This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Progressivism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Progressivism received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Progressivism:
|
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
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)
[2018-04-08]
One complained that was my opinion then I gave the reference below then I was censored with no explanation and with a threat like I would be in any totalitarian environment.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2014/01/13/are-todays-progressives-actually-totalitarians/2/
Why they allow a section called 'Authoritarian conservatism' relating it with nazi, while nazis really means National Socialism, nazi was in real progressives but Wikipedia deny a single sourced sentence telling the true. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2804:14C:F421:1337:2033:9778:D173:8945 (
talk) 20:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
"Progressive" is simply a political ideology of advocating for social reform through government action. Aside from the use of loaded words throughout the article, every socio-political ideology is "progressive" in the way it is now described in this article. The problem with calling it "left statism" is that "statism" is a Libertarian term for those opposite to Libertarian ideology, but it is still the opposite of Libertarianism, particularly "right Libertarianism". 76.14.54.78 ( talk) 00:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
A problematic argument. The original Progressives weren't focused (entirely) on social reform through government action. In fact, many of them were classical liberals who advocated direct social engagement at the grass roots level. Bottom line? Government was simply one avenue to social, economic, and political reform. The emphasis being - in all cases - on reform and a transformation of conservative (past) ways of doing things. Additionally, this discussion ignores the scientific and empirical roots that the original Progressive movement held. 12:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Uh, progress on getting these political terms straight is not going to be easy until American rightists get over their anti-Obama hysteria, if then. Cladistics is not easy when many of the loudest soi disant experts refer to themselves as libertarians but are really in many cases anarchists, reactionaries, fascists or just ignorant thugs, to give just four illustrative examples. Some of them are even libertarians, but this does not bode well for their objectivity nor their competence in working out the meanings of words.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 18:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
I'm not sure where this Four Deuces guy is coming from, but I did see the front half of a horse wandering down the street a few minutes ago. Call me, Deuces, and I'll point out where it went.
The original text which he excised is precisely correct and diplomatically worded.
For anyone in doubt about the separateness of the wings, Google "Rob Anders." The Progressives are trying to keep him from being renominated in his Alberta riding.
FWIW, Red Tories tend to be Progressives from Ontario or the East, while Progressives come from a rather different set of traditions and tend to be from the Prairies. There are individual exceptions: this Prairie nationalist Orchard tends, ahistorcally, to be called a Red Tory. Margaret Thatcher's comment at one of Conrad Black's dinners on Prime Minister Mulroney, an easterner, was "I'm sorry he pays so much more attention to the adjective than to the noun."
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 17:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Add tag:
This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's
layout guidelines. (June 2009) |
Article would exist better-presented with more subsections and subtopics, for increased clarity, objectivity, and ease of reading.
The first sentence of the first paragraph is a blatant violation of wikipedia neutrality. Probably also a case of original research (ie. fantasy) since it is unsourced.
"[...] usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice)."
Statist is a libertarian term of derision, and that is the dominant usage people encounter. A brief google search for statism will show that.
A division into economic and social is also typical of libertarian viewpoints alone, as exemplified by their quiz, and has no academic standing.
The introduction ought to be based on statements of progressivism by progressives. Not framed in libertarian ideology.
Mhuben ( talk) 11:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
"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).
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)
Good point. I removed them. They and the Progressive Conservatives are already mentioned in the lead as parties use progressive in their names, although not belonging to that tradition. (The Irish party is actually liberal.) The Four Deuces ( talk) 22:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
the last section debunked this , however many individuals and sources disagree. 79.176.49.28 ( talk) 09:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
You've got to be kidding me to even be taking this repetitious act of flagrant vandalism seriously. MondoManDevout ( talk) 05:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Digmores ( talk) 08:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Twice in the past year, an editor mysteriously removed three names from the list of Progressive who have served in the the U.S. Congress: Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. All three are well-known progressives: Waters is a current member of the Progressive Caucus, Clinton and Obama both describe themselves as a progressives and both served in Congress. None of the other names in the list were cited, so why are these three well-known progressives being being removed? -- 216.114.194.20 ( talk) 23:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Citations:
1) Clinton in her own words defining herself as a progressive (@50 seconds) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc
2) Maxine Waters has been in the progressive caucus since the 1990's: http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus
3) Barack Obama at a 2008 town hall meeting near Atlanta during the Presidential campaign: "I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive." I'll even pick a far-left progressive site to cite this admission: http://www.progressive.org/mag/nichols0109.html
Now why are these three additions continually removed by editors, without it being considered vandalism?
