Some Democrats tacking left before possible 2016 White House runs; liberals vs neoliberals in the De - Polidicks

[QUOTE=person11;40334715]Progressive is a real thing that refers to pointing to the left but not too much I guess?[/QUOTE] progressivism today is pretty much what would be a social democrat, liberal, or "socialist" in europe. [editline]19th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Vodkavia;40335313]A concept and its name are not one and the same, per say. It could be called ham-burgerism for all I care and it wouldn't make a lick of difference so long as if they didn't suddenly start fundamentally changing their platform to accommodate Whopper worship. To make what I'm getting at a little more transparent I'll pull up a defenition of the word progress. 1. a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage: the progress of a student toward a degree. 2. developmental activity in science, technology, etc., especially with reference to the commercial opportunities created thereby or to the promotion of the material well-being of the public through the goods, techniques, or facilities created. 3. advancement in general. 4. growth or development; continuous improvement: He shows progress in his muscular coordination. [B]5. the development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level.[/B] P. much every party other than that one fringe party that advocates the removal of humanity can say they want to create a better world for the people that live in it, the difference lies in what is considered "better" and what means are used to obtain that end. At the same time it kinda-sorta-maybe-not-really implies that other are inherently "bad." To me that comes off p. pretentious because people use progressive as a point of criticism, which is more or less to me looks like criticism based upon political difference. The way I see it, it's a more elegant equivalent of a group of Republicans one day deciding to start calling themselves "The league of being inherently good."[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism[/url] "Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform.[1] Modern Progressivism emerged as part of a more general response to the vast social changes brought by industrialization. It is left of center in the political spectrum and is to be contrasted with conservatism on the right and the revolutionary left, the former generally resisting changes it advocates and the latter rejecting its gradualism."

Progress has taken a sixth meaning, and has had that meaning for decades. Just ask Wallace, the last Progressive candidate for President in the USA in 1948. He would probably tell you that the word Progress meant a lot more to him than any of those definitions. [editline]18th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;40335554]progressivism today is pretty much what would be a social democrat, liberal, or "socialist" in europe. [/QUOTE] That's what I meant. Once you get into Communist territory, Progressive stops applying. At least that is how I look at it.

"Today, members of the Green Party of the United States are most likely to self-identify as liberal progressives. In the U.S. Congress, the Congressional Progressive Caucus is the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party, and it is often in opposition to the more centrist or conservative Democrats who form the Blue Dogs caucus. It is also in near-continuous opposition to the Republican Party"

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;40335313]...[/QUOTE] In the United States experience "progressive" refers to a particular set of positions. At its core being a belief that government should and can be used to better or protect the population, mostly through regulations and social programs, while retaining the overall economic structure (more or less). Progressives usually take strongly liberal views on social topics too. In current parlance this has been taken up by Democrats who want something like Great Society 2.0. You can see this in the way some were hoping for some public works program (as they compared it to FDR frequently) rather than the stimulus package, or wanting a form of single-payer medicine rather than what ever the healthcare reform instituted.

Just let people call themselves what they want. Conservatives love calling themselves that, and Progressives are similarly proud of being Progressive. Narcissism in politics is normal, we think we are right and think others are wrong.

[QUOTE=person11;40332524]Countless South American governments failed for many reasons, but all of them had around 3 parties that never voted with the other parties, getting nothing done. [/QUOTE] They failed because they uses the Presidential System. The office is just too powerful to be held by one person. All countries that uses the Presidential System all failed into dictatorships within 30 years, only 4 survived.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;40335954]Conservative proponents have potential to use gradualist reform, to what extent this has been done I am uncertain, but if they were or are, the difference would come down to ideology. What rubs me the wrong way is that the term feels narcissistic. That said IMHO it definitely becomes narcissistic when people criticize people for not being progressive. What it comes down to though, is that there's a difference in message between "Progressive" and "Center Left."[/QUOTE] con·serve 1 : to keep in a safe or sound state <he conserved his inheritance>; especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of <conserve natural resources> 2 : to preserve with sugar 3 : to maintain (a quantity) constant during a process of chemical, physical, or evolutionary change <conserved DNA sequences> i know lots of leftists who believe in conserving the environment and protecting human liberty, does that make leftists conservative?

[QUOTE=redhaven;40344064]They failed because they uses the Presidential System. The office is just too powerful to be held by one person. All countries that uses the Presidential System all failed into dictatorships within 30 years, only 4 survived.[/QUOTE] Presidents only took more power in these governments because Congress was not functional. If you have a new and corrupt democratic government, and your Congress is getting nothing done, it is almost too easy to order what you want done by decree. These problems come from dysfunctional legislation.

