Talk:Progressivism

message: The historical discussion is vague, lacks nuances and sources. The relevance to modern progressivism as most progressives themselves understand it is marginal. Experts or academics out there:  Please fix.  
Look at how nuanced, lengthy and elaborate the article on "classical liberalism" is, for comparison.  Modern progressivism is at least as sizeable a movement as "classical liberalism" ever was, and yet we have this lackluster and uninformatively dull article.  Please fix.
This article largely lacks relevance to modern progressivism.  I have added a paragraph on 21st century progressivism.  Please feel free to add sources and amplify.  
References to advocacy of collective action, environmental protections, workers rights, government regulation and other aspects of modern progressivism are not present here either.
Also -- re the oddly grammared entry below:  Nazis were not progressives. They were fascists.  
152.3.34.82 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is problematic and irrelevant to 21st century progressivism 

message: Somebody appears to have plugged a reference to the Greens in there for no apparent reason. 
Relevance of this?
18/01/13  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.73.21 (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: Reading through discussion points, it's clear the term "progressive" needs a better heuristic for readers.  The section comparing progressivism to liberalism, conservativism, and socialism provides a poor typological structure for conveying meaning.  Now, I would need to read more about the early progressive movement, but most of the cited sources above fit within a framework that views progressivism as an ORIENTATION to the foundational political philosophies of liberalism and communitarianism.
This heuristic comes from Stiles (2006) who did an analysis of current environmental education policies/philosophies in the United States.  Stiles supports his framework with a number of sources, and it makes a lot more sense with cited sources above and in the main article.  The heuristic is as follows:
progressive / liberalism  (e.g. liberal democracy ala Rawls,1971)
conservative / liberalism (e.g. libertarianism, neoliberalism)
progressive / communitarianism (e.g. socialism)
conservative / communitarinism (e.g. communism, social conservative movement in the united states)
Liberals and Communitarians by Stephen Mulhall and Adam Swift (1996) is a must read as well.
Citation:
Stiles, T. (2006).  Place stories: (Re)locating the interests of youth in environmental education.  Dissertation at Arizona State University.
R33f3rman (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison section is confusing because the terms progressive, liberal, conservative and socialist are used ambiguously.  However I cannot see how your use of the term progressive fits in with any of its uses in the article.  Basically the article lists how the term has been used in reference to different political groups:  parties called "progressive", American politics in the Progressive, New Deal and Great Society era, and modern liberalism.  The article itself needs to be re-written.  The Four Deuces (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Thankyou, now we all understand.  TFD (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Understand this: 'Progressive' simply means to 'progress' to John Lennon's "Imagine" Utopia (imagine no nations) as glamorized in the Closing Ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics. Note this: When the ruinous welfare state became unpopular, Progressives started to call themselves 'Liberals'; and when Liberalism/Liberals likewise became unpopular, Liberal-Progressives like Hillary Rodham Clinton reverted back to 'Progressive' instead of 'Liberal'. They are the same. Hope this helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better heuristic? 

message: I removed this wording:  "...although the PCs also contained a progressive wing for the rest of its history.  Most of these people were opposed to the PCs merger with the more socially conservative Canadian Alliance in 2003."  Progressives who joined or re-joined the Conservatives did not form a separate wing and were not "progressive" in a modern sense.  Also I added "former" (and capitalized the reference) to "progressives" who supported the Progressive Conservative Party, because the Progressive Party had ceased to exist.  The Four Deuces (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: "Finally, liberals are more likely to support the Democratic Party in America and a Labour party or Liberal Party in Europe and Australia, while progressives tend to feel disillusioned with any two-party system, and vote more often for third-party candidates".  This seems confusing.  Very few European countries have a Liberal Party as one of their big two, so the natural interpretation of the sentence is to look at Australia, where the Liberal Party is a rightwing conservative party despite its name.  Besides, relatively few European countries have a two-party system, unless you mean two-party in the weak sense of two-party-dominant.  In Germany for example, the third-party and fourth-party scene is about a million times more vibrant than the third-party scene in the USA.  And only a small minority of Europe's mainstream social democratic parties are called Labour.  86.176.49.109 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The basis for this no longer appears to be in the article but what is there now, identifying American Liberalism with "left conservatism" is pretty near the mark. "Liberal" in the universe of mainstream US political discourse equivocally refers to that and what from the in-universe view is considered to be the left end of the entire spectrum of discourse with voices like Chomsky and so forth being side show attractions. Presumably, this, the near total lack of a politically effective left is one of those contradictions in American politics overripe for resolution. So the distinction between "liberal" and "progressive" is overdetermined here, "liberal" doesn't mean what it does globally, and in as much as it's a central pillar of the "centre right nation" cant doesn't mean progressive at all. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberals support conservatives? 

