Talk:Progressivism

Article is problematic and irrelevant to 21st century progressivism

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)

Progressives are so totalitarians as Wikipedia

[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)

(Lets turn that bold font off shall we?</b> Ah. That's much better.)

Please just take a few deep breaths and then ask yourself whether any of that nonsense you said actually makes any sense?

Have been threatened? Are you in fear of your life? Do you fear detention without trial? Has anybody murdered any of your friends who have held similar opinions? Has anybody prevented you from taking your opinions to some blog or webforum where they are actually welcome and appropriate, as opposed to spamming them over an encyclopaedia? No. None of these things. All that has happened is that you have been told to stop disrupting Wikipedia by inserting your opinions.

I put it to you that you have no idea what totalitarianism actually means otherwise I trust that you would have the basic decency not insult its real victims by trying to compare yourself to them.

So Forbes published an opinion piece that you agreed with back in 2014, did they? Good for you. The trouble is that we can't reference factual claims to people's opinions. The difference is that Forbes is a magazine and Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. They have their standards and we have ours. That's how a free press works. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Australia

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)

A better heuristic?

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)

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)

"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)

Thankyou, now we all understand. TFD (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Canada

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)

Organize data better

Add tag:

Article would exist better-presented with more subsections and subtopics, for increased clarity, objectivity, and ease of reading.

Neutrality violated by libertarian framing.

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)

"Statism" or "statist" is often used derisively by people who oppose State intrusions upon liberty. Nevertheless, it is a good term. Wikipedia's own statism article puts it well: "Statism (or etatism) is a scholarly term in political philosophy either emphasising the role of the state in analysing political change; or, in describing political movements which support the use of the state to achieve goals."

I think, however, the part you deleted needed to be deleted because it was inaccurate - too restrictive. The critical characteristic of progressivism is its means for social change - the political means (as opposed to voluntary social means.) That's why I added "through governmental action" to the definition. PhilLiberty (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Liberals support conservatives?

"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 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)

Ireland

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 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)

"Idea of progress"

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)

as a eupemism for general "liberals"

the last section debunked this , however many individuals and sources disagree. 79.176.49.28 (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Progressivism as insanity

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)

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)

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)

changes or reform

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)

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)

australia section

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)

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)

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)

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)

United States section - list of Progressives in Congress

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)

This raises the point that the inclusion of any person on this list needs to be well sourced. ClovisPt (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

None of the other names in the list were sourced, yet they were not deleted. Odd...--216.114.194.20 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:VANDAL: it has a clear meaning and using it the way you are is a personal attack. Clinton and Obama were never members of the Progressive Caucus and were listed as New Democrats. While Waters is a progressive, she is neither a senator nor a committee chairman, and if you want to list her, then you would have to list the 100 or so other people who have been in the caucus. In fact a list can be found in the appropriate article. TFD (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Where did I ever say Clinton and Obama were part of the progressive caucus? I never stated that. I provided non-refutable citations by them IN THEIR OWN WORDS describing themselves as progressives. The first removal several months ago was done without explaination, and thus I reverted. The second removal was done as a specific target against me, not against the content. When an editor selectively picks three additions I made a year ago to remove on the basis of not being cited, but leaves the rest of the names there also without citation, it is clearly a target against my additions, even though mine carried the same (and MORE) rationale for being added. As I was clearly being personally targeted, I have strong arguments to consider that a vandalism of my edits.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The article listed notable members of CONGRESS, not the U.S. Senate. Waters has been a CONGRESS member (House) and member of the Progressive caucus since the 90's.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are we listing members of Congress at all? The most famous progressives in U.S. history have come from various branches of government, including the presidency, state governors, senators, etc. By no stretch is Al Franken one of the most notable progressives in the U.S., for example. I suggest dropping the list completely. We have a whole article on the topic where readers can get details of notable progressives from across the history of progressivism. None of the other national sections list current progressive politicians in the lower houses of their legislatures.   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 1 January 2011 (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)

