Watch that! I'll have you know I am a card carrying liberal.

http://www.theliberalcard.org/

To your point, in this case I think the contrast between progress and impeding progress is a powerful frame.

"officer, I wuz framed"? slogans. nothing but slogans, jingoism, hucksters, and con men.
present company accepted, of course

5. Morality and Economics Fit Together

Crises are times of opportunity. Budgets are moral statements. President Obama has put these ideas together. His economic program is a moral program and conversely. Why the quartet of leading economic issues—education, energy, health, banking? Because they are at the heart of government’s moral mission of protection and empowerment, and correspondingly, they are what is needed to act on empathy, social and personal responsibility, and making the future better. The economic crisis is also an opportunity. It requires him to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the right things to do.

bold, mine. raucous laughter, mine too.

The systemic nature of ecological and economic causation and risk have resulted in the twin disasters of global warming and global economic breakdown. Both must be dealt with on a systematic, global, long-term basis. Regulating risk is global and long-term, and so what are required are world-wide institutions that carry out that regulation in systematic way and that monitor causation and risk systemically, not just locally.
President Obama understands this, though much of the country does not. Part of his challenge will be to formulate policies that carry out these ideas and to communicate these ideas as well as possible to the public.

is this what Wall St contributions paid for? global regulation? interesting point. but does Lakoff have a clue?

The ACLU card is the card of the liberals, baby, and don't you forget it.

"Turning Japanese I think I'm Turning Japanese I really think so da-da-da det det det det" - The Vapors

Was instrumental in destroying the "liberal" brand.

there was a famous quote, which I believe was in Tip O'Neil's autobiography, about liberal values. & I've not been able to find the quote again. The quote was was very pointed.

Finding it & repeating it would be a way to re-establish the "liberal" brand.

I believe the quote was from a poster on his office wall starting

"I am a Liberal because:"....

and I'm not 100% sure it was Tip's quote.

maybe others will disagree, but i've understood these words to have distinct definitions. i don't have a real precise definition for 'progressive;' i take it as a general term implying that a person or point of view is somewhat to the 'left' of 'moderate.' yeah, that's vague, more a direction than an ideology, but still not without meaning.

'Liberal,' however, refers to acceptance or agreement with 'liberalism,' which is most definitely an ideology. my history may need correcting, but i think that liberalism originated in 19th century England; i think of Gladstone as it's first standardbearer (i've occasionally seen Edmund Burke described as the patriarch of liberalism, as well as of conservatism; i was never very convinced by this but i can't well remember the arguments). i can't think of any manifesto that clearly enumerated the beliefs of liberals, but i think of these beliefs as relating to individual rights. specifically, the important rights are a civil/political (NOT necessarily economic) equality and the right to property, as well as a fetishistic love of 'free trade,' which ties in somehow with the right to property. liberalism was, is, and always will be an ideology of merchants and capitalists, seeking the freedom of all to buy and sell their products.

in many ways these definitions are mutually compatible. however, when economic rights conflict with property rights, the liberals will always vote for property rights - regulate, don't nationalize, and certainly don't impair the transfer of commodities or capital across national boundaries. you'll never hear a liberal saying 'Buy American.' liberalism, as an ideology, is by no means incompatible with 'conservatism' as it's loosely used in the american media. there are plenty of liberal republicans.

obama, by this definition, is most definitely a liberal. many of his advisors, especially the ex-clinton financial people like Summers, are dyed-in-the-wool free traders. whether or not obama is a progressive - that's a more interesting question.

you may have to punctuate and link and cite sources and stuff for others tho. jesus, is it the hillbilly gene? :) Deep understanding and Lakoff seem like a contradiction in terms. But I'll be interested to hear what "force" Lux ascribes "progress" to besides empathy. Empathy didn't free the slaves. A fuckload of bloodshed and mercantilist and military strategy freed the slaves. but if the people wanna buy it....

there is a continuum ranging from far left to including right of centre.

Liberalism is not an ideology, it's based on liberal philosophers beginning before the birth of Christ. Within Liberalism, are Liberals that span large areas on the continuum.

Personalities seldom fit into neat little pigeonholes and people become impossible to peg as belonging within one grouping. On some issues, people change from one grouping to another.

However, there do tend to be dominant patterns that cause collectivity of attributes. But never should anyone prejudge about which position a person will take--people constantly surprise and destroy preconceptions.

Tip O`Neill was a fantastic politician--maintained relationships from both sides of the aisle. Wise people do retain mixtures of friends and interests that keep them apprised of differing opinions. Expanding one`s friends to peoples from other cultures helps broaden one`s viewpoint. Agonist accomplishes that to a limited degree and that`s the reason it`s such a fascinating place. Seeing SP`s travels and pictures does promote diversity. Life would be boring if everyone was the same and that holds true for marriage partners. Too much sameness dulls people. Scientific research indicates that minds thrive on novel experiences.

amen to that. labels obscure more than they clarify -clarify is the wrong word. they seem simply a too convenient shorthand. not necessarily a shortcut to thinking but often so. would we lump joe mccarthy and dwight eisenhower together as 'conservatives'?

Novelty and the dominator culture are two of terence mckenna's such 'shortcuts', but i think he wished for an endrun around labels.

i don't know about the progressive tag but neocon is pretty overused, but what different labels (plural) would one use in it's place, i wonder. doms comes to mind.

I don't know how prevalent it was in England, but on the Continent it was standard practice for the monarch to hand out monopolies on various businesses to the nobility. Especially trade in the colonies: Duke X had the monopoly rights to sell slaves in colony Y and salt in island Y. This "concession" practice was key in retaining a loyal noble class during the shift away from an all-agricultural economy.

A "liberal" trade policy meant that the government did not control trade. Thus, globalization is "Neo-Liberalism".

"Turning Japanese I think I'm Turning Japanese I really think so da-da-da det det det det" - The Vapors

Are for holding the salt when one eats fish & chips in bed.