message: The section on Progressivism in Ireland shows the Progressive Democrats as being Progressive, eventhough they are not Progressive, just because their name says Progressive dosnt make it true, we could also make the same argument about the Progressive Conservatives of Canada, they are not Progressive even though their name says so, I think we should remove the Ireland section from this page considering that the party is not even close to being Progressive, they are Conservative.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.10.54 (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tory party of Canada no longer calls itself "Progressive" since the merger/coup (depending on your point of view) of 2003. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: The "Idea of progress" (That technological advancement improves society) is completely unrelated to Progressivism (The theory that 'progressive' (meaning Incremental) change through government intervention is the best way to change society.) - This is a complete malapropism. The history section needs to be written from scratch, as it currently has absolutely no accurate information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.182.207 (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Idea of progress" 

message: the last section debunked this , however many individuals and sources disagree. 79.176.49.28 (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  as a eupemism for general "liberals" 

message: The recurrent insertion of material asserting that Progressivism is a form of insanity, especially in the head section, render the page unusable as a reference.  I'm not familiar with the details of Wiki conventions, but such things often seem to find a home under a "controversy" section.
I would point out that the link, <http://about-psychology.com/progress.html> appears to refer to the work of Docjp, who put it here.  I do not think this can be considered an authoritative source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.25.19 (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not qualify as a reliable source, since it is self-published.  Even if it were published by a reputable source, we would have to establish whether the opinions were notable and then present them in a neutral manner.  Please see also no original research.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressivism as insanity 

message: Advocating changes and/or reform is a pretty neutral description. One could argue Hitler was progressive because he proposed (and carried out) sweeping changes in Germany.--77.248.75.39 (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not disrupt the article to make a point. That was vandalism and I have reverted it. "One can argue" almost anything but this is not the place for original research, personal opinions or analysis. Neutrality is what we do. If you want to argue politics then please find a web forum where that sort of discussion is appropriate and do it there. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  changes or reform 

message: the section implies that both sides of the political spectrum are progressive is this possible or is it a contradiction where neither is progressive and they are merely opposing points of veiw.
Digmores (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is perfectly possible. One side might wish to progress to the left and one to the right. This is probably true of many countries where there are no truly conservative or reactionary parties. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmm what i mean is can a party be described as progressive if it is changing its own political perspective or is considered to be progressive by introducing new ideas.   Or is progressiveness linked into the idea of social equity, individual freedom, social democracy, free markets.  (Any of these things in isolation on in junction with one another.
Digmores (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It can mean anything and this article is just a list of definitions.  It has been applied however to specific political moverments in the U. S.  TFD (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  australia section 

message: Progressivism is 'authoritarianism for social and economic equality' would be the best definition that just saying statist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.146.180 (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better definition  

message: :* Changed the last sentence to describe Blue Dog Democrats not as conservative, but as moderates. Too often Wikipedia demonstrates a sort of Moral Relativism, where everything easily relates to everything else or all things meld into one. If a Blue Dog is a Democrat, by definition, they should not be considered a conservative. You've got to draw a line in the sand somewhere. And typically, that is the deflection point. 10stone5 (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage did not call them "conservative" but "more conservative Democrats".  Changing that to "more moderate Democrats" is injecting bias and I will revert.  Democrats btw are not by definition not conservatives, since they do not enforce ideological consistency.  TFD (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Section: 2 By country, 2.6 United States

