Talk:Progressivism in the United States/Archive 1

Hi
Hi, This article has almost nothing to do with progressive social and political movements in the U.S. Almost all of the discussion has to do with reform movements and populist movements of the left and right. The modern progressive movement in the U.S. certainly traces back to the coalition with liberals and some radicals to support FDR. It has almost nothing to do with campaign finance reform. To see a balanced review of issues important to contemporary progressives in the U.S., simply scan the articles at The Progressive magazine.  (Weird URL is transitional address while they move their website) This whole page needs to be rewritten from beginning to end. Let's talk. --Cberlet 20:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The disputed American Liberalism entry states that since "liberal" has become a word of disparagement, so many American liberals now call themselves "progressives." But coming to this entry to shed any light on the matter.

The neutralism of the American Liberalism is being disputed because authors over there have wildly different ideas of what constitutes a liberal (some even place Huey long, obviously a populist, in the liberal camp). For this "Progressivism in the United States" entry to serve, the distinction between progressive, populist, and liberal should be explained. -- Griot

Cberlet, the point of this article is to provide a history of self-titled U.S. "Progressive" political movements, not to describe the current, self-described U.S. "Progressive" political movement, which fore some is little more than an alternate title for mainstream liberal politics, and for others is used to describe a further left branch of left-wign politics. -- 15 September 2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.15.123 (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Progressive movement" of the early 20th century has nothing to do with what is called "Progressivism" today (i.e. left-liberalism). It was a totally different movement with totally different objectives. InsultComicDog (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll make the suggestion that historical early 20th century Progressivism and the modern understanding of Progressivism be separated into two different articles. Modern political Progressivism appears to be too emotionally charged and too easily confused with the historical version, which is quite different. It is comparable to the contrast between the modern Republican Party and the Jeffersonian Republicans.128.220.159.20 (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Major rewrite
Attempted to make the page read more clearly by moving the text about the two forms into single blocks for each form. Simple lead, removing uncited claims that were POV. This page could use some published cites.--Cberlet 13:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Prohibition and progressivism
Many early twentieth century Progressives supported Prohibition, but not all. For example, Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, one of the leading Progressives, was opposed to temperance and Prohibition. Many other leading Progressives, such as Theodore Roosevelt, were neutral on the issue. Woodrow Wilson seemed to be tepidly sympathetic but vetoed the Volstead Act (a veto overridden by Congress]], believing it to be a matter for the states not the federal government.


 * LaFollette was a Progressive, TR adopted some of their platform. Is there good reason to think the progressive movement, rather than TR's Bull Moose, supported temperance? JoshNarins (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger
See merger discussion on progressivism talk.


 * Merger was discussed and has been ultimately decided against.--Jackbirdsong 20:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Needless repetition
The second paragraph of the "Early Progressivism" section is almost identical to the first paragraph of the "Tenets of Early Progressivism" section. I think either of them should be removed.El Imbécil 17:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Statist or against individual liberties?
Was historic Progressivism in the US ever statist or against individual liberties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.212.182 (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. If taxation is the end of liberty, the Progressives supported the end of liberty. The Oracle of the American Republican, Montesquieu, said taxation was the price of liberty, so you are mostly dealing with Glenn Beck fans on the other side of this argument. The Progressive Parties were never for curtailing individual liberties, but they were for increased government. Compulsory schooling, for example, was part of American history, at least in Massachusetts, since nearly when it started as a colony. JoshNarins (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Progressivism was for blue laws, compulsory schooling, prohibition, regulation of markets, etc. The defining characteristic of progressivism is support for governmental (statist) solutions to social problems. Instead of the libertarian emergent order of voluntary society, it supported (and to this day supports) government imposed force over people. PhilLiberty (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Progressivism (historic early 20th century, please don't conflate) was also the political force behind Eugenics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by InsultComicDog (talk • contribs) 19:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Only if you regard the freedom to defecate on people as the most important aspect of freedom. BillMasen (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What about fascism?
It is truly a bit strange that fascism, American Progressivism's incestuous child, is not mentioned at all throughout the entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.149.167 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am unaware of any serious academic who makes that connection. I know Glenn Beck bangs this drum, every single day, but that doesn't make it so. JoshNarins (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See American Conservatism *chuckles* 67.164.68.182 (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

fascism doesn't have much to really DO with progressivism. maybe it says something about fascism's relationship with progressivism. yes, though, they COULD add a little bit at the end about how progressivism led to fascism...Spiritchik (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be mentioned that progressivism is closet fascism. PhilLiberty (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to cite someone to show this, use someone other than Jonah Goldberg. POV in this art. is far from neutral.--76.78.142.201 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No serious historian relates fascism to the progressive movement. Goldberg means by "fascism" federal action to suppress disloyalty in WWI. Actually, every government in world history suppresses anti-war activity in wartime. That makes Abe Lincoln (and Jefferson Davis) -and George Washington too--into fascists!Rjensen (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

