Political Appellative

Conservative

Liberal

Moderate

Progressive

Libertarian

All of these names and several more are the descriptive nomenclatures we use in political discussions everywhere. Yet what do they all mean?

Anything and everything, depending upon the person, who they are speaking with at the time and their surroundings and environments.

I am a Conservative. (GASP..:wow

That in no way implies I do not endorse, support and even defend social programs supported by the Federal Government that I feel are necessary.

Wait!!! That makes me a Moderate then right? NOPE.
How about a Progressive? That IS the popular, politically correct political name these days isn't it? NOPE not a progressive either. Still a Conservative.

The point I am making, (I know it's about time) is that we are what we are and identifying ourselves with a political ideology is in no way limiting to us as persons of reason.

So many times I read where one member steps into a discussion thread to comment that the use of such codification only serves to bifurcate us and cause even more strife. I disagree completely. I don't believe that any name has the power to do such a thing. That and we seem to be able to do a fine job of separation all on our own.

I call myself Conservative because I believe in most of the essential foundational principles of the ideal Conservative. Key word being "most". I also like to think I have common sense and to advocate the eradication of all social programs in favor of an extreme limited government, is foolhardy and destructive to any number of individuals.

Moderate and Progressive and whatever else may pop up in the future, are in my humble opinion, terms that imply the inability or unwillingness to take a stance.
If you call yourself a moderate or Progressive, you never have to dig your heels in and defend your tenets against a deluge of culturally popular attacks. We have all seen the phenomenon, the "younger" generation, unwilling to be identified with their "older' counterparts, create the new age identities and popular culture power words to describe the same things we all protested against when we were young.

Everyone wants to be popular.

Those that defend the politically motivated hypothetical Global Warming scare are mostly individuals with no real knowledge of any such science at all. They just want to be seen as "part of the modern solution". Even if what they are "on about" is completely false.

So even if you want to call yourself a Moderate, Progressive, Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian or "Green", stand up for what you believe and defend it, even if you are thought to be less than popular.

In the long run, your ethical stance will come to define you to others as a person of honor.

Semper

Great post Semper.

Dont you think though, that these labels can be somewhat short of all-encompassing when it comes to representing viewpoints.

How do we label ourselves if we waiver from the label or party line on certain issues?

For example, I would be considered a conservative (classical) based on my laissez faire emphasis, a progressive based on my approach to abortion, and a libertarian based on my unflinching line on the consitution. (Of course, im making parallels to US politics here seeing as im actually in the UK!).

How do we resolve these differences between the labels? It is hard to proudly label yourself if your viewpoints are a bit of a "pick and mix" of different political hues.

Personally I think that the spectrum analysis of left-right wing is horribly flawed! A much better system replacing it is the social freedom vs economic freedom graph, which tends to put everyone somewhere in between the different groupings.

Thus while you say that the nomenclature used doesnt serve to divide us, it does serve to define us. In that respect, I would much rather treat an argument on its merits than the political genus of the author.

With High Regards,

44 (I really should have chosen a better handle)

Originally posted by semperfortis

Moderate and Progressive and whatever else may pop up in the future, are in my humble opinion, terms that imply the inability or unwillingness to take a stance.
If you call yourself a moderate or Progressive, you never have to dig your heels in and defend your tenets against a deluge of culturally popular attacks.

Semper

Really? You generalize. Most so called liberals and progressives I know feel very strongly about their beliefs and back them up. Also despite common conservative rhetoric about us... the vast majority of liberal and progressives are people of faith... maybe sometimes not associated with any praticluar church, but spiritual nonetheless.

Take me for example... my political beliefs are deeply rooted in my spiritual ones. And I tend to believe that that is true with most of us you defame in this post.

reply to post by grover


I don't find Semper to be "defaming" anyone in this post. This is one persons opinion about political labels and their uses, nothing more.

I didn't read a sentence that claimed these things to be fact or truth, only opinion.

You quote the section that makes reference to Moderates not having to take a real stance on issues, when in fact that is the very definition of Moderate:

1: avoiding extremes of behavior or expression
2: tending toward the mean or average amount or dimension
4: limited in scope or effect

That seems to echo what Semper was making reference to.

I don't see how he is "defaming" or attacking anyone here.

reply to post by nyk537


Exactly!!!!

It was never my intention to "defame" or insult anyone; and after re-reading my post, I can see no such reference.

Again Grover's post seems to be a perfect example of the Liberal propensity for inserting emotion into any factual discussion; again in my opinion. He perceived insult where there was none, and became offended (emotional) at something that was in no way directed toward him or any one single person.