message: The emphasized portion of the passage below has no citation, and runs contrary to what I know. Would someone care to look into this please? Thanks. 
"The term "progressive" is today often used in place of "liberal." Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies and should not be used interchangeably. In the US in particular, the term progressive tends to have the same value as the European term social democrat;"
--Ratha K (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation to other political ideologies

message: Please make these minor edits regarding spelling/grammar/usability.
1935 election --> 1935 election
amoug --> among
to attacked the --> to attack the24.57.210.141 (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for the corrections! BryanG (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edits to Canada 

message: WIKIPEDIA - Y U NO have article on anti-progressivism? Many have openly opposed progressivist policies and even called themselves "anti-progressive" in history. For example, opponents of the New Deal. --99.185.229.78 (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The opposite of progressive is reactionary.  And many progressives opposed the New Deal, while many non-progressives supported it.  TFD (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anti-progressivism]] 

message: This whole idea of a "Progressive Era" and some cohesive "Progressivism movement"  is really new.  Some references should be added to confirm when the label "progressive" began to be applied in this manner.  Otherwise, Wikipedia is just making stuff up like other publications.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.227.151 (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What on Earth are you talking about? The term "Progressive Era" was in use by the early 1900s, and became standard political shorthand by 1930 or so. And the Progressives very explicitly identified themselves as a movement, even using the term to name their political parties (or factions of existing parties).
--Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus title 

message: "Progressivism as a political philosophy holds that societal problems can best be addressed by having government impose solutions according to "modern" principles, rather than leaving the economy and society up to the free market and individual actions and choices"
This statement above is currently in the intro, it is very biased using word usage to denigrate the topic, claiming that progressives want government to "impose solutions", mocking progressives claim to using modern principles by an inappropriate sarcastic usage of quotation marks that are unnecessary as they are not quoting anything. And lastly it invokes a libertarian or laissez-faire POV saying that this is contrasted instead of "leaving the economy and society up to the free market and individual actions and choices".
This statement is not neutral, is biased against the topic in the article, and other parts of the intro describe the nature of the topic already without such bias and lack of neutrality. I request that the statement be removed on these grounds.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That statement might be improved, however it's not in the general introduction, but only in the portion of the introduction that concerns political progressivism, which is certainly about using the power of government to solve societal problems. Furthermore, there is nothing remotely "neutral" about the rest of the article, which is strongly biased in the other direction, conflating political progressivism with the general notion of progress, talking about it in glowing terms ("demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society" … "nobility of Western civilization, worth of economic/technological growth, faith in reason and scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason, intrinsic importance and worth of life on earth" etc.) It's not a well-balanced article, but almost entirely paints political progressivism in the most glowing terms possible, and it's interesting that the only potentially critical statement that talks about the government power aspect (which is well-documented) is attacked as "very biased." - Embram (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