--
216.114.194.20 (
talk) 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
July 21, 2011: yet another political ideolog has without explanation again singled out progressives Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for removal frfom this list. This is a political game being played on WP in an attempt to hide these two leading *self-admitted* progressives from being included in the list. Why try to intentionally hide the two most influential progressives from a list that even includes former and dead politicians? -- 216.114.194.20 ( talk) 02:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
July 22 - again reverted political-agenda removal of progressives Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Either the entire list goes away, or the entire list stays. Political ideologs removing people they don't want seen in this list is considered vandalism. They admit they are progressives, so they are proud of it. Why continually try to hide it by vandalizing this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.194.20 ( talk) 17:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS. All material added, especially about living persons should be sourced. since your additions are unsourced, I will remove them. Please do not restore without sources. TFD ( talk) 04:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/us/politics/24transcript.html?pagewanted=all
"I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the ::::::: beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive..."
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71§iontree=2,71
Town hall meeting in suburban Atlanta during 2008 campaign:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/us/politics/09campaign.html?_r=1&ei=5087&em=&en=b690d55617d9d0db&ex=1215748800&adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1215785058-T9CQHCNICPqGNIpAArg6lA
"I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive."
-- 216.114.194.20 ( talk) 04:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
I think you're misunderstanding what "authoritarianism" means. Advocacy of government intervention or regulation as part of the process of liberal democracy, for example, is not what authoritarianism means. 152.3.34.82 ( talk) 20:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The opening sentence is not neutral because it would in reality cover every single idelogy that ever existed -- "political ideology advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes" -- as if there were ever an ideology that liked things exactly the way they were, or regarded the changes they approved of as anything but reform. And then it contradicts itself with its talk about conservative and reactionary, because reactionaries, by definition, and conservatives, in reality, want changes, and being human regard them as reform. Without some explanation about what kind of changes, it's not neutral. ("Positive changes" or other such euphemisms also don't cut it. No one wants negative change.) Goldfritha ( talk) 23:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Dr. Morbius, nice blinders you have there. Your crude definition of modern conservatism in the United States is laughable in how inaccurate it is. Thank you for confirming that this article has a POV that is not neutral. PokeHomsar ( talk) 17:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform.
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please make these minor edits regarding spelling/grammar/usability.
1935 election -->
1935 election
amoug --> among
to attacked the --> to attack the
24.57.210.141 (
talk) 07:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
The opposite of progressive is reactionary. citation needed
I would respond: No. The opposite of progressive is anti-progressive. Go ask the anti-progressivists. Nobody calls themselves 'reactionary.' -- BenMcLean ( talk) 15:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The opposite of progressivism is Conservatism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:F421:1337:2033:9778:D173:8945 ( talk) 19:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
-- Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
"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)
There has been little substantive improvement in a month on the issues at hand that I regard as still open and unresolved.-- 184.145.74.119 ( talk) 21:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
There doesn't appear to be a linked definition to how progressivism is defined. See the "[1]" below, there is no link for "progressivism": Progressivism is the support for or advocacy for improvement of society by reform.[1] As a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.
Joesadlon ( talk) 17:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
From the article, I don't get a sense of who is the bigger opponent of progressivism in US and European politics.
Is it the alt-right or is conservatives? Does the alt-right has the greater degree of intensity against progressives, but do conservatives have the greater numbers of people against progressives?
Who is offering the greater degree of opposition to progressives?
Which group is currently is expected to have more influence in the Democratic politics in 2018? The centrists or the progressives?