I heard it said somewhere, "If you can't beat em' with facts, cover em' in ...... (You know what)"
Perhaps a better analogy here would be.. "If you can't deal in facts, or others opinions, get mad."

As for the definition of Progressive and Moderate, I was also under the impression it was clear.

Progressives date back to the 19th century and on reviewing their base beliefs, I see I was mistaken in their core ideology, they are actually more aligned with what the Conservative Party is now.
Progressivism

While nyk357 defined Moderate exactly as I had accepted the definition to be..

Semper

Whoa there!

I'm a Moderate and nobody who knows me would ever believe that I won't stand up for what I believe. Fact is I think die hard liberal and conservatives are living in a dream world; maybe in a perfect world those two idealogies would work but this isn't a perfect world. Like it or not both sides are going to have to come to a compromise to heal the wounds and fix what's broken.

Okay now all the Liberals and Conservatives can flame on. Know that I love all of you anyway

Can I be "none of the above"? I don't fit well under such labels. I choose one from column A, two from column B and one from column C in what I support.

I think it's the labeling, and then the peer pressure to abide by the group agenda that has gotten America into the mess we have. People need to be reassured that they made the "right" choice, so they rely on what everyone else in the group agrees is correct. It should be a matter of thinking for one's self.

Much the same way that ATS works with the threads in insisting that members concentrate on the issues, I feel that choosing what is right and wrong is about issues, not the group(s) or the leaders. If we did this more, then maybe it would force our leaders to make better choices on issues themselves.

So that's me; Old None Of The Above.

Originally posted by semperfortis

Moderate and Progressive and whatever else may pop up in the future, are in my humble opinion, terms that imply the inability or unwillingness to take a stance.

If you call yourself a moderate or Progressive, you never have to dig your heels in and defend your tenets against a deluge of culturally popular attacks. We have all seen the phenomenon, the "younger" generation,

unwilling

In this statement quoted above you refer to both moderates and progressives aka liberals as unable or unwilling to take a stance, that we never have to dig in our heels and defend our tenets against popular attacks.

BULLHOOEY!!!

That IS insulting. It is a broad and sweeping statement and derogatory.

I was one of those who stood in protest in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq and we were regularly insulted and egged by passerbys and still we stood there because we were taking a stance.

Grover,

If YOU took it as an insult, I apologize for hurting your feelings.

No one else did, so I will extend my condolences to only you.

Please accept my humblest of apologizes...for offending your sensitivities.

Semper

I suppose for the sake of discussion I would term New Zealand as being progressive. NZ was the first country to give Women the vote in more recent times NZ has taken its anti nuclear stance , an MP has been sworn in on the Koran , transgender MP and a anti smacking law.

I don't agree with my country anti Nuclear stance and the anti smaking law but other wise I have no problem with what I have listed above. Well that is how I view the notion of what is progressive.

Apology accepted Semper... at the same time understand that to say that a liberal aka progressive is incapable of taking a stand is just as offensive as me saying all conservatives are intolerant and selfish.

Would you like that?

Well I AM pretty intolerant and I am constantly accused of being selfish. (Even though my charitable contributions this past year was in the 5 figure range) ((Who knew?))

I also don't believe a Liberal is the same as a Progressive, not even close...

While having some similarities, the Liberal stance is far more Socialistic..

The United States Progressive Party of 1912 was a political party created in the United States by a split in the Republican Party

Wiki

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis

I also don't believe a Liberal is the same as a Progressive, not even close...

While having some similarities, the Liberal stance is far more Socialistic.

Thanks for clearing up the historical origins of the term "progressive." The university students I know who use that label tend to be left of the liberals, who are often scorned in academia as being not much different from conservatives.

I refer to myself as a liberal or progressive, for lack of a better term. Sometimes I just say I'm a lefty. I am socialistic only in I think universal health care would be a benefit to the country. I am not socialistic in that I do not believe the state should own the means of production (that's the Marxist definition I think)--in that way I'm definitely a capitalist. Capitalism is good for the economy. Absolutely unrestrained, it can be evil, but that is part of the liberal philosophy.

The difficulty with using any label, even when you're comfortable with it yourself, is that it's apt to provoke a vehement negative response from some listeners. Then you have to overcome the response by defining yourself as I have above, and sometimes even that doesn't succeed in getting the kind of rational discussion one would wish.

You usually make it very clear where you stand on an issue, and show a willingness to listen,which makes discussion/debate productive.