Defining Progressivism

[Kishkumen]

Thanks. This sort of response shows the potential for an excellent discussion about the topic, if Hound was actually interested in discussing, as opposed to merely repeating A.I.-fluffed right-wing talking points. It’s telling that his response to all of this was to retreat into an insult.

I don't think Hound got to my answer before he posted the insult. Hound was just reacting to my insult with their own. Yeah, it has been interesting to be treated like I am something I am definitely not: a Progressive Democrat. I don't have anything like Hound's disdain for Progressives and Democrats, but I do not see myself as falling into either category.

Of course, I also just dislike political parties and labels. I recently watched a Communist's critique of the ideological fluff used to advertise the Democrats and Repubs on their websites. It did a lot to wake me up to just how free of substance the major parties' rhetoric is, and I did agree with the commentator that this fluff is useful for getting people to fight for a cause that is not what it presents itself as.

This can be a problem for Republicans going forward. Weaponizing the judicial system, squelching free speech, constructing bogeymen out of everything one doesn’t agree with, and focusing mainly on enriching only the wealthiest part of the population all has a distinct appeal to MAGA, but there are still enough independents out there to swing elections the Democrats way, and a failure to address more basic and substantive issues related to simple economic survival can begin to knock Republican candidates back onto the sidelines. Relying solely on trotting out their scary word list has its limitations.

One of the many frightening aspects of our current GOP is that its trajectory will probably lead to full authoritarianism regardless of intentions. Maybe people intend to take us there (I think Trump does), maybe they don't, but our present path will likely lead us there all the same.

[huckelberry]

Kishkumen, l think you have a point observing Democrates falling into a poor strategy of using woke themes as
a substitute for substance. It is a loosing path.

People are in pain because of the high cost of housing. Finding a solution appears to be difficult because there is not a lot of noise advancing proposed solution. I suspect part of the problem is a large portion of Americans are invested in housing not just some wealthy controllers of politics.

[Hound of Heaven]

Of course, moving to the center is not how the GOP reacted to the political challenges of the new millennium at all. Rather, it was overtaken by kooks, psychos, cons, and extremists. It fell prey to a malignant brand of the populism that was sweeping the country on account of the Democratic Party's centrism. The Democratic Party is in trouble precisely because it successfully fended off the populist wave, whereas the GOP succumbed. So, contrary to your daft analysis of the situation, the Democratic Party's problem is not wokeism so much as its centrism.

No one really believed the Democratic Party would fight for the people. They understood, and I think rightly, the Democratic Party promoted wokeism because it was a distraction from the underlying corporatism and plutocracy that came to dominate the post-Reagan Democratic Party. Given a choice between being woke while doing nothing to alleviate the financial suffering of average Americans and actually doing something, the Democratic Party was happy to choose woke virtue signaling. They are still paying for that sleight of hand to this day.

The successful con the Republican Party has pulled, as is obvious even up to today's date, is that they found a phony populist in Donald Trump who would behave as a populist while fleecing the populace and aiding his plutocratic supporters in fleecing everyone. Now MAGA is a faux-populist personality cult that holds up Donald Trump as the answer to everything, no matter how obvious it is that he is incompetent, ignorant, rapacious, and corrupt. So, like you, Hound, I do blame the Democratic Party, beginning with Obama.

Obama was Trump's precursor in being a phony populist. People mistook Obama for a populist because of his opposition to the Iraq War. When he became president, he had the opportunity to help average Americans, but his billionaire sponsors convinced him that the rational thing to do was to facilitate a massive heist by using the taxpayer to prop up the plutocrats, while blaming Americans who took out bad mortgages and viciously suppressing Occupy Wall Street. The Democrats could have saved themselves from their current, well deserved exile from power by pushing Bernie Sanders into the presidency, but the supreme arrogance of the corporate Democrats and their Thatcher-light Hillary Clinton ushered in the era of Trump.

Trump won because Obama ultimately failed to meet the challenge of the moment, and Hillary doubled down because of her supreme arrogance and ambition. The Democrats will continue to trot out Bernie and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to pretend they give a crap about Americans who suffer, but, beneath it all, they prefer to appear righteous while protecting their bottom line. Oh, and by appearing righteous I am including wokeism. To give Obama his due, he was a terrible phony, but he was a competent terrible phony, as was Hillary Clinton. Trump's big problem is that he is and always has been a complete phony in every respect.

Thanks. This sort of response shows the potential for an excellent discussion about the topic, if Hound was actually interested in discussing, as opposed to merely repeating A.I.-fluffed right-wing talking points. It’s telling that his response to all of this was to retreat into an insult.

