Mediaboss Marketing

America is made up of two chief political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. Of course, there are other political parties, such as Libertarians and Independents. Since the time of FDR, however, there has been a discussion of progressive policies. Yes, these policies are chiefly associated with the Democratic Party, but, the average person typically may not be able to decipher the differences in a a progressive or liberal. Mistakenly, there are those who believe that progressives and liberals are one and the same.

The polarization of America is thought to be split between two factions: the Conservative right (thought to be Republican) and the Progressive left (thought to be Democrat). However, the Democratic party of today is really becoming more split as Progressive Democrats and Liberal Democrats no longer share the same views on typical Democratic policies.

In short, the answer is both yes and no.

First, the Democratic Party is associated with both liberals and progressives. There is some debate as to why more individuals are beginning to gravitate more towards the term progressive rather than being called a liberal. A Georgetown University study found that many individuals believed the liberal term carried a negative connotation, therefore, it became more acceptable to be called a progressive.

However, this is not accurate. While some traditional Democrats carry the label of liberal with pride (think renowned attorney Alan Dershowitz), others prefer to be labeled a progressive, and it has nothing to do with a negative connotation.

Progressives have distinct policy ideas when it comes to economics.

A liberal may believe in the concept of using taxpayer money to assist those in need or to overall better society. They may not believe in a large government; in fact, many of them favor a smaller government, particularly where the everyday life of individuals is concerned.

Progressives want the government to not only utilize taxpayer money to correct an issue, but they want government regulation to correct the problem as well.

When asked, a progressive will likely agree with this distinction; most progressives are said to favor individuals over corporate interests. The liberal is more likely to embrace free speech and equality for all.

Classic liberals are influenced by the writings of those such as John Locke, and they are more supportive of individual freedoms and chief supporters of the Constitution and the rights given to Americans via the Bill of Rights.

Progressives are beginning to be aligned with Collectivism. Ironically, liberals of just a decade ago were beginning to acquire such a label, and this is likely why the group began using the term progressive to describe their policies.

In answer to the original question, a registered Democrat may be more moderate, given to individual freedom but fiscal responsibility (Senator Joe Manchin is a good example). This Democrat may identify as a liberal. However, there are registered Democratic voters who identify as progressives (Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proudly identifies as a progressive Democrat). These individuals favor not only social spending initiatives, such as free daycare for families making less than a certain amount, but they also believe the government should have an active hand in regulating certain industries.

There are multiple factors in this split in the Democratic Party. When Bernie Sanders ran for president in 2016, his successes (albeit small ones) told the nation that more and more voters particularly younger voters firmly believed in the more progressive policies embraced by the Vermont Senator, who has often referred to himself as a Democratic Socialist.

However, the Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, used many more liberal-sounding phrases in her campaign speeches. A reference to cooperative solutions to societal problems such as Together We Can or Build Back Better focus on the more liberal ideas that individuals working together can improve the country.

Progressives believe that certain institutions (the banking industry, for example) are holding those who are marginalized back. The only way to prevent this is to set up government regulations that monitor the activities of said institutions.

As of late, more establishment Democrats tend to support increasingly progressive policies. However, in the case of the Build Back Better legislation, some more moderate Democrats have deemed the bill fiscally irresponsible. President Joe Biden who used to be consider more of a moderate liberal Democrat, has been pulled more towards the progressive left as he has sought support for his agenda.

Progressivism is a political philosophy that supports social reform. Ironically, it is not a new term in politics. It can be traced back to the Age of Enlightenment, when proponents of the idea believed that an individuals life could be improved based on the advancement of technology, social organization, and economic development.

In the twentieth century, progressivism morphed once more as industrialism brought about social change in both America and in Europe. In America, President Franklin Roosevelt offered progressive policies such as the social programs he promoted in the New Deal (the Works Progress Administration, for instance).

It was during the twentieth century that progressivism began to take the form it holds today. Economic inequality was a huge focus of progressivism; they cited monopolistic corporations as a part of the problem and sought to increase regulation that would give the government more control over how these businesses operated.

One must note that some factions of progressive supporters also supported certain controversial tenets such as eugenics, which proponents believed would benefit overall public health.