Because they do not self-identify as or are considered progressives. TFD (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Read the very first entry in this discussion. Both identify themselves as progressives. Why is the left desperate to change history on this? --216.114.194.20 (talk) 17:28, 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)

you are ONLY targeting my additions. As I have said numerous times. only one other in the list is sourced, yet you do not remove them. Following links to Waters/Pelosi's WP pages discusses their involvement in the Progressive caucus. ***Further deletion of my valid additions WILL be treated as vandalism. Please keep your political agendas out of Wikipedia.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please provide an explanation why you left the other unsourced names on the list, and only targeted my additions for removal. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remove those same names off the list on the Congressional Progressive Caucus WP Page. They are also unsourced.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed new edits that were clearly against policy. The fact that there may be problems with this and other articles is no justification to add unsourced text. Clinton and Obama were never progressive's. Clinton's husband was in fact associated with the New Democrats. Pelosi quit the Progressives when she became speaker. But it is not up to other editors to investigate unsourced claims. TFD (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

After researching TFD's long history of standing guard on his favorite political pages, ensuring that his thinly-veiled leftist ideology gets bullied through, this incident is starting to make more sense. To claim that Hillary Clinton and Obama are not progressives, when they both self-identify themselves as progressives borders on the absurd. Any attempt to post those citations will no doubt result in TFD starting a month-long war deleting citations as well. We need a non-partisan experienced editor to put a stop to TFD's ongoing blockade of subjects that appear to be damaging to his political ideology. he also needs a stern warning regarding targeting specific editors, instead of content. This incident proves this accusation. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We cannot determine on our own who is progressive or thinly veiled leftist or whatever categories - we need reliable sources. If you do not like that then please get the policy changed rather than argue across numerous articles. TFD (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Came here from a posting on WP:RSN. Any addition to the article will absolutely need to be sourced to a reliable source, and not just on the whim of what an editor thinks is appropriate or the WP:TRUTH. This is the core of the policy on verifiability. Yobol (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The posting is at WP:RSN#Progressivism. TFD (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD AGAIN reverted my additions, but did not remove other unsourced additions. This is my point. I have a document with notes of all of the relevant citations needed from actual transcripts, etc for inclusion in this WP section, but I am trying to prove a point. 1) TFD has a history of being reprimanded for NPOV left-wing political activism on WP. 2) TFD is ONLY cherry-picking three individuals on this list that he for some reason does not want to be publicly listed as being progressive, perhaps because in the USA 'progressive' has started taking on an increasingly negative public opinion in the past couple years. That's the only reason I can think of. My point here is why is TFD not removing ALL members from this list, since NONE are sourced, and only targeting these three, when the others on the list do not meet the requirements for the same policy?

Here's the sources I am ready to create, but should I even go through the trouble, as I fully expect an edit war on my citations as well?

Hillary Clinton

CNN / YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc

Transcript:

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..."

Maxine Waters (Founding member of the Progressive Caucus)

Congressional Progressive Caucus membership:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71&sectiontree=2,71

Barack Obama

Town hall meeting in suburban Atlanta during 2008 campaign:

NY Times Partial Transcript:

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)

You are just Google-mining for sources to support your views. H. Clinton and Obama were never members of the Progressive Caucus, and you would need sources that describe them that way. Waters of course is a progressive, notice that she is highly critical of Obama, but does not have the stature of other progressives. TFD (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Google mining people quoting in their exact words??? Obama says " I am no doubt a progressive", but TFD is saying that Obama was incorrect about describing himself? TFD, I am not sure what ideology or people you are trying to protect here, but your fixation on trying to protect these three WELL-KNOWN and DEEPLY DOCUMENTED progressives is beyond absurd. So absurd, that any further removal of my PROPERLY CITED additions will lead me no choice but to file yet another NPOV complaint to add to your resume of using WP as a leftist propaganda platform. I halfway expect TFD to now start advocating for removing ALL names, since the only cited ones are the ones he is desperate to hide from public view.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please avoid personal attacks and false statements about other editors in your talk page discussion and edit summaries. If Obama called himself a libertarian, would you add him to the liberarianism article? TFD (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

referred for mediation. I'm not playing TFD's game any longer.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Incoming moderators, please note the name of the list involved: "Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included..." This means current and FORMER, which is a detail TFD is not grasping here.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Better definition