[QUOTE=person11;40344624]Presidents only took more power in these governments because Congress was not functional. If you have a new and corrupt democratic government, and your Congress is getting nothing done, it is almost too easy to order what you want done by decree. These problems come from dysfunctional legislation.[/QUOTE] Presidents takes more power because it's easier for them to do so, in comparison to Premiers. The President is independent from the Legislative branch, making a divided legislative assembly an easy enemy. The later can only bring down the president down through impeachment, with the judiciary branch (more bureaucracy). A divided parliament can easily bring down the executive branch easier than a unified one, through a simple vote.

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;40334218]Economics are a definitively modern and man-made construct in their present form, and so need to be made subservient to the physical, social, emotional, spiritual and self-rationalizing needs of the people; who after all are the only reason a justifiable organization should exist.[/QUOTE] Economics isn't a construct mate. People have tried running economic systems in certain ways and they certainly don't work. Medieval Europe is a testament to this.

Parliamentary Democracies have proven to be less stable than Presidential Democracies, however. Presidents in well functioning democracies have a hard time grabbing more power than they are permitted. The problem is having a well functioning democracy, which is still a difficult goal to achieve, with both Argentina and Venezuela having Presidents who wanted third terms, and simply changed the rules instead of obeying them (even though they did it legally, it is not a good sign of a functioning democracy)

[QUOTE=person11;40344946]Parliamentary Democracies have proven to be less stable than Presidential Democracies, however.[/QUOTE]Which is why the oldest democracies in the world are using presidential system, right? No. Just Costa Rica and the USA. The simple fact that the President is the head of state, head of government, C-i-C of the Armed Forces, and unaccountable from the legislative branch is enough to say that it is easier to be a dictator as a President than a Premier. Libya has ousted its leader very easily. Egypt hasn't. And they will never kick him out. [QUOTE]Presidents in well functioning democracies have a hard time grabbing more power than they are permitted.[/QUOTE] Explain how did US presidents committed military action for 126 times without Congress' approval. [QUOTE]The problem is having a well functioning democracy, which is still a difficult goal to achieve, with both Argentina and Venezuela having Presidents who wanted third terms, and simply changed the rules instead of obeying them (even though they did it legally, it is not a good sign of a functioning democracy)[/QUOTE] Well functioning democracies requires good government mechanics. Any Premier that goes beyond on what his peers expects will see himself kicked out.

[QUOTE=person11;40344946]Parliamentary Democracies have proven to be less stable than Presidential Democracies, however.[/QUOTE] What about Britain or Iceland? Both of those trace their histories back into the middle ages.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40345784]What about Britain or Iceland? Both of those trace their histories back into the middle ages.[/QUOTE] That may be due to the geography of their region. Both are extremely difficult to invade and so it adds a kind of preservation to their countries, regardless of political issues. Though this applies more so to Iceland than the UK.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40345821]That may be due to the geography of their region. Both are extremely difficult to invade and so it adds a kind of preservation to their countries, regardless of political issues. Though this applies more so to Iceland than the UK.[/QUOTE] it applies near equally doesn't it? i mean how many times has great britain been invaded successfully? the romans and normans are the only two i can really think of. [editline]19th April 2013[/editline] the norse also successfully invaded as well i guess.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40345821]That may be due to the geography of their region. Both are extremely difficult to invade and so it adds a kind of preservation to their countries, regardless of political issues. Though this applies more so to Iceland than the UK.[/QUOTE] Britain has been the subject of many invasions, wars and revolutions. In fact it took until the mid 18th century for the last serious attempt was made. (That being the French supporting a pretender).

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40345963]Britain has been the subject of many invasions, wars and revolutions. In fact it took until the mid 18th century for the last serious attempt was made. (That being the French supporting a pretender).[/QUOTE] what invasions? i'm no expert on medieval or early modern england, but i thought the channel and seas were a good bulwark against foreign invasions after england started becoming a major power.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40345963]Britain has been the subject of many invasions, wars and revolutions. In fact it took until the mid 18th century for the last serious attempt was made. (That being the French supporting a pretender).[/QUOTE] Still only one example provided. Gotta have more than just the UK and Iceland.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40346168]what invasions? i'm no expert on medieval or early modern england, but i thought the channel and seas were a good bulwark against foreign invasions after england started becoming a major power.[/QUOTE] Since 1066 there have been about 10 attempted invasions by France, a handful by Spain and most recently by Germany in 1940