The most modern version of progressivism is one in which supporters aim to represent the interests of ordinary people through political change and the support of government actions.

Some believe that the term liberal garnered a negative connotation when Newt Gingrich used it repeatedly to describe his Democratic opponents. They also infer that the term progressive has been adopted as a more acceptable label.

However, while Gingrich might have made the term liberal a bad word in politics, a progressive and a liberal are truly different in their philosophies.

Liberalism came into favor during the Age of Enlightenment as well. Philosophers such as John Locke wrote about the ills of a monarchy as well as a state religion, among other topics.

Liberals are like progressives in that they favor ending monopolies in businesses, but they believe in free trade as well as a market economy.

Traditional liberals believe in individual rights. They support a democratic government that allows for freedom of speech and freedom of the press as well as promotes civil rights of every person.

Before 1920, the main opponents of liberalism were communism and socialism; however, after WWII and the Great Depression, liberalism was more associated with the expansion of the welfare state.

Liberals of the twentieth century can be credited with many improvements to the American way of life, such as the promotion of civil rights for all (regardless of race or gender) and universal access to education.

Liberals today still believe in the civil rights of all individuals regardless of race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity or gender. Liberals also fight for some government regulation of corporations and government entities as they initially did.

Progressives may hold the same idea regarding equal rights for all, but, when progressives today speak, they tend to speak of the marginalized individual.

The problem often lies in the approach that liberals and progressives take when tackling a problem.

Most liberals are not comfortable taking progressive stances against large corporations. Some say this is because the big corporations fund the liberal Democratic candidates campaign, and this may be somewhat true. However, most liberals understand how a free market society works. They also understand that numerous regulations cost businesses large and small a great deal of money money that will be recouped somehow, usually in the price of goods. This hurts consumers, and liberals understand that this will not improve anyones economic status.

However, progressives believe that, overall, they are standing up for the little guy, even if that means taking on large corporations or other establishment entities. Some progressives are left-leaning, and want to distinguish themselves from other Democrats. At the same time, there are others who support legislation that is meant to both progress society as well as provide economic progress.

Even Bernie Sanders has lamented that a person cant be both a moderate (liberal) or a progressive.

Progressives in Congress have worked further to separate themselves from the moderates and Classical liberals of the Democratic Party. The Progressive Caucus has been a part of Congress since 1991; there are about 100 members, mostly from the House of Representatives. One Senator serves on the committee. The current caucus is chaired by outspoken Representative Pramila Jayapal and includes individuals such as Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The rest is here:
Progressive vs. Liberal: What are the Biggest Differences?

Murphy is one of Americas most left-leaning governors. So why are N.J. progressives unhappy?  NJ.com

Excerpt from:
Murphy is one of Americas most left-leaning governors. So why are N.J. progressives unhappy? - NJ.com

Last week Erik Wemple at the Washington Post wrote a really solid story about the firing of James Bennet from the NY Times. In case youve forgotten, Bennet was fired after he presided over the publication of an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton back in 2020. Cotton argued that the National Guard should be called out to deal with riots which were taking place in locations around the country in the wake of the murder of George Floyd. There was a huge backlash on Twitter and within the Times newsroom led by black staffers who argued (if you can call it that) that Cottons opinion piece was a threat to their safety.

In retrospect, Wemple wrote to say that Bennet was right and his critics were clearly wrong. But more than that he made an admission about why no one was willing to stand up for Bennet at the time.

Its also long past time to ask why more people who claim to uphold journalism and free expression including, um, the Erik Wemple Blog didnt speak out then in Bennets defense.

Its because we were afraid to

Our criticism of the Twitter outburst comes 875 days too late. Although the hollowness of the internal uproar against Bennet was immediately apparent, we responded with an evenhanded critique of the Timess flip-flop, not the unapologetic defense of journalism that the situation required. Our posture was one of cowardice and midcareer risk management. With that, we pile one more regret onto a controversy littered with them.

And that brings us to Jonathan Chaits piece today for New York Magazine titled Progressive America Needs a Glasnost. I agree with Jonathan Chait about nothing in politics except this one issue. But on this issue hes right and hes one of the handful of progressives willing to say anything about it. Using Wemples confession as a jumping off point, Chait writes:

Wemple may be alone in publishing this admission, but he is not alone in believing it. Many people have shared similar beliefs with me, especially in the angry summer of 2020. It is an unhealthy culture that forces people to suppress their doubts and mouth platitudes for fear of losing their livelihoods.

