good reason.
Liberalism can be similarly boiled down to prioritizing individual freedoms and liberty.
With wither of those two there will be a slew of political initiatives or programs that are based on those principles, but the underlying principles are clear.
That's what I've yet to grasp with progressivism, when you peel away all the programs and initiatives what is the underlying principle and what is the specific direction to progress or advance towards? As far as boundary cases go, what does progressivism look like once that goal is reached - does it become conservative?
> While many ideologies can fall under the banner of progressivism, both the current and historical movement are characterized by a critique of unregulated capitalism, desiring a more active democratic government to take a role in safeguarding human rights, bringing about cultural development, and being a check-and-balance on corporate monopolies.
Is the core that goal to progress away from capitalism towards more governmental control?
If so I guess that is at least defining a directional goal, but using the blanket term "progressive" there is effectively blocking out anyone who wants to progress towards a different goal.
It seems like federalist or anticapitalist would be much more clear. At least then the goals they want to move towards are the distinguishing factor rather than the act of changing from where we are currently.
I don't think its really word games when talking about progressivism today. Trump could claim the banner of progressive in the sense that he's trying to progress towards a future he believes is better for all of us, while Democrats are attempting to conserve what they built. Personally I see that as a bullshit word game, but that doesn't mean the words are actually used improperly there.
If someone tells you they are progressive, what is the end goal you expect they mean? Its totally possible that banner is shorthand for a specific goal or direction and I just completely missed the boat there.
He could, but he hasn't.
> totally possible that banner is shorthand for a specific goal or direction
It is, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
Are you arguing that Democrats are trying yo conserve the demographics of today? Or that Republicans are trying to conserve, or really regress back to, the demographics of the past?
As far as countries go, how do you define them if not with maps and paperwork? The distinction between countries and nations or nation states may be important here, I've always understood it to be that countries are all about borders and laws where nations and nation states are much more focused on the people.
Not at all - that would require closing the border.
> Or that Republicans are trying to conserve, or really regress back to, the demographics of the past?
Yes.
> As far as countries go, how do you define them if not with maps and paperwork?
I think we agree on this point. Yes, countries are defined with maps/paperwork/borders, but when I said "what makes a country", I meant it in the sense of what makes it unique or different, what gives it its character. Certainly territory is part of that, but the larger, much more important part, are its people, i.e. the nation.
Let's face it, we were squarely within crazy territory and that's why everyone is having a knee-jerk reaction. The left or democrats or "the woke" as they are named have taken us too far, and if you ask me, way too-close to a societal-level precipice.
What the Democrats are doing at the moment is pretty textbook conservative, preserving the institutions, customs, and values that exist today. And there's nothing wrong with that, best I can tell that's just how it goes when parties flip - you're in charge for long enough to make major change and when you lose power you cling on to holding your ground.
Republicans are doing more than just undoing some of the progress made by Democrats. They are doing some of that for sure, but they're also trying to define some new path that they think will be better by whatever metrics they care about.
Now for another example of the flip, Democrats leaned to state's rights as soon as the election was over. Republican states already seem happy to welcome federal intervention, for example with federal enforcement and military on the southern border.