[QUOTE=butt2089;40346394]Since 1066 there have been about 10 attempted invasions by France, a handful by Spain and most recently by Germany in 1940[/QUOTE] How many were successful?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40346168]what invasions? i'm no expert on medieval or early modern england, but i thought the channel and seas were a good bulwark against foreign invasions after england started becoming a major power.[/QUOTE] Remember that the French kept trying to destabilize Britain multiple times. The Jacobite rebellions (in 1715 and 1745 being examples), were basically Stuart pretenders to the throne having French backing to start a rebellion and kick out the Georgians. In 1745, one rebellion actually got as close enough to forcing the government to evacuate the capital once it got within 100 miles (but then it turned back and the rebellion fell apart). Scottish romantics claim it's a Scottish rebellion, but it was really just a French plot. [editline]19th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40346400]How many were successful?[/QUOTE] 1689, 1745 was almost successful.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40346412]Remember that the French kept trying to destabilize Britain multiple times. The Jacobite rebellions (in 1715 and 1745 being examples), were basically Stuart pretenders to the throne having French backing to start a rebellion and kick out the Georgians. In 1745, one rebellion actually got as close enough to forcing the government to evacuate the capital once it got within 100 miles (but then it turned back and the rebellion fell apart). Scottish romantics claim it's a Scottish rebellion, but it was really just a French plot. [editline]19th April 2013[/editline] 1689, 1745 was almost successful.[/QUOTE] You were originally arguing about how stable parliamentary governments are and here you have provided a list of rebellions in response to my statement that their stability was due to geographical defense from outside invasions. Not exactly helping your original point.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40346412] 1689, 1745 was almost successful.[/QUOTE] a miss is as good as a mile.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40345821]That may be due to the geography of their region. Both are extremely difficult to invade and so it adds a kind of preservation to their countries, regardless of political issues. Though this applies more so to Iceland than the UK.[/QUOTE] Island nations are not immune to internal hoolabaloo. Such is the case of Cuba and Philippines, both are wealthy countries that uses Presidential System before they devolved into dictatorships by their own presidents.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40346199]Still only one example provided. Gotta have more than just the UK and Iceland.[/QUOTE] Isle of Man, Sweden (not always, but more often than not), the Polish Sejm, Lithuania, and early North American colonies. [editline]19th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40346459]You were originally arguing about how stable parliamentary governments are and here you have provided a list of rebellions in response to my statement that their stability was due to geographical defense from outside invasions. Not exactly helping your original point.[/QUOTE] These rebellions were started by the French though. [editline]19th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;40346493]a miss is as good as a mile.[/QUOTE] 1689 was one which actually happened. Also 1215-1216, 1399, and 1485.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40346591] These rebellions were started by the French though. [/QUOTE] Unless the people in the rebellions were 100% French, I don't see what that really matters

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40346673]Unless the people in the rebellions were 100% French, I don't see what that really matters[/QUOTE] Point is that without the French they wouldn't have happened. Then again it's a good thing the rebellions happened. It allowed the British army to crack down heavily and facilitate the clearances.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40346729]Point is that without the French they wouldn't have happened. Then again it's a good thing the rebellions happened. It allowed the British army to crack down heavily and facilitate the clearances.[/QUOTE] Did the French brainwash all those guys to rebel or something? Rebellions don't start for single causes. There has to be some kind of civil frustration in order to be ignited.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40346772]Did the French brainwash all those guys to rebel or something? Rebellions don't start for single causes. There has to be some kind of civil frustration in order to be ignited.[/QUOTE] Not really, the vast majority of Scotland was very hostile towards the rebellion (only a tiny minority of Catholics in the highlands supported it). The French sent in two ships and some troops, and the pretenders presence alone didn't really get anybody to rebel (a lot of chiefs actually refused to even meet him), with some being outright hostile towards him. (It was also hit by loads of guerrilla and local attacks too). The French sent a few more ships and a couple hundred more men, and they managed to reach Derby (by which point the British government was starting to shit itself). However, it being run by a Frenchman, his army refused to follow his stupid demands and much of it deserted. He threw a tantrum, blamed his failure on his underlings, then fled the country.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40346772]Did the French brainwash all those guys to rebel or something? Rebellions don't start for single causes. There has to be some kind of civil frustration in order to be ignited.[/QUOTE] no but they can arm and incite a small minority. this is very common throughout the cold war where americans, british, and soviets would arm and incite rebellions in strategic third world nations to try and get them to align with a major power. no matter what system you have, there will always be civil frustration, and people looking to rebel. the difference is whether a smallish group can become armed and determined enough to pose a threat to the incumbent regime.