Captain's Quarters -

It's always exciting to read that Ronald Reagan is still a well liked president ... probably one of our top10 definitely ... I sure wonder what Reagan and his handlers would have done differently than this "president" in some MANY areas. It's hard for me to believe that Reagan would have ever gotten us stuck in Iraq for starters.

Thompson as Reagan ... closer than the other midgets in the race, but definitely not a Ronald Reagan.

Look for the Dems to come up with a little catchy phrase of their own ... "Bush Republicans" to hang around those republicans in office and running who applaud and defense this "president" Talk about a NEGATIVE!

It's interesting that "liberal" has become a bad word, requiring a shift to "progressive"... we can sure thank the right-leaning talk radio and blogosphere worlds for using "liberal" as an insult. The dictionary definition of "liberal" is actually quite positive.

As for "Ronald Reagan" being viewed so favorably: I guess people remain fond of cutting taxes and then borrowing mountains of money to stimulate the economy. Gotta love us... we will always take a free lunch when it's offered!

I think Ronald Reagan, the man, remains loved and for many good reasons... but this love for the man often obscures memories of some of his administration's actions... some of which were pretty negative.

Am I the only one who remembers that the Communist propagandists always referred positively to "Progressive elements" in the West. Hmmmmm, wonder why they were so flattering to "Progressive elements"?

I think it's time to package a candidate as a "Reagan Progressive".

Am I the only one completely sick of hearing candidates invoke Lincoln or Reagan to boost their image? I guess the numbers in this article indicate I am. Odd...it just comes off as shallow and pathetic anytime I hear a Republic or Democrat try it to dodge a question.

Blitzer: What would you do with health care?

Candidate: Wolf, I'm a Reagan Conservative.

Blitzer: You didn't answer the question.

Candidate: Sure I did.

The Democratic debates are almost more enjoyable just so I don't have those cringe inducing moments even if I disagree with the majority of what each candidate is saying.

Durn even the most prolific money donators to Dems causes go by the corporate name of Progressive Insurance.

It's a moving name game but if you look at it's underpinnings it purely socialism with a capital S.

They can try to hide it, wax it up really pretty , and soap it down all they want, but it still doesn't hide the fact of what they are.

The only question is how many voters can they fool.

Liberals Aren't.
Progressives Don't.

Would it be fair to say that Day Trader's are parasitic, non-productive leeches on society? Not really.

See, platitudes and name-calling don't create progress, either.

We're all Americans, even if we don't agree all the time. We can't lose respect for each other and we can't always go around thinking we're right.

Just remember... you could be wrong.

During last Monday’s Democratic Presidential debate, Senator Hillary Clinton indicated that she preferred to be called “progressive” rather than “liberal.” The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that is probably a good move--Americans are more receptive to the term progressive.

Kind of like the MSM calling al Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq "insurgents", eh? Calling those good folks who slaughter unarmed men, women and children "terrorists" is so ........ right-wing!

Incidently, there was a time when the MSM and their Democrat pets considered it to be the ultimate insult to link some person or organization to Ronald Reagan. Funny how the truth has a way of eventually setting us free.

Just a little something for the Kool-Aid Krowd to consider when pronouncing sentence upon President Bush and the Iraq War.

Liberal...??? Progressive...??? Lemme see... if it walks like a duck... and quacks like a duck, is anyone gonna call it a giraffe?

Lol. The term "liberal" gets bad reactions from the public. "progressive" doesn't yet. So the liberals want to be called "progressive". Reminds me of when I was young. Mentally retarded people were "mentally retarded." Then they decided to call them "special." So the insult name amongst us kids, (used by us on each other, mind you, not the ACTUAL retarded kids ), changed from "retard" to "special". Wonder how long it will take before liberals don't want to be called "progressive" because the public sees THAT name as a negative. Wonder when the liberals will figure out that whatever you call liberalism, it doesn't work, and the general public knows it, and will disapprove of whatever label used to describe the same old manure.

If only we had someone in the race that believed in limited government, low taxes, strong defense, and national rights.