Could some of these issues be incorporated into the article by someone more familiar with progressive politics? Knox490 ( talk) 15:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Two of the sources [1] [2] 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)
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)
This reads like another fork of progress... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Perhaps on XXI , we know it 2800:430:1200:B062:9D55:CD26:D49A:4918 ( talk) 01:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Rhosnes: Hello. The body of the article doesn't specifically mention either cultural norms nor social norms. Likewise, it doesn't mention dismantling those norms. Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY we cannot introduce new unsourced information into the very first sentence of an article in this way. Please discuss here before restoring. Thank you. Grayfell ( talk) 20:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Progressivism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Progressivism received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Progressivism:
|
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
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)
[2018-04-08]
One complained that was my opinion then I gave the reference below then I was censored with no explanation and with a threat like I would be in any totalitarian environment.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2014/01/13/are-todays-progressives-actually-totalitarians/2/
Why they allow a section called 'Authoritarian conservatism' relating it with nazi, while nazis really means National Socialism, nazi was in real progressives but Wikipedia deny a single sourced sentence telling the true. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2804:14C:F421:1337:2033:9778:D173:8945 (
talk) 20:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
"Progressive" is simply a political ideology of advocating for social reform through government action. Aside from the use of loaded words throughout the article, every socio-political ideology is "progressive" in the way it is now described in this article. The problem with calling it "left statism" is that "statism" is a Libertarian term for those opposite to Libertarian ideology, but it is still the opposite of Libertarianism, particularly "right Libertarianism". 76.14.54.78 ( talk) 00:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
A problematic argument. The original Progressives weren't focused (entirely) on social reform through government action. In fact, many of them were classical liberals who advocated direct social engagement at the grass roots level. Bottom line? Government was simply one avenue to social, economic, and political reform. The emphasis being - in all cases - on reform and a transformation of conservative (past) ways of doing things. Additionally, this discussion ignores the scientific and empirical roots that the original Progressive movement held. 12:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Uh, progress on getting these political terms straight is not going to be easy until American rightists get over their anti-Obama hysteria, if then. Cladistics is not easy when many of the loudest soi disant experts refer to themselves as libertarians but are really in many cases anarchists, reactionaries, fascists or just ignorant thugs, to give just four illustrative examples. Some of them are even libertarians, but this does not bode well for their objectivity nor their competence in working out the meanings of words.
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 18:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
I'm not sure where this Four Deuces guy is coming from, but I did see the front half of a horse wandering down the street a few minutes ago. Call me, Deuces, and I'll point out where it went.
The original text which he excised is precisely correct and diplomatically worded.
For anyone in doubt about the separateness of the wings, Google "Rob Anders." The Progressives are trying to keep him from being renominated in his Alberta riding.
FWIW, Red Tories tend to be Progressives from Ontario or the East, while Progressives come from a rather different set of traditions and tend to be from the Prairies. There are individual exceptions: this Prairie nationalist Orchard tends, ahistorcally, to be called a Red Tory. Margaret Thatcher's comment at one of Conrad Black's dinners on Prime Minister Mulroney, an easterner, was "I'm sorry he pays so much more attention to the adjective than to the noun."
David Lloyd-Jones ( talk) 17:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Add tag:
This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's
layout guidelines. (June 2009) |
Article would exist better-presented with more subsections and subtopics, for increased clarity, objectivity, and ease of reading.
The first sentence of the first paragraph is a blatant violation of wikipedia neutrality. Probably also a case of original research (ie. fantasy) since it is unsourced.
"[...] usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice)."
Statist is a libertarian term of derision, and that is the dominant usage people encounter. A brief google search for statism will show that.
A division into economic and social is also typical of libertarian viewpoints alone, as exemplified by their quiz, and has no academic standing.
The introduction ought to be based on statements of progressivism by progressives. Not framed in libertarian ideology.
Mhuben ( talk) 11:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
"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).
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)
Good point. I removed them. They and the Progressive Conservatives are already mentioned in the lead as parties use progressive in their names, although not belonging to that tradition. (The Irish party is actually liberal.) The Four Deuces ( talk) 22:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
the last section debunked this , however many individuals and sources disagree. 79.176.49.28 ( talk) 09:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
You've got to be kidding me to even be taking this repetitious act of flagrant vandalism seriously. MondoManDevout ( talk) 05:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Digmores ( talk) 08:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Twice in the past year, an editor mysteriously removed three names from the list of Progressive who have served in the the U.S. Congress: Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. All three are well-known progressives: Waters is a current member of the Progressive Caucus, Clinton and Obama both describe themselves as a progressives and both served in Congress. None of the other names in the list were cited, so why are these three well-known progressives being being removed? -- 216.114.194.20 ( talk) 23:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Citations:
1) Clinton in her own words defining herself as a progressive (@50 seconds) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc
2) Maxine Waters has been in the progressive caucus since the 1990's: http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus
3) Barack Obama at a 2008 town hall meeting near Atlanta during the Presidential campaign: "I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive." I'll even pick a far-left progressive site to cite this admission: http://www.progressive.org/mag/nichols0109.html
Now why are these three additions continually removed by editors, without it being considered vandalism?