But the truth is Wemples fears were hardly imaginary. In recent years, many journalists lost their jobs as a result of internal social panics even more irrational than the Cotton episode. The PhiladelphiaInquirerpurged its top editor after its architecture critic wrote a column mourning the destruction of buildings during the George Floyd protests. TheTimespushed out itslead science reporterin the middle of a pandemic because a group of prep-school teens he was leading on a foreign trip complained about his centrist politics and having quoted (but not used) a racial slur.

ThePostitself had two of its most beloved and decorated staffers retire suddenly after becoming the targets of progressive anger. Gene Weingarten, its Pulitzer-winning humor columnist, wrote a ham-fisted column trying to poke fun at himself for not liking Indian food, which despite his apology set off a wave of calls for him to be fired and replaced with a person of color. Weingarten quietly retired shortly thereafter. ThePostalso ran a bizarre story about the fact thateditorial cartoonist Tom Toles threw a Halloween party at which one guest he barely knew showed up in a costume as Megyn Kelly in blackface. A few months later, Toles retired

What Wemples confession reveals is that these purges have a multiplier effect: For every person humiliated or fired for a small or nonexistent offense, many other people will refuse to criticize even transparently absurd left-wing pieties.

He concludes, there remains a deep-seated impulse on the left to defend or deny illiberal norms.For those of us on the right whove been watching left-wing illiberalism play out for the past 5-7 years, this could be the understatement of the decade. For many years there was a cottage industry of people who denied that these incidents were significant or that they were spreading. It has only been in the past couple of years that they have become so common that many on the left have stopped denying they happen and are instead denying that cancel culture or wokeism or whatever you want to label the trend is a problem.

The great irony of callout culture is that callout culture itself is always immune from being called out. And when it is, when it is shown repeatedly to be harmful and irrational the facts are ignored or downplayed.I still think Chait underestimates how significant the problem is both for his own side and for the country as a whole. If the country is beset by a looming right-wing authoritarianism that people eagerly denounce every day and by a creeping left-wing authoritarianism that most people are afraid to mention for fear of punishment and lasting consequences, guess which one is the greater threat. Its the one were afraid to talk about.

See the article here:
Chait: Progressives need to overcome the fear of standing up to the ...

The All Progressives Congress, APC, presidential candidate, Bola Tinubu, on Saturday, lashed out at his counterpart from the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Atiku Abubakar.

Tinubu described Atiku as a shameless man who fought former President Olusegun Obasanjo in public.

He spoke during the APC presidential/governorship campaign rally in Warri, Delta State.

Tinubu said Atiku fought his former boss over how they spent money on projects for their girlfriends.

He also noted that the PDP can not be trusted with governance due to the in-fighting within the party.

Our rivals have no shame, when they are fighting in public; how can they think of governance?

When Atiku was there, he was fighting his boss in public. They were telling us how they spent PTF money to buy cars for their girlfriends in public; they dont have shame.

They dont have shame; will you vote for them again?, he queried.

Atiku served as the Vice President under Obasanjos administration.

During the PDPs eight-year rule, Atiku had endured a frosty relationship with Obasanjo.

Continue reading here:
Presidency: You don't have shame, fought Obasanjo in public - Tinubu ...

This article is part of HuffPosts biweekly politics newsletter. Click here to subscribe.

The name Aaron Belkin may not mean a lot to you. But his history as an advocate should, if you care about progressive politics. And you might want to pay attention to him now, because hes about to retire, and hes got a few important things to say before he does.

Belkin is a celebrated political scientist and activist based in California. He is probably best known for his role in the campaign against anti-LGBTQ discrimination in the military, an effort that led in 2012 to full repeal of the Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy that had been in place since the early 1990s.

Dont Ask, Dont Tell, or DADT as it came to be known, permitted gay Americans to serve as long as they did not disclose their sexual orientation. It was put in place by then-President Bill Clinton, who as a candidate had promised to end the long-standing ban on gays in the military. He ran into stiff opposition from military commanders and their allies in Congress, who insisted that the presence of openly gay soldiers and sailors would compromise unit integrity.