The dems have been trying to change their name for years. It doesn't matter. All the Reps have to do is use the phrase tax and spend after whichever name they are using. Progessive tax and spend. Liberal tax and spend. same thing. Reps just have to sell that message over and over and over. People are less stupid then the politicians give then credit for.

How stupid does a likely voter have to be to think that Progressive, Liberal, Lefty, Democrat are any of them NOT Socialists, and that one name is better than another?

Reminds me of one Bible Translation that tried to get very correct in some areas, and far distant in some others, who called the Rose of Sharon a crocus.
That didn't go over well, either. And yes, a rose IS a crocus.

Blithering Socialists.

A Bad Idea in Search of an Attractive Name

A rose is a rose is a rose ...

And a Progressive is a Liberal is a Socialist is a Communist.

This is the third iteration of the Progressive theme and meme in the last century. The original manifestation of Progressive thought had a genuine concern for social welfare in a more primitive social and economic environment. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican President, was a leading political embodiment of the Progressive movement in the early Twentieth Century. Much progress was made in social justice during this period.

The Great Depression was a time of stress and strife, and serious consideration was given to radical political solutions for the problems, not only in the USA, but world-wide. In America, fascism attracted adherents (Charles Lindbergh, notably) and Socialism/Communism had a wide following among the usual suspects; the media, academics, and politicians. Communists/Socialists tried to hijack the government in America as they had done in Russia a few years before. Mindful of the mass murder and destruction that marked the early years of the Soviet Union, the American people firmly rejected Socialism as a model for their polity.

Henry Wallace was FDR’s Vice-President during FDR’s third term. Wallace actively promoted Communism as Vice-President. Wallace’s policies were controversial and unpopular, and Wallace was taken off the ticket for the 1944 elections to be replaced by Harry Truman. Roosevelt died scant weeks after Roosevelt/Truman were inaugurated for Roosevelt’s fourth term; we missed having an active Communist sympathizer for President by that small margin.

Wallace ran for President in 1948 on the Progressive Party ticket (the second iteration of Progressivism in the USA), and was soundly defeated and repudiated, taking no Electoral College votes, and showing modest strength only in (where else?) New York and California.

“American radicals and socialists began calling themselves `liberals’.”

- F.A. Hayek, 1960.

Having failed to impose their Collectivist philosophy on the American people while calling themselves Communists, Socialists, or Progressives, the Collectivists adopted a new name: Liberals. As practiced by the Collectivists, the Liberalism of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s was extremely illiberal.

Liberal values originated in Europe during the Enlightenment, and grew to fruition in the founding of the United States of America; the finest statement of liberal values is contained in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States of America, the first ten Amendments.

So why do Collectivists, until recently known as “Liberals”, campaign so hard against liberal ideas like free speech (First Amendment, talk radio) and self-defense (Second Amendment, right to keep and bear arms)? Because you can’t impose Collectivist policies on people who are free to say what they want and who can defend themselves and their values. The Collectivists want to impose social controls as Lenin did in the early Soviet Union, and as the Socialist bureaucrats are doing now in the EUSSR.

Communist, Socialist, and Liberal have become terms of disapprobation in the United States over a period of decades, and the Collectivists are desperate for a new term without negative connotations. The best they can come up with is a revival, for the third time, of the tired old “Progressive” label.

"What’s in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet."

- Juliet, in Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare, 1594

And by whatever name they call themselves, Collectivists are rotten and depraved enough to gag a maggot. Collectivists actively seek the destruction of the individual and individual values in favor of a universal set of values that subsume the individual in rules and bureaucracy, as envisioned in the concept of the “New Soviet Man”.

The corruption and inefficiency of Socialist efforts everywhere should have destroyed Socialism as a viable political philosophy, but it has not. Communism/Socialism/"Liberalism"/ Progressivism must be confronted anew in each generation if human freedom is to prevail.

Or maybe the Collectivists will run out of names. Perhaps they could call themselves “Know Nothings”, a name with historical validity in the United States, and which aptly describes their philosphy.