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)

Neutrality

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)

That's not true. In the US, conservatives don't want real reform. They want things to stay the same or to return to a previous state. They might want to reform corrupt institutions but that's not what we're talking about here. Besides what you're claiming makes no sense anyway. A neutral sentence isn't neutral because it isn't specific? What? Dr. Morbius (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• The opening sentence works and does not appear to have any neutrality issues. You can't read that opening phrase without taking into context the end of that same phrase, as well as the second sentence. This looks to me to properly provide the context for differentiating Progressivism from some other type of "ism". I agree with Morbius, above, that the argument for non-neutrality contains no context which is in any way descriptive or could be properly written about, short of some completely new research. So unless there is/are some other POV issues, or unless a proper context can be summoned to remove any POV from that opening sentence -- I'll be removing the neutrality tag in about a month. 10stone5 (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is true indeed, I came here to write exactly this so I support this claim. The opening sentence is not a real differentiator of progressivism.

For example, the opening sentence makes injustice to other isms by misleading people into thinking other isms do not want to advance science.

Also these claim are baseless, so please support them by concrete examples and data. As far as I can tell, progressivism advances science in accordance to a political agenda, so it is misleading readers to think progressivism advances the human kind for beneficial purposes. Otherwise, please base your claims. 147.235.199.20 (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2022 (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)

Added a context sentence, removed tags as they were both about the lede and not actively under discussion. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As much as I abhor involving myself within the debate of semantics and duckspeak of politics, this article is undoubtingly bias.

Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring gradual social, political, and economic reform.

By what measure is it "gradual"; in relation to what? The article states it's left-wing, so is it gradual in comparison with a socialist revolution or social liberalism? And the term "reform" used in this context is a sweet nothing: reform is the rule of politics, what party in which country promises to maintain the broad status quo? This sentence places the reader in no stead to understand the philosophy, and the rest of the article is thereafter a concatenation of a very broad spectrum. --Inops (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Section: 2 By country, 2.6 United States

• 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)

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)

Relation to other political ideologies

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)

Minor edits to Canada

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)

Done. Thanks for the corrections! BryanG (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-progressivism

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. And many progressives opposed the New Deal, while many non-progressives supported it. TFD (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The opposite of progressive is reactionary.

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)

Bogus title

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)

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)

Very biased statement in the intro of this article, not neutral

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Progressive" as autonym

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)

"Progressive-conservative" oxymoron

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)

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)

"Modern progressives now tend to describe race as merely a social construct"

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)

Confused/conflated topics?

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)

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)

More coverage of opposition of progressives and recent setbacks of progressives

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)

That's a lot of WP:CRYSTALBALL better suited to anything other than an Encyclopedia. Koncorde (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as the exact strength of the major segments of the right-wing political spectrum that would be speculating. Also, I would not want to project into the future given that politics has been more volatile in recent times.

But currently the article lacks context as it does not adequately address the various right-wing factions who oppose progressives. It also doesn't address the issue of the left-wing politics suffering some setbacks as of late.

It would not be hard to incorporate this material into the article.