The public was divided, according to polling at the time, with a slight majority opposing an easing of restrictions. Opposition from currently serving members of the armed forces was much higher. Clinton, reeling from some other political setbacks, settled on DADT as a compromise solution.

It was supposed to be a big step toward LGBTQ equality the best possible outcome, under the political circumstances, even though it meant expulsions would continue, and LGBTQ members would have to keep living their lives in secret.

Belkin was among those who thought it was possible to do better and made it his mission to do so, through an approach that was more radical than it might sound at first blush and that he says could still work today, on a whole variety of issues, if only more progressives adopted it.

Prevailing On Dont Ask, Dont Tell

As Belkin tells the story, a chronic problem for Democrats and their allies has been their focus on winning debates through better rhetoric. They assume public opinion is relatively static, and think the key to victory in any given argument is picking the right words or trying to shift the focus of conversation, so that the debate can take place on more favorable political grounds.

This advice makes plenty of sense in certain contexts, Belkin says. But one of his core principles is that too much focus on language and framing can limit the prospects for reform, by giving up on the possibility of changing minds over time.

As long as we emphasize frame over facts, Belkin said in a recent interview with HuffPost, were going to be playing small ball.

In the context of the DADT fight, Belkin said that mentality meant conceding that the majority of political and military leaders as well as the majority of voters would never accept openly LGBTQ Americans serving alongside their straight counterparts. And Belkin wasnt ready to accept that. He established a new research institute that later became the Palm Center, following a $1 million grant from the Michael Palm Foundation, and used it to develop a multi-prong strategy for changing perceptions.

As long as we emphasize frame over facts, were going to be playing small ball.

- Aaron Belkin

A key element of the campaign was the production and dissemination of research to make the case against DADT like the 2000 paper showing the British had repealed their long-standing ban on gays with no ill effects, or the 2006 report demonstrating that enforcement of DADT had cost the Pentagon hundreds of millions of dollars. Both reports generated coverage in national media and, for much of the 2000s, you couldnt read a story about DADT without a reference to Belkin, Palm Center research, or both.

Another element of the strategy was linking the research to storytelling, the kind that would get a breakthrough to a frequently distracted, generally wary public something Belkin and his allies did successfully in the years following Sept. 11, when they showed that DADT had led to the discharge of multiple Arabic and Farsi translators, right when the military desperately needed them. The story was consistent with a key point that advocates like Belkin had been making: Excluding openly gay service members weakened the military, rather than strengthened it.

In publicizing these findings and stories, Belkin and his allies made a concerted effort to enlist or win over high-profile veterans and former national security officials on the theory they would have extra credibility with skeptics. Among them, was a former Reagan and a former Clinton official who served together on the Palm Centers board and co-authored a widely read New York Times op-ed called Military Tolerance Works.

That particular op-ed appeared in 2000, a time when public feelings about the LGBTQ community looked a lot different than they do today. A majority of Americans still opposed same-sex marriage, by nearly a 2-to-1 margin, and that opposition quite likely helped then-President George W. Bush win reelection in 2004.

But sentiments changed as more and more officials were coming out in favor of allowing gay members to serve, until finally in 2010, Congress formally passed a bill formally repealing DADT and then-President Barack Obama signed it.

The victory was by no means the work of Belkin individually, or any individual for that matter. It was the culmination of activism, advocacy and strategizing, some of it going back decades. But veterans of the LGBTQ equality movement say Belkins contributions were pivotal and unique.

Aaron has made an immense contribution in an almost unsung, quiet way, that reflects in a way that twin, great strengths he has, Evan Wolfson, longtime leader in the LGBTQ rights movement, told HuffPost in an interview this week. He has such substance and smarts a commitment to marshaling facts and evidence and arguments and reason. But hes also very skilled at getting things to happen and thinking about how to use that substance, to engage people and to deploy in the world and to mobilize.

Hes not just about scholarship, Wolfson added. Hes about, how do we make our scholarship matter?

Applying The Template To Other Causes

Belkin recounted the DADT campaigns story and success in a 2011 e-book (which HuffPost Media published) called How We Won. But the book was more than a memoir.