text: The problem is that the article conflates four distinct historical political positions that called themselves progressive (1900-1914, 1924, 1948 and today.)  The connections between the four are slight and any description of their common "ideology" (in fact progressivism has never been an ideology) is just original research.  The original progressive position incidentally was not that government impose solutions based on modern principles, but that governments should be run according to modern principles.  So while progressives brought in prohibition and food inspection, they also gave the vote to women and introduced referenda as a method of changing laws, and re-call elections.  TFD (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The contrast in that statement of associating progressive stances as government imposition as opposed to leaving the economy alone to the free market and individual choices and actions, is a libertarian/laissez-faire outlook on progressive politics, which is fine to be included as a criticism of progresssivism in the article. A lot of the other content that Embram mentions is showing what progressives have used as justifications for their policies - it does not mean that those points are conveying truths; such is a valuable inclusion regardless of whether one believes in those justifications of not.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, progressive is a term that has been used for four distinct movements in the U.S. and for unrelated groups in other nations.  The Progress Party (Norway) for example was formed to fight high taxes and big government.  It is progressive in the sense that it rejects (to them) old-fashioned, reactionary views that hold back progress.  I do not see this article going beyond a disambiguation page, since other than favoring progress, there is no commonality.  TFD (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with TFD. The main article in its current form seems largely a "rah-rah" page designed by the original author to cast the words progressive and progressivism in a positive light (with some limited critical provisos thrown in by other editors), rather than a scholarly article. There are not only several different political "progressive" parties in the world, fighting for similar but not identical purposes, there are also different contexts in which the words progressive and progressivism are used, not only throughout history but also in the present day, and this article fairly well mixes up and conflates them all. I agree the best thing would be to turn this page into a disambiguation page, and then the individual different pages directed to respectively specific meanings of progressivism can be written. I expect, however, that any pages concerning political progressivism will be written with a partisan point of view, argued over, and eventually controlled and maintained in an ideologically pure manner by a group of senior editors with a particular political viewpoint, perhaps similar to the way the pages concerning climate change have been controlled within Wikipedia. The problem with a politically charged topic like this is that published articles describing progressivism will define it differently depending on the political viewpoint of the writer, they will inevitably conflict with one another, and there will be a struggle to exclude "facts" that are based on references from "biased" authors—i.e., authors whose politics differ from those of the editor doing the bowdlerizing. - Embram (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Very ad hominem last remark that was completely unnecessary. The contrast of the term "government imposition" versus "individual actions and choices" is very biased, it is a libertarian adage that says that progressives are authoritarian and contrasts that with a market economy with minimal government intervention as being an appropriate state of affairs. Two wrongs don't make a right, if you believe the content in the article is biased towards progressivism that does not justify inserting a reverse-bias statement. What it does warrant is a thorough re-write of the article if others agree that is necessary.--184.145.74.119 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: An ad hominem remark is an attack on a person. There was no person involved, so there was no ad hominem, no attack or criticism of or against any particular person. I was expressing a concern about what might happen (something to watch out for) in any hypothetical future page involving a politically charged topic like political progressivism. I'd expect the same potential problem in a page about liberalism or conservatism or libertarianism or most any other -ism. - Embram (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Content policy means that good articles should read like articles in standard textbooks or analyses in newspapers such as the New York Times/  That means that many facts such as the universe having been created 6,000 years ago are treated as fringe.  But that is based on policy which is where you should take your criticisms.  TFD (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

text: I've edited that portion to be more reflective of the cited source, and moved it within the political progressivism section. See if you like it better now. - Embram (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is improved. However the examples in specific countries material is a waste of space and time. To be inclusive we would have to have progressive parties from every country in the world listed, and that is unreasonable. Where examples of people and movements in countries have substantially influenced progressivism as in a general philosophy or the contemporary political usage of the term progressivism, they are acceptable. Otherwise just listing various insignificant individuals and movements who associated in some manner with the word "progressive" in them is a total waste of space and time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.74.119 (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very biased statement in the intro of this article, not neutral 

message: The article does not, and should make clear, preferably near the start, that the term "Progressive" is solely an autonym that is not used or accepted by those unfavourable to the philosophy. 
The name is not a proper noun. It coopts a common noun with pre-existing positive, complimentary and favourable meanings. Those not espousing the philosophy do not accept or use it. PeterColdridge (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Progressive" as autonym 

message: On the last sentence of the last paragraph at the section Progressivism#Contemporary_mainstream_political_conception, we read: "Prominent progressive conservative elements in the British Conservative Party have criticized neoliberalism". I think the sentence requires clarification in regards to the "progressive conservative" phrase, which seems like an oxymoron. Does it refer to members of the Conservative Party holding progressive views, to members of a discrete movement titled "progressive-conservative", or something else? --Dead3y3 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the entire section should go.  Cameron btw has described himself as a progressive conservative.  It is not actually an oxymoron, some conservatives see progress as necessary in order to maintain tradition.  So same sex marriage for example is defended as preserving the family.  But few would describe Cameron as a progressive, but rather as more progressive than the party's Right.  TFD (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Progressive-conservative" oxymoron 