For example, below are reliable sources relating to this matter:

"It was Fortuyn who blazed the trail for the new generation of far-right leaders across Europe. He may not have intended to be a pioneer, but his brand of plain-spoken political incorrectness and his depiction of Islamic culture as a “backwards” and reactionary threat to the hard-won progressive values of western Europe would provide a potent template for a modernised far right." - The Guardian, 2016[1]

US election: Trump and the rise of the alt-right, BBC, 2016

Rise of the nationalists: a guide to Europe’s far-right parties, New Statesman, 2017Knox490 (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Since this article is more about how the term progressive has been applied then about any specific ideological group, that level of information would be out of place. The answer to your question would depend on whether "progressive" means the left of the Democratic Party, the whole Democratic Party or the Democratic Party and Republicans who are not right-wing or left-wing extremists. The Guardian quoted above for example refers to "the hard-won progressive values of western Europe," which basically incorporates the ground between communism and fascism. TFD (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The liberalism article is longer than the progressivism article. Why not expand the scope of the progressivism article so it is a more useful article. Progressives still exist just as liberals still exist. So naturally many people will want a more informative progressivism article.

The liberalism article has a section entitled "Criticism and support". Why not do the same for the progressivism article? Knox490 (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not the same thing. Progressive is a term that can mean different things, which are better covered in their own articles, per disambiguation. Liberalism for example can be called a progressive ideology. And criticism sections are discouraged. TFD (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Source reliability

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)

Neutrality

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)

Should this be merged to progress?

This reads like another fork of progress... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

NPOV concerns

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)

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)

Woodrow Wilson as progressive, but promoter of Jim Crow laws

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)

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)

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)

Progressivism; ¿The final revisionist of the politic culture?

Perhaps on XXI , we know it 2800:430:1200:B062:9D55:CD26:D49A:4918 (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead issues

@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)

Okay, I guess we'll just leave a verifiably false lead, then (since e.g. the Nazis also introduced a lot of political reforms, yet I don't think anyone would argue that they are progressive).Rhosnes (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

To be verifiably false it would have to be verifiable, but even with sources, that conflates two separate issues.

If you have reliable sources which describe progressivism as attempting to dismantle cultural norms, and these sources indicate that this is the single most important aspect of progressivism so that it belongs in the first sentence, let's see them. From that, we can modify the body of the article to explain this.

This would have nothing to do with the reforms the Nazis purportedly introduced. By the logic of your proposed lead sentence, the Nazis would still be labeled as progressive, so your proposal doesn't solve the underlying problem. The Nazis violently attempted to reform or dismantle social and cultural norms in human society based on their selective application of who counted as human. For topics as complicated as these, readers will need to read past the very first sentence to get a clear understanding of the topic.

Unfortunately a lot of people do argue that they were progressive. We have Talk:Nazism/FAQ because of this kind of thing. That's just one reason we need to avoid WP:OR to the first sentence of these articles. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have enough time to scour paper after paper just to convince you to correct an obvious falsehood, but Encyclopedia Britannica mentions social reform as a defining quality of progressivism.

"The Nazis violently attempted to reform or dismantle social and cultural norms in human society based on their selective application of who counted as human"

They didn't reform or dismantle any norms that already existed in *German* society. Those whom the Nazis targeted were either culturally distinct from Germans (Jews, Roma) or violated/challenged existing social norms (socialists, LGBT). You could certainly argue that the Nazis violated many ethical norms (although even that is questionable given the atrocious precedent that the communists had set), but Hitler clearly explains that these unethical decisions were a means to end; it's highly doubtful that the Nazis viewed unethical norms as inherently and universally improving human societies.

"For topics as complicated as these, readers will need to read past the very first sentence to get a clear understanding of the topic."

Frankly, it isn't that complicated. Fundamentally, there isn't much more to progressivism than a belief that the abandonment of certain social norms in exchange for increased social liberty or equality can be beneficial for society. But this ─ unlike my proposed change ─ is indeed WP:OR, and therefore irrelevant. More relevant is that readers will NOT get a clear understanding of the topic by reading this article. Nowhere in the article are the core tenets of progressivism actually outlined or even hinted at (except in the egregiously misrepresentative lead); instead, the article just lists what people identifying as progressives happened to support throughout history. That obviously isn't sufficient to form a "clear" understanding of the topic, much less when progressives have supported positions as disparate as pro-eugenics and anti-social Darwinism. Rhosnes (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)