I'm not surprised people think of Reagan fondly. People remember the things he accomplished during his presidency.

He promised to get a stagnant economy moving again, and he did it. He promised to continue the fight against the expansion of communism worldwide, and he did it. He promised to strengthen our declining military, and he did it. He promised to strengthen America's financial and political influence globally, and he did it. He did all this and a lot more.

Reagan was a man of vision and strength. That's why he's remember and that's why people think favorably of him.

If "Liberal" = "Communist" does "Conservative = Fascist"???

I sure hope not... this country was founded by liberals and is founded on liberal principles.

According to http://www.answers.com/topic/liberalism, liberalism means “A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.”

Some of you love to hurl platitudes and inflammatory labels and you don't even realize that American Conservatives seek to conserve the very thing they demonize: the liberal principles this country was founded on. I'm not talking about socialized medicine or free pot on Sundays, I'm talking about a government for the people and by the people... a government that stays out of my private life and whose rights do not supercede my own.

Every time you guys vote for candidates beholden to big oil, insurance, banking or HMO's or pharmaceuticals, you vote against your own interests (unless you own a lot of stock in these enterprises) and you vote for a corporatocracy... you know the whole clan that has reaped Billions from the war in Iraq.

So, keep on throwing out terms like "wacko", "leftie", "commie", etc. That's what the big money in this country wants you to do... fight and vote against your own interests.

Senator Hillary Clinton indicated that she preferred to be called “progressive” rather than “liberal.”

I'm sure she wants to be as removed as possible from the liberal tag.
Progressive sounds so much more enlightned........LOL

"....this country was founded by liberals and is founded on liberal principles."

oh my gawd, that is too funny. I spit my cornflakes onto my keyboard.

Not too familiar with the Constitution, are you Mrs. Smith. LOL.

Smith -

"....this country was founded by liberals and is founded on liberal principles."

Absolutely correct.

That is why the "socialists and radicals" began calling themselves "Liberals" about 1960, after they could not gain power when calling themselves Communists, Socialists, or Progressives. But the liberalism on which this country ws founded has nothing to do with the leftists who called themselves "Liberals" in the last half of the Twentieth Century. Recent Liberal leftists are a totally illiberal lot, and the American people have recognized this.

Now the American people have come to understand that a bunch of so-called Liberals have a destructive anti-American Socialist agenda, and the term "Liberal" has become a big negative for leftists. So now the leftists are in search of a more positive name to call themselves, and have come down on "Progressive".

Most people do not remember that the Communists called themselves "Progressive" during the Great Depression and through the 1948 Presidential election. This coincides with the Communists' decision to begin calling themselves "Liberals" before about 1960.

Whatever positive effect the leftists now gain from changing their label to Progressive may not last long, as the negative connotations of "Progressive" is well-documented during the 1930s and 1940s time period.

The leftists' game of musical labels is a loser. If the leftists would just call themselves Communists, it would have the advantage of being honest, and everyone would understand the joke.

Bitter Pill... sorry that you made a mess with your corn flakes.

Language is a devilish thing, isn't it?

This topic is interesting because it revolves around our differing interpretations of language. It is apparent that, to you, the word "liberal" means something very close to "socialist" or "communist"... and you're not alone as the right wing propaganda in this country has made it their battle cry for the last couple of decades.

I was simply stating that, according to the strict definition of "liberal", that this country was founded on liberal principles. I even stated the definition before I made the statement.

In case you're interested, here's how the same source defines Conservatism...
[QB]The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.[/QB]

You see, the Conservatives back then did not want to separate from England.

Fascism..
[QB]A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.[/QB]

Oligarchy...
[QB]Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
Those making up such a government.
A state governed by a few persons.[/QB]

Socialism...
[QB]Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.[/QB]

Finally, Communism...
[QB]A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.[/QB]

These terms get thrown around a lot, and few people can define them accurately. Ted Kennedy is not a communist or even a socialist... Nancy Pelosi, isn't either... they are liberals with views not too different from the "social democrat" governments in much of Europe, but they aren't commie pinkos. I know that those on the right get very upset when they are referred to as Fascists... same thing applies there.... don't use the term if you don't know what it really means.

