Defining the meaning of “is” is too 90’s. The fun new words are “progressive” and “non-partisan.” Hattip to Andy who found this gem describing Forward Montana;
Forward Montana, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to electing a new generation of progressive leaders…
I am not going to knock anything Matt Singer does at Forward Montana, but to say a self-described progressive group is nonpartisan is a very tenuous stretch of the word.
I understand why groups like Forward Montana describe themselves as progressive and not liberal. Liberal are seen by the average Joe as being hopelessly out of touch and elitist; thus the liberals had to find a new more palatable label…progressive. After all who can be against progress?
Still I am fine with this, a phrase about pigs and lipstick comes to mind. But to say that progressives are nonpartisan is a farce. After all I believe it was the champion of the Progressive movement, Senator Paul Wellstone, who stated progressives represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.
*As an aside I am well aware of the historical context of the word progressive, but I would submit that modern progressives have very little in common with the legacy of early progressivism, namely Teddy Roosevelt.
Posted in Democrats, leftist thought | | Write a Letter to the Editor
I think the left is having some identity issues - liberal, progressive, populist… who knows anymore.
As a self-described Liberal I would argue this strongly; I am not much more fond of Democrats than I am Republicans. To say that I am a Democratic is very inaccurate; I do not feel represented in that party. However, it is important to note that partisan means ‘of a party’ and nonpartisan then means ‘not of a party’. Being a Liberal does not make you a member of the Democratic party so a group that advocates Liberal (or progressive) ideals is not partisan; the fact that Democrats happen to line up more than Republicans (from a policy standpoint) with Liberals is moot on the subject of party affiliation, with the word partisan speaks to directly.
Call it a coincidence if you like, but Conservatism and Liberalism are not intrinsically tied to any specific party; those ideologies are therefore inherently nonpartisan.
“Call it a coincidence if you like, but Conservatism and Liberalism are not intrinsically tied to any specific party;”
Ha ha ha. Yeah, that’s an awfully funny “coincidence.” You’re a laugh a minute, Colby, because you’re so “intrinsically” confused.
Conservatism and Liberalism are historically tied to specific parties.
Checker 7,
You claim, “Conservatism and Liberalism are historically tied to specific parties.”
What support do you offer as proof you are correct and Colby Natale, who said, “Conservatism and Liberalism are not intrinsically tied to any specific party”, is not.
Dave Butler:
Buy a basic American history text.
Colby here is the thing, if Forward Montana is dedicated to progressive leaders, do you really think those leaders will come from the Republican party?
When you come out and say you advocate electing leaders who adhere to a certain ideology, those individuals will be a member of a party, and progressives are almost always members of the Democratic Party. A couple Green Party members are out there I suppose.
There is nothing stopping a Republican from adopting and pursuing Progressive goals. Now, you are right; that probably won’t happen. However, that isn’t the fault of groups like Forward Montana, that is the fault of the Republican for not wanting to be Progressive.
Regardless, we have to call things by their true names. It is logically possible for a Republican to have Progressive goals, and from time to time it occurs. Likewise, it is possible to have Conservative Democrats; that also happens.
Forward Montana pursues ideological goals, and I am sure they would embrace candidates who supported those goals, Republican, Democrats, Green whatever. If there just happens to only be Progressives in one party, whose fault is that?
Colby I see where you are coming from, although your phrasing is a bit off I would say. Fault infers blame, which is often associated with a negative connotation, if you follow all of that. Thus I would not “fault” someone for the ideology they follow, it is something that strikes me as improper.
Anyway moving on, as I said I see where you are coming from, but the main objection I would make is that progressive ideas and goals line up almost exclusively with the Democratic party in our two-party system.
If you or Forward Montana are trying to elect new progressive leaders you will be pushing Democrats. I would continue to state that that goal - of electing progressives - makes Forward Montana partisan. Just like I consider Club for Growth a partisan group. These groups have their role to play, just be honest about it, Forward Montana would prefer one party over another because it shares their ideas.