alternative use
There's an somewhat unrelated use of the word. In the 1930's continuing through at least the 50s, the Communist party in the US (and I think elsewhere) used "progressive" as a code word implying some degree of support for their policies. Whether this was intended by them to be confused with the earlier use of the word is not clear to me, but throughout that period it tended to imply if not a fellow traveller, at least someone of whom the party approved in some manner. This will obviously need some sourcing, but I want to at least get the discussion started. . DGG (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Communists used the term progressive in the same way that it is used today. Progressives supported world peace, decolonization, trade unions, racial equality, regulation, etc.  Communists often worked with groups supporting these causes.  Many conservatives at the time thought that all these causes were part of an international Communist conspiracy, and this point of view continues among right-wing conspiracy theorists like Klansmen, John Birchers and American Nazis.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead Section
"In U.S. history, the term progressivism refers to a broadly-based, liberal reform movement that reached its height early in the 20th century. The initial progressive movement arose as an alternative to the conservative response to the vast changes brought by the industrial revolution." I removed reference to liberal and conservative because the terms are not applicable. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the changes by TFD.Speralta (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Observations

 * This article provides a well-documented and accurate accounting of the central tenets of the progressive era. Perhaps there is a need for disambiguation since much of the dispute appears to be arising from how the term has been used by different groups at different points in our nation's history, including the appropriation of the term by adherents of mainstream liberal politics?


 * The early progressive movement was very strongly invested in campaign finance reform and reducing corruption. .  Modern articles in the Progressive Magazine are in no way relevant to that history. Speralta (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. "Progressivism" generally refers to the c. 1900 - 1920 era, and not to the 1912, 1924, 1948 or modern Progressive Party or Progressive Democrats.  I suggest the article cover this subject only and merely reference the other groups.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [FASCISM]
Multiple references to strictly biased sources permeate this article. This includes Jonah Goldberg ref.s and calling progressivism synonymous to fascism. --76.78.142.201 (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * References are not biased simply because you disagree. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's the point of citation. We say, when something is Jonah's Goldberg's opinion, that "Jonah Goldberg asserts...", unless, as there is no reason to believe, he represents a consensus of reliable sources. This is for fundamentally the same reasons we do not say that he is a spoiled, overbred, nepotist of dubious learning and intellectual honesty, although there are printed sources for every one of those descriptors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I changed it to: Many, such as Johah Goldberg, consider progressivism, with its support for government regulation (as opposed to nationalization) to be essentially the same as fascism, but with a populist workers veneer. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many? You need a source for that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Anything other than anarcho-capitalism (otherwise known as chaos/constant murder/somalia) is closet fascism. Progressives certainly did sometimes discriminate against other religious and racial groups, but to shoehorn them into fascism is absurd. What about anti-progressives like Harry Byrd? Are all conservatives racists because it was conservatives defending the Jim Crow laws? BillMasen (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fascism is not necessarily about racism; Mussolini's govt had many Jews. But fascism always has corporatism. And corporatism is definitely a major point of progressivism. IOW progressive economic policies and fascist economic policies are identical - just sold to the dumb masses differently. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So, the biggest problem with Hitler was that he nationalised ore mining and set up a government-funded scheme where people could save up for volkswagens?
 * No one said that. I only assert that progressivism is a type of fascism, according to many who have studied the issue. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that this might be a fringe opinion? BillMasen (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Bottom line -- the fascism claim is a fringe argument unsupported by the body of the article and inappropriate for the lede. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a fringe claim. A one needs to do is google "progressivism fascism" and you'll see that many, many people agree with Goldberg's evaluation, and that many so asserted long before Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism. Here are a few supporting quotes:

During the 1930s H.G. Wells's theory of revolutionary praxis centred around a concept of ‘liberal fascism’ whereby the Wellsian ‘liberal’ utopia would be achieved by an authoritarian élite. Taking inspiration from the militarized political movements of the 1930s, this marked a development in the Wellsian theory of revolution from the ‘open conspiracy’ of the 1920s. Although both communist and fascist movements evinced some of the desired qualities of a Wellsian vanguard, it was fascism rather than communism which came closest to Wells's ideal. - Philip Coupland, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 35, No. 4, 541-558 (2000)

Beyond that, TR [Theodore Roosevelt], as he was commonly known, had a rare ability to make personal use of popular causes and resentments. It was the age of "progressivism," a vague term, but one that connoted a new readiness to use the power of government for all sorts of grand things. H.L. Mencken, the great libertarian journalist and close observer and critic of presidents, compared him to the German kaiser, Wilhelm II, and shrewdly summed him up: "The America that [Theodore] Roosevelt dreamed of was always a sort of swollen Prussia, truculent without and regimented within." - by Ralph Raico Fascism Comes to America