message: A long anti-racist section, complete with loads of sources (#21-24) arguing against race as an adequate classification (yes, in an article on progressivism), yet sources with a complete lack of anything associating these views with progressivism, which as this article explains, means the desire for rapid progress and change. Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not race should be a scientific distinction.
85.194.2.41 (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Modern progressives now tend to describe race as merely a social construct" 

message: This article seems to conflate a lot of things into one article. Granted, all of these things did cross paths at some point but I tend to think that perhaps some of these different topics should be split into different articles with this one just providing a short unifying basis to explain how "Progressivism" evolved into different, frequently divergent, philosophies.
One interesting thing that this does not touch on very well: During the latter 19th and early 20th centuries the "Progressive movement" (at least a big part of it) was focused on the idea of a return to basic Christian values, advocating for
* Making Christian values explicitly prominent. This led to Christian churches and Christian organizations gaining great power in the U.S., which had not been so much the case in the earlier days of the republic.
* Eliminating consumption of drugs and alcohol (contrary to popular belief the first drug epidemic started in the 19th century, not the 20th century). This all culminated in the Prohibition Era.
* Eliminating gambling. In the U.S. most gambling (even lotteries) was eliminated across the U.S. by WWII, leading to the rise of Las Vegas, Atlantic City, etc.
* Eliminating the scope and influence of big business. The anti-trust laws were the most obvious example of this.
* Eliminating exploitive employment practices. The pro-union environment of the early 1900s being the most obvious example.
* Elimination of exploitive lending practices. Anti-usury laws were strengthened and more thoroughly enforced.
* Restoring cultural/racial norms. This led to the very strict segregation and rise of the new KKK in the early 1900s.
These were all things that were to varying degrees common during much of the Middle Ages and during the Protestant Reformation (e.g. we forget that the Catholic Church used to oppose money lending).
This movement was not a liberal vs. conservative thing in the U.S. (and in Europe). There were parts of that which laster formed the core of the modern liberal philosophy and parts that formed part of the modern conservative philosophy. But at the time these were all seen as part of one big push to make the world a better place (not that every Progressive was in total agreement, of course).
Thoughts?
- MC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused/conflated topics? 

message: Two of the sources in the article seem to come from known opinionated outlets and the content in the article seeks to describe Progressivism in a non-neutral fashion. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 13:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source reliability 

message: This oepns with Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform.  This describes a vast number of movements that are not at all Progressivism.  The reforms must be those reforms supported by Progressivism to qualify, and to avoid circularity, they need to be specified more clearly than that.  32.208.220.30 (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: This reads like another fork of progress... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The term progressivism is only used in American politics and is described in Progressivism in the United States, although the term progressive is used as an antithesis of reactionary. TFD (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be merged to [[social progress|progress]]? 

message: The term should be simply described as a term for several political ideologies that were described that way to sound nice in the first paragraph. No idea how to make this statement sophisticated tn, but the current definition is horrible, jumping from one meaning to the other without any form of disclaimer for the reader, making it a mangled mess only existing to support the current usage of the term. There should be more emphasis on the term history than it's meaning considering it's usage. --RohenTahir (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the lead is incoherent. See my edits of lead. I believe this is more consistent with the body of the article and addresses part of your concern.sbelknap (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV concerns

message: I find the broad use of "progressive" to be so broad and imprecise that it is unhelpful. Be that as it may, Woodrow Wilson is listed as an example of a progressive. Should his racist actions be mentioned? Cancel culturists may want him removed from this, but we are all complex.Pete unseth (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article points out, the term was used to refer to four distinct movements. While each was created by members of the previous one, it was not one movement. It's only in the third version that racial equality became a key issue. Before that, there was a range of views on race. TFD (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

text: The progressive standard 100 years ago cannot be the same as the current progressive standard. He would certainly be a far-right ultra-conservative in his current character, but he was progressive in many other social issues in his time. Mureungdowon (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woodrow Wilson as progressive, but promoter of Jim Crow laws 

message: Perhaps on XXI , we know it 2800:430:1200:B062:9D55:CD26:D49A:4918 (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressivism; ¿The final revisionist of the politic culture?