Unemployment

[Jester]

Unless you count Neo-Cons as a brand of militaristic progressives bent on bringing liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries (usually by force). Yes, they are very different from the GLBT, tree hugging, universal health care brand of progressives. Yet they have the same process, and philosophy, with different agenda's.

I don't know what the "same process" means. They certainly don't share the same philosophy, not even close. Different agendas certainly - this is rather the point, no? That their goals are not only different, but diametrically opposed?

You are holding tight to a two dimensional perspective of political affiliation. You are either left wing, or right wing, right?

That would actually be a one-dimensional perspective. And no, I don't. But you seem to be approaching a zero-dimensional view, where practically everyone occupies one point labelled "progressive".

But, if you look at the core political ideologies or philosophies, the US party system is just a brand which indicate which side of the middle you prefer.

My political horizons are hardly limited to the right and left of the United States. We are, however, currently talking about the US, so it makes sense to discuss it in terms that apply to that context. "Progressive" is one such term, describing a particular reformist branch of what is usually called the "left". It is not a global term to encompass everyone to the left of Grover Norquist.

So I take it you don't agree that progressivism is a philosophy of elitist egalitarianism?

"Elitist egalitarianism" is a naked contradiction - "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Most of the progressives I find appealing are profoundly anti-elitist, practical egalitarians, who see civil liberties and fundamental equality as compliments rather than contradictions. Expressed in political economy terms, they (and I) believe in the creation of a society where all people, regardless of the randomness of their birth situation, or the randomness of life's accidents, are given the ability to improve themselves as best they can. The broad context is freedom, both in economic and social terms. But this is balanced against the practical reality that freedom needs to be nurtured. Nature provides us with a profoundly unfree, unequal world, and society is our tool to fix that as best we can. This is a profoundly non-elitist philosophy - nobody is "better," and everyone should be enabled to develop their potential, whatever that may be.

The notion that Richard Nixon or George Bush would fit in this category is absurd.

-Jester