Belkin made clear he thought the model for change would work for other causes, and in the interview earlier this month, cited as an example a progressive cause that might seem to have nothing in common with LGBTQ issues.

That example is taxes, an issue on which Democrats have been playing defense at least since the 1980 election of Republican President Ronald Reagan, who promised to slash taxes, and in the process shrink government.

In the decades since, Democrats have been able to win arguments on taxes when they can make it a debate about tax fairness, and more specifically, whether wealthy Americans should be paying more. But theyve struggled to make the case for new taxes that would affect non-wealthy Americans, which in turn has limited their ability to finance new programs, since their more ambitious schemes on everything from child care to health care require an infusion of new revenue that taxes on the wealthy cant provide on their own.

We have a lot of catching up to do, and its not going to happen overnight.

- Aaron Belkin

Belkin doesnt begrudge Democrats and their allies for making the best of a bad political situation, or for settling on less-than-ideal policy solutions because they cant find the money to support more ambitious schemes. But hed like to see progressives devoting more energy to making the case that taxes are OK, and a more-than-worthwhile trade-off, when they lead to the kind of public programs and services that most Americans say they support and that many desperately need.

Im not saying that pragmatism is wrong, Belkin said. What Im saying is that when we dont have a parallel set of voices that are advocating for big change, then were always on the defensive.

The other side is 50 years ahead of us in making this argument, so we have a lot of catching up to do, and its not going to happen overnight, Belkin said.

As a counter-example an issue on which Democrats and their allies have managed to put in work and change minds in ways that enabled legislation to pass Belkin mentioned the clean energy provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law this summer.

I dont think that Biden would ever have gotten the climate bill through Congress if the groups hadnt spent years making the case that climate change is real, and that its the result of human action, Belkin said. Its not that changing the conversation about climate change was sufficient for change. But it was necessary for change.

Winning In A Dysfunctional Political Environment

Theres polling to back this up: In 2020, 60% of Americans thought climate change was a major threat, compared to just 44% in 2006, according to surveys from the Pew Research Center. But the increase was nearly all among Democrats, which is emblematic of how polarized every political debate in the U.S. has become potentially two big problems for Belkins theory of change.

One is that Belkins approach depends on persuading people with evidence. But thats a lot more difficult when the opposition increasingly operates within a media ecosystem that even the most compelling, least ambiguous evidence sometimes cant penetrate.

The other problem is that the threshold for political victory that is, the number of people you have to win over is a lot higher when even a small minority of the electorate can dictate policy, as Republicans can today thanks to institutional advantages like the over-representation of conservative, small-population states in the Senate and Electoral College.

Donors have been understandably socialized to worry about the fires burning now ... Theres much less of a focus on building progressive messaging and building progressive power.

- Aaron Belkin

Belkin has spent the last few years working on one response: A project to expand the Supreme Court, in order to make up for the way Republicans stole a seat when they refused to consider Obamas nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia after his death.

The project is called Take Back the Court and its team of staff and advisers include a lot of familiar names from the progressive intellectual and political universe, including Wolfson, Heather McGhee (of Demos) and Laurence Tribe (of Harvard Law School). And it seems to be making progress: The big liberal advocacy groups that focus on the courts now endorse a larger court, as do many Democrats in Congress, though the votes to make such a change are not there yet.

With so much work to do on that and other causes and gains for the LGBTQ community seemingly under new assault it might seem like a strange time for Belkin to step back, and for the Palm Center to shut down, both of which will officially happen this Friday, Sept. 30.

Belkin, who is just 56, said he will continue to teach courses at San Francisco State University, where he is a full-time professor. He also expressed confidence that longtime allies like the ACLU and Lambda Legal will carry on the work of promoting the LGBTQ agenda. At the same time, he said, he worries that the people and institutions who finance progressive causes dont think enough about the long term.

Donors have been understandably socialized to worry about the fires burning now, where the marginal impact of their dollar is going to matter most today, Belkin said. In my experience, theres much less of a focus on building progressive messaging and building progressive power.

Whether that mentality changes may go a long way to determining how much progressives can achieve in the future.

More here:
How Progressives Can Win The Long-Term Fights They're Losing - HuffPost