Labels

Filed under: Conservatives — Pete Abel on July 27, 2007 @ 9:24 pm CEST

At the CNN/YouTube debate, Hillary outright walked (ran) away from the term “liberal” and bear-hugged “progressive” as her preferred moniker.

Other “progressives” apparently agree.

I suggested at CS, this afternoon, that maybe it’s time for conservatives to do the same, especially those (like me) who prefer the conservative paradigm articulated by Andrew Sullivan.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

9 Comments »

  1. 1 Alan

    July 27, 2007 @ 9:52 pm CEST

    What about “stingy” or “old-fashioned”? ;)

  2. 2 in2thefray

    July 27, 2007 @ 10:18 pm CEST

    Historically speaking Hilary is a Progressive. The Progressives were BIG into BIG government. Big on ignoring the Constitution ? No problem the current Bush/Cheney schism rates second place easy to the early Progs. Hil has told the truth when she termed herself a Progressive.

  3. 3 Interested

    July 27, 2007 @ 10:19 pm CEST

    It’s amazing how a little word change makes a difference when thought is put to it - it shouldn’t

    People ike Pre-Owned over Used. and now Progressive over Liberal.

    Course you can always tune up a car.

  4. 4 BGG

    July 27, 2007 @ 11:28 pm CEST

    I commented on this language quite some time ago (I believe it was on this blog) and received replies to the effect of, “oh no, it’s not a trick, it’s really a more appropriate word…” or some such. Whatever. I still consider it a cheap marketing trick, and if conservatives can think up a more marketable, palatable, smooth-talking label they should go for it. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  5. 5 Rich Horton

    July 27, 2007 @ 11:36 pm CEST

    Well, if no one is using it, why don’t the Republicans start to call themselves “liberal”?

    It is a word with a fine pedigree (fine at least way back in the day) and it would have the added bonus of making a hell of a lot more sense to our European friends.

  6. 6 mikkel

    July 28, 2007 @ 2:59 am CEST

    I call myself progressive and not Liberal because I believe in basic “equality” and security for everybody as a primary goal. I’m almost pretty much a moral relativist, internationalist and think that global development is extremely important.

    But I’m not a Liberal because I think that free markets are the best way to accomplish most of the goals, (just need some more progressive minded companies) the government should be pretty small, and teaching people how to care for themselves (and setting up small community organizations to help them) is better than centralized programs. By “equality” I don’t mean equal outcome but equal opportunity, so I don’t fret if someone is failing of their own accord. This is why I have given and will continue to give to kiva but won’t give to charities that focus entirely on free aid unless there is a crisis.

  7. 7 mikkel

    July 28, 2007 @ 3:06 am CEST

    Oh yeah, I got yelled at Liberals because I also said that a flat tax could be made that is actually more “progressive” in that it would help the lower-middle income bracket save more easily and give people more control over their lives.

  8. 8 Xel

    July 28, 2007 @ 2:30 pm CEST

    The current GOP using the word “liberal” with more credibility than the DNC? Uh-huh. Uh-hu-hu-hu-hu-hu.

    I am glad that Hillary has chosen to separate her policies from the moniker “liberal” and opt for one that has more in common with “socialist”, which is good for actual liberals like me and also happens to be more truthful.

    Now, if only people would stop calling Bush and his admirers “conservatives”.

  9. 9 BGG

    July 28, 2007 @ 3:12 pm CEST

    Now, if only people would stop calling Bush and his admirers “conservatives”.

    LOL, good point Xel.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim) or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.


Editorial Staff

Editor-in-Chief: Michael van der Galien
Managing Editor: Jason
Assistant Editor: Claudia



 



Listen to PoliGazette Radio on internet talk radio




 

Proud member of Moderate Blog Network, a FeedBurner Network.

Recent Comments

  • Jay_C: Tough it out?  How can that be?  I’m confused, It’s either they need it (and worry about the...
  • Steve: No more First Amendment? — that is why Americans have a Second Amendment. Thugs may try to stiffle my...
  • Jay_C: I am forced to agree with this: " But compared to the cost of a depression, it’s still a steal at...
  • Jay_C: Question about this…The bailout failed the first time it was brought to the House.  Since the...
  • David: Welcome to socialism being shoved down the throat of a free market capitalistic economy. No one seems to be...

Partners

 

Your Ad Here