You can't actually succeed in substantive terms while being a complete phony in every respect.

This can be a problem for Republicans going forward. Weaponizing the judicial system, squelching free speech, constructing bogeymen out of everything one doesn’t agree with, and focusing mainly on enriching only the wealthiest part of the population all has a distinct appeal to MAGA, but there are still enough independents out there to swing elections the Democrats way, and a failure to address more basic and substantive issues related to simple economic survival can begin to knock Republican candidates back onto the sidelines. Relying solely on trotting out their scary word list has its limitations.

Your passion for progressive ideology continues to impress me.

Your commitment and sincerity as a Mormon must have been quite remarkable, as your capacity to embrace such an extreme ideology is truly impressive. You seem to make a significant effort to safeguard progressivism, as though it is the central focus of your existence.

Regarding the insult I directed towards Kish. He offered me what I perceived as a playful jab, and I responded in kind. Neither of our insults could be considered personal attacks that would lead one to feel that the other is being unkind. I didn't interpret his insult in that manner, and judging by his reply, it seems he didn't perceive my rather childish and somewhat absurd comment as a personal attack. I received the reaction I was hoping for, it made him laugh.

It's quite amusing, really. You'll criticize me for making lighthearted jabs, yet Schmo goes ahead and calls posters "damned retards," and you haven't said a word about his insults. However, that is precisely the reason I initiated this thread. Yes, I’m going to define what progressivism has become in the last 15 years, but I also started the thread because I anticipated that you, Molok, Schmo, and all the other progressives who admire socialism would react defensively when faced with criticism.

It seems that progressivism has evolved into something resembling a cult rather than the movement we once knew. You three are the board's version of Mormonism's Ward Radio, protecting the cult at all costs! You three ought to launch a podcast and name it Progressive Radio. It would be a good idea to invite Kishkumen once in a while, but do make sure to equip him with a wrist brace. We wouldn’t want his coffee cup to take an unexpected dive off the table during his grand lifting ceremony! He lifts it at a jaunty angle, as it's packing a few extra ounces of weight.

[canpakes]

Thanks. This sort of response shows the potential for an excellent discussion about the topic, if Hound was actually interested in discussing, as opposed to merely repeating A.I.-fluffed right-wing talking points. It’s telling that his response to all of this was to retreat into an insult.



This can be a problem for Republicans going forward. Weaponizing the judicial system, squelching free speech, constructing bogeymen out of everything one doesn’t agree with, and focusing mainly on enriching only the wealthiest part of the population all has a distinct appeal to MAGA, but there are still enough independents out there to swing elections the Democrats way, and a failure to address more basic and substantive issues related to simple economic survival can begin to knock Republican candidates back onto the sidelines. Relying solely on trotting out their scary word list has its limitations.

Your passion for progressive ideology continues to impress me.

Your commitment and sincerity as a Mormon must have been quite remarkable, as your capacity to embrace such an extreme ideology is truly impressive. You seem to make a significant effort to safeguard progressivism, as though it is the central focus of your existence.

Regarding the insult I directed towards Kish. He offered me what I perceived as a playful jab, and I responded in kind. Neither of our insults could be considered personal attacks that would lead one to feel that the other is being unkind. I didn't interpret his insult in that manner, and judging by his reply, it seems he didn't perceive my rather childish and somewhat absurd comment as a personal attack. I received the reaction I was hoping for, it made him laugh.

It's quite amusing, really. You'll criticize me for making lighthearted jabs, yet Schmo goes ahead and calls posters "damned retards," and you haven't said a word about his insults. However, that is precisely the reason I initiated this thread. Yes, I’m going to define what progressivism has become in the last 15 years, but I also started the thread because I anticipated that you, Molok, Schmo, and all the other progressives who admire socialism would react defensively when faced with criticism.

Good of you to have set yourself up a Whine Bar, Hound.

Don’t partake too much, though. It’s unbecoming. : D

It seems that progressivism has evolved into something resembling a cult rather than the movement we once knew. You three are the board's version of Mormonism's Ward Radio, protecting the cult at all costs! You three ought to launch a podcast and name it Progressive Radio. It would be a good idea to invite Kishkumen once in a while, but do make sure to equip him with a wrist brace. We wouldn’t want his coffee cup to take an unexpected dive off the table during his grand lifting ceremony! He lifts it at a jaunty angle, as it's packing a few extra ounces of weight.

Hey, are you ever going to get around to defining ‘progressivism’? I’m running out of popcorn.

[Gunnar]

However, socialism does not align with the concept of freedom.