--
216.114.194.20 (
talk) 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
July 21, 2011: yet another political ideolog has without explanation again singled out progressives Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for removal frfom this list. This is a political game being played on WP in an attempt to hide these two leading *self-admitted* progressives from being included in the list. Why try to intentionally hide the two most influential progressives from a list that even includes former and dead politicians? -- 216.114.194.20 ( talk) 02:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
July 22 - again reverted political-agenda removal of progressives Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Either the entire list goes away, or the entire list stays. Political ideologs removing people they don't want seen in this list is considered vandalism. They admit they are progressives, so they are proud of it. Why continually try to hide it by vandalizing this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.194.20 ( talk) 17:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS. All material added, especially about living persons should be sourced. since your additions are unsourced, I will remove them. Please do not restore without sources. TFD ( talk) 04:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/us/politics/24transcript.html?pagewanted=all
"I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the ::::::: beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive..."
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71§iontree=2,71
Town hall meeting in suburban Atlanta during 2008 campaign:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/us/politics/09campaign.html?_r=1&ei=5087&em=&en=b690d55617d9d0db&ex=1215748800&adxnnl=1&oref=login&adxnnlx=1215785058-T9CQHCNICPqGNIpAArg6lA
"I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. I believe in a tax code that we need to make more fair. I believe in universal health care. I believe in making college affordable. I believe in paying our teachers more money. I believe in early childhood education. I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive."
-- 216.114.194.20 ( talk) 04:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
I think you're misunderstanding what "authoritarianism" means. Advocacy of government intervention or regulation as part of the process of liberal democracy, for example, is not what authoritarianism means. 152.3.34.82 ( talk) 20:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The opening sentence is not neutral because it would in reality cover every single idelogy that ever existed -- "political ideology advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes" -- as if there were ever an ideology that liked things exactly the way they were, or regarded the changes they approved of as anything but reform. And then it contradicts itself with its talk about conservative and reactionary, because reactionaries, by definition, and conservatives, in reality, want changes, and being human regard them as reform. Without some explanation about what kind of changes, it's not neutral. ("Positive changes" or other such euphemisms also don't cut it. No one wants negative change.) Goldfritha ( talk) 23:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Dr. Morbius, nice blinders you have there. Your crude definition of modern conservatism in the United States is laughable in how inaccurate it is. Thank you for confirming that this article has a POV that is not neutral. PokeHomsar ( talk) 17:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform.
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please make these minor edits regarding spelling/grammar/usability.
1935 election -->
1935 election
amoug --> among
to attacked the --> to attack the
24.57.210.141 (
talk) 07:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
The opposite of progressive is reactionary. citation needed
I would respond: No. The opposite of progressive is anti-progressive. Go ask the anti-progressivists. Nobody calls themselves 'reactionary.' -- BenMcLean ( talk) 15:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The opposite of progressivism is Conservatism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:F421:1337:2033:9778:D173:8945 ( talk) 19:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
-- Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
"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)
There has been little substantive improvement in a month on the issues at hand that I regard as still open and unresolved.-- 184.145.74.119 ( talk) 21:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
There doesn't appear to be a linked definition to how progressivism is defined. See the "[1]" below, there is no link for "progressivism": Progressivism is the support for or advocacy for improvement of society by reform.[1] As a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.
Joesadlon ( talk) 17:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
From the article, I don't get a sense of who is the bigger opponent of progressivism in US and European politics.
Is it the alt-right or is conservatives? Does the alt-right has the greater degree of intensity against progressives, but do conservatives have the greater numbers of people against progressives?
Who is offering the greater degree of opposition to progressives?
Which group is currently is expected to have more influence in the Democratic politics in 2018? The centrists or the progressives?
Could some of these issues be incorporated into the article by someone more familiar with progressive politics? Knox490 ( talk) 15:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Two of the sources [1] [2] 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)
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)
This reads like another fork of progress... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Perhaps on XXI , we know it 2800:430:1200:B062:9D55:CD26:D49A:4918 ( talk) 01:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Rhosnes: Hello. The body of the article doesn't specifically mention either cultural norms nor social norms. Likewise, it doesn't mention dismantling those norms. Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY we cannot introduce new unsourced information into the very first sentence of an article in this way. Please discuss here before restoring. Thank you. Grayfell ( talk) 20:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)