quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

...and the rhetoric that seeks to take hold, merely to polarize.

Liberalism: noun
The quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.

The political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual with parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, with governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

[initial capital letter, i.e. (L)iberal] the principles and practices of political liberals.

Also described as a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.

Conservatism: noun
The quality or state of being conservative, as in behavior or attitude.

The  political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual with parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent limited modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, with governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

A disposition of the principles and practices of conservatism, i.e., the  doctrines,  beliefs, principles and practices of the conservative party, to preserve or restore what is established  and traditional and to limit change in political, social, or economic institutions.

(initial  capital  letter, i.e., (C)onservative) the  principles and practices of political  conservatives.

Progressivism: noun
The  quality or state of being progressive, as in behavior and attitudes.

(initial  capital  letter, i.e., (P)rogressivism)  the  doctrines  and  beliefs  i.e., principles  and  practices of the Progressive  party. (denoting a form of change as in political progress)

A progressive education (civil) originating in 1855 from a national education reform (1830's) taken from Prussian classrooms and where relevant, models of political and civil institutions.

This OP as it pertains to a previous post #74, and specifically as a response to a rather starkly vague or in fact meaningless diatribe against liberalism and progressivism, as the enemy, one is advised, because [his] reasoning leads him to believe [they] lean toward tyranny and authoritarianism.

Now aside from the fact that 'protein' however Mr. Fish (or the link) may have intended to use the word, has in fact nothing whatever to do with politics, policies and political ideology, having only to do with biology, I add his use of the word restrictive in the sense...he has a very restrictive intellect as proven to me by relying upon such esoteric and meaningless terms to obfuscate with such drivel.

Whose ideas were these ? A bold stand against that era’s most powerful corporations and supported and pursued many issues such as anti-trust policies, workman's compensation, child labor laws, minimum wages, maximum workweeks, workplace safety, voter recalls and referendums, Wall St. transparency, graduated income and inheritance taxes, environmental conservation and public disclosure of campaign donations. Yes, progressive republicans. How you may ask ?

In fact, it was progressive policies that gave birth to the republican party. The first was various compromises on slavery. Then when elections of other parties through 1854, had failed to satisfy the abolitionist tendencies, three parties morphed into the republican party. I won't here go into how the parties morphed in the 20th century to actually take the other party's issues but they did.

I mention all of this as rebuttal to the ridiculous notion that there are assumed stark differences between people, irrespective of their choice in their political parties, when there simply is not. What seems to have taken hold is extreme rhetoric. Most of that rhetoric is concocted merely to increase the public's tendency to politically divide. It's much easier and politically polarizing to call your neighbor a socialist, a communist or worse, if you were against the war in Iraq...a traitor, then it is to call him say...misinformed or even judging what one might believe to be the facts...wrongly.

The very idea as promoted by Mr Fish, in that Liberals and progressives are merely concerned with govt.'s institutional power of coercion in the codifying statues somehow forcing a redistribution of wealth, even calling it theft, is absolute hogwash. The idea, to merely have you believe that philosophy to such an overriding extant, leads to tyranny and the most likely place for fascism or a complete state control of society, that thus renders these so-called Progressives and Liberals as the enemy...is patently ridiculous and further seeks to divide and not through a philosophical difference...but fear.

I'll go further in a future OP but suffice it to say. Don't believe any of the extreme rhetoric and that's one reason why I have steadfastly stayed out of it. I simply judge the message, use all sources and care not...for the messenger.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Liberalism, therefore never developed as a philosophy by which a society is created, is was created as a political
weight against the overwhelming force of business and especially as it relates to any continuing business contributions
to society, i.e., the failure of conservatism...no longer in its original form.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Liberalism, therefore never developed as a philosophy by which a society is created, is was created as a political
weight against the overwhelming force of business and especially as it relates to any continuing business contributions
to society, i.e., the failure of conservatism...no longer in its original form.

Not sure what you're saying here, because Liberalism has its roots in 16th century English society. Thomas Hobbes and a century later John Locke. The idea that there is no divine right of kings and the social contract.

Thomas Hobbes was more conservative in his 'brutish life' view.

But the foundation, certainly of John Locke's views, was a reaction to civil and religious strife.

Nothing to do with business or government. More to do with a divided people and the only way to resolve the issue was tolerance - according to John Locke.

So, the very, most empathic, foundation of Liberalism is your average man on the street being tolerant of his neighbour. Something that has held up today.