If this were true, why is it that the world's most progressive democratic socialist countries are also at the top of the lists of the countries with the highest freedom score, as well as the happiest countries?

Freest Countries 2025

most progressive countries

Happiest Countries in the World 2025

[canpakes]

However, socialism does not align with the concept of freedom.

If this were true, why is it that the world's most progressive democratic socialist countries are also at the top of the lists of the countries with the highest freedom score, as well as the happiest countries?

Freest Countries 2025

most progressive countries

Happiest Countries in the World 2025

Yours is a good question, Gunnar.

I’d personally like to see Hound talk about why the Nordic System of hybrid socialism/capitalism “does not align with freedom”, as he states.

[Gunnar]

This can be a problem for Republicans going forward. Weaponizing the judicial system, squelching free speech, constructing bogeymen out of everything one doesn’t agree with, and focusing mainly on enriching only the wealthiest part of the population all has a distinct appeal to MAGA, but there are still enough independents out there to swing elections the Democrats way, and a failure to address more basic and substantive issues related to simple economic survival can begin to knock Republican candidates back onto the sidelines. Relying solely on trotting out their scary word list has its limitations.

Speaking weaponizing the judicial system, check this out! The Scheme 35: The Real Weaponization of the Justice System

This is a blatant example of the far right doing the very thing they accuse their opponents of doing.

April 1 | Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee, delivers the thirty-fifth in a series of speeches titled “The Scheme,” exposing the machinations by right-wing donor interests to capture the justice system to achieve what they cannot through the elected branches of government.

Whitehouse discusses the Department of Justice and FBI’s politically motivated, improper investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). Whitehouse calls out the red flags indicating misuse of law enforcement in the GGRF investigation, and will set the record straight on President Donald Trump and his MAGA allies’ corrupt lies about the “weaponization” of the justice system.

[canpakes]

This is a blatant example of the far right doing the very thing they accuse their opponents of doing.

Correct. Another example occurred today with the stripping of security clearances from two more former officials, with Trump announcing that he believes them to be guilty of treason and will have them investigated, because they dared to disagree with Trump’s bullshyte about being cheated out of victory in 2020:

President Trump has revoked the security clearances belonging to former CISA leader Chris Krebs and ex-DHS official Miles Taylor and ordered investigations into the work they did while in public service.

The move is the latest in Trump's full-throttle attack on his perceived political enemies.

The order calls for the Department of Justice to investigate both officials' activities as government employees and also temporarily revokes the clearances held by any of their known associates.

For Taylor, the order specifically calls out any security clearance for individuals at the University of Pennsylvania, where Taylor is a lecturer, "pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest," according to the White House.

For Krebs, the security clearances include any given to staff at cybersecurity company SentinelOne, where Krebs currently works.

Krebs' DOJ investigation will include "a comprehensive evaluation of all of CISA's activities over the last 6 years and will identify any instances where Krebs' or CISA's conduct appears to be contrary to the administration's commitment to free speech and ending federal censorship," according to the order.

Taylor served as the chief of staff to Homeland Security Secretary during the first Trump administration and later detailed his concerns in a damning New York Times' op-ed and book under the pen name "Anonymous."

"I think he's guilty of treason if you want to know the truth," Trump said while signing Taylor's order.

Meanwhile, Trump fired Krebs by tweet after he factchecked the president and publicly said that the 2020 election was the "most secure in American history."

Trump called Krebs a "wise guy," as well as a "fraud" and "a disgrace" during Wednesday's signing.

https://www.axios.com/2025/04/09/chris- ... tion-Trump

I would think that this sort of petty, immature, authoritarian tantrum would be seen as a troubling trend by anyone, let alone any supposedly stalwart Democratic Party voter. Strangely, Hound is incredibly averse to mentioning anything at all about such abuses and weaponization of the Justice Department against Trump’s perceived political enemies, for - alas - he is busy reeling in fear of email signatures while trying to convince people that programs aiming to give women and veterans access to better career opportunities, are ‘racist’.

I’m betting that I’m not the only one in whatever tiny audience this board has who’s waiting for Hound to explain why hiring vets and women under a (gasp!) DEI initiative is ‘racist’. But I’ll be patient and will wait for Hound to get around to trying to explain what progressivism is, first. Baby steps!

[huckelberry]

Every country in the world has some socialism mixed with their capitalism there's no other way for the country to work. There is of course bad socialism and too much socialism I'm not for either of those.

[Kishkumen]

True leftism is the insistence that the People own the means of production. Our so-called leftists in mainstream politics are barely left of center. Anyone who gets worked up about our so-called leftists is either being dramatic for rhetorical effect, lying, or pretty far to the right.