These terms get thrown around a lot, and few people can define them accurately. Ted Kennedy is not a communist or even a socialist... Nancy Pelosi, isn't either... they are liberals with views not too different from the "social democrat" governments in much of Europe, but they aren't commie pinkos. I know that those on the right get very upset when they are referred to as Fascists... same thing applies there.... don't use the term if you don't know what it really means.

Posted by: M Smith at July 29, 2007 6:48 PM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

They are Communists - who get their agenda from Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin.

PERIOD.

We all know it, because we all know about Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin, so their modern fan base is quite transparent, no matter what they choose to call themselves - we know them when we see them trying to tear America to shreds. WITHOUT A VOTE ON THEIR FAVORITE POLICIES.

Smith -

You forgot to provide a definition for "Progressivism", and your understanding of history is woefully deficient.

Hillary has changed her label from "Liberal" to "Progressive", based on poll results. But are Liberal and Progressive the same thing? Or did she make a fairly major shift in her political philosophy because the polls told her that Progressive sounded better? Or is she as Liberal as always, but calls herself Progressive, pandering for votes?

Going back in history, Henry Wallace, FDR's VP during the third term, was an active supporter of Communism, and passed intelligence to the Communists during WWII.

But the domestic Communists during the Great Depression and during WWII called themselves Socialists or Progressives, because no one trusted Communists. Then Wallace ran for President on the Progressive ticket in 1948. Are Communists and Socialists and Progressives the same thing? They were certainly the same people at mid-century.

Now Hillary says she is Progressive. Like Wallace?

"(T)he right wing propaganda" had absolutely nothing to do with the various name changes within the leftist movement. Starting about 1930, the Communists quit using the term Communist, and started calling themselves Socialists or Progressives. Nobody bought that, so after Wallace's defeat in 1948, these same people began calling themselves Liberals, thereby hijacking one of the proudest names in American and Western history. Now the American people understand that the Liberals are illiberal, and - Ha! - time for another name change.

But is it a good idea for Hillary and the leftists to start calling themselves Progressives? Progressives were widely known to be Communists just a few decades ago.

All your nit-picking definitions are meaningless when we are talking about a single continuum of leftist persons and thought going back over seventy years.

Lago,

My "nit-picking definitions" are certainly NOT meaningless. This discussion is about terminology and political labels. Looking at what the words actually mean is pretty damned important, I think.

Your interpretations of these words carry a great deal of meaning as well. The fact that you consider Hillary Clinton a Marxist speaks volumes within the context of this topic.

Smith -

Sheesh!

"My "nit-picking definitions" are certainly NOT meaningless. This discussion is about terminology and political labels. Looking at what the words actually mean is pretty damned important, I think."

Henry Wallace supported, big time, Communist efforts in the 1930s and 1940s. Then he ran for President on the Progressive Party ticket in 1948 because he could get no traction as a Communist or a Socialist.

Hillary has just come out in favor of a "political label", Progressive, that was thoroughly rejected by the American electroate over fifty years ago because of its association with Communism.

I said absolutely nothing about Hillary being a Communist. This is what I said:

"But is it a good idea for Hillary and the leftists to start calling themselves Progressives? Progressives were widely known to be Communists just a few decades ago."

So I am very curious as to why Hillary picked a political label with strong Communist association.

I really don't care one way or another what Hillary calls herself. I object to Hillary and the leftists changing their label for political reasons, in order to confuse the electorate. This has happened four times (Communist, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, and now Progressive again) in the last eighty years in the USA.

The Progressive and Liberal labels had an honored history in the United States before Lenin, and were hijacked by the leftists to gain credibility after they discovered that almost no one would vote for a Communist or a Socialist. Now "Liberal" has developed a negative connotation, so they go back to "Progressive"???

The leftists are not interested in "what the words actually mean", but in how many people they can succeed in confusing, with the object of gaining political power.

If the leftists are not trying to confuse people, why don't they just call themselves Communists and see how many votes they get?