Although Wilson was more reluctant than contemporaries such as Theodore Roosevelt to enter the war, progressives inside and outside the administration hailed the war, when it came, as an opportunity to mobilize society into collective action under centralized state leadership. For the progressives, prosecution of the war was very much a means as well as an end unto itself. Renowned educator John Dewey remarked happily, “We shall have to lay by our good-natured individualism and march in step.” In practice, this meant “an industrial dictatorship without parallel,” to use the words of one War Industries Board member. The Committee on Public Information, the national propaganda office, regularly used demagogy. One liberty bond poster proclaimed, “I am Public Opinion. All men fear me!” The Sedition Act of 1918 banned expression of “any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States government or the military.” Meanwhile, the Postmaster General banned the circulation of close to a hundred periodicals. The Justice Department’s American Protective League (APL) had over 250,000 members by 1918. These APL personnel busied themselves with spying on neighbors and rounding up people who might have been draft dodgers. On the whole, the home front of the war to make “the world safe for democracy” saw a deterioration of the spirit of democracy, under the watch of the progressives. - Blair Nathan, The Left's Historical Baggage, The Stanford Review, April 17, 2009. PhilLiberty (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How about a separate article which discusses the relationship between Progressivism and Facism? BTW, you may consider Jonah Goldberg to be biased, but his book is full of contemporary quotes and independent references. Should be relatively easy to skip over citing Goldberg and just cite his sources directly.Doobie61 (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But all the article said (in my version) was that "jonah goldberg thinks...". I didn't present it as fact (nor is it). His book was reviewed and presumably you can find someone who says that goldberg is wrong. And what exactly is wrong with the Hamby quote? BillMasen (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no problem with the Hamby quote. The problem is that the quote was already in the article and you added it a second time.  If you check out my edit, you will see that even though I deleted your addition of it, it is still in the article.  As far as Goldberg, I certainly can find sources that criticize him -- if you followed the link to the wikipedia article on his book you will see the very strong criticism of it.  The problems with Goldberg are (1) his lack of credentials as a recognzed historian or political scientist and (2) the fringe nature of his work.  There is no raging debate among serious academics as to whether the historical definition of fascism should be rewritten to match Goldberg's take -- Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, et al (or the United States in general during the 20th Century) are not generally regarded by professionals as fascists.  This article is not the place to discuss the pros and cons of what is, in the first place, a fringe attempt at a redefinition of fascism.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Goldberg quote was added to the body of the article rather than the lede, but it is still inappropriate. As the reviews of Liberal Fascism at the wikipedia article (both positive and negative) show, it is primarily a work advocating a current political position. The reviews also show that Golberg is pretty much alone in arguing that fascism and liberalism are the same thing -- his view does not even represent a mainstream conservative criticism of liberalism. In no way does it belong in a section of the article defining the current wave of progressivism. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, if Goldberg's assertion is idiotic (and it is) then I would rather have it in the article that people are pointing out he's an idiot. Frankly, removing it gives respectablity to it. Since when did you have to be a reputable scholar to opine about politics or history? BillMasen (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is not whether anybody can “opine about politic or history” but whether their opinions are acceptable for articles in Wikipedia. Check out our policy at WP:SOURCES, in particular this section:


 * “Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.”


 * The “disagreement between sources” comment is clarified by this:


 * “All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.”


 * You might also want to check out WP:REDFLAG which states, “Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included.” Certainly the rewriting of the definition of fascism by Goldberg and equating it with the entire history of progressivism in the United States is an “exceptional claim”within the definition of this policy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the issue is that fascism is such a laden term that to use it, whatever you mean by it, will automatically carry with it connotations of some of the worst evils of the 20th century. It seems that what therefore frustrates some people, including myself, is the possibility that this is being purposefully done by people who are firmly anti-progressive. (Such as all the dittoheads in the world.)71.87.31.163 (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

List of progressive issues in lede
Here is a quote that was deleted by Gukguukk28.

"Among the many 'successes' of Progressivism were antitrust laws, state and national income taxes, increased business regulation, minimum wage laws, direct election of U.S. senators, creation of the Federal Reserve System, and prohibition of alcoholic beverages. - William L. Anderson, The Legacy of Progressivism"

In his edit summary, he writes, "rv : deletion of oriented content, non-neutral explanation for the origins of progressivism." How can a list of progressive issues be non-neutral? Is it the "scare quotes" which he objects to, or what? It seems to me that the quote is NPOV, regardless of scare quotes. Without scare quotes it would be POV as it would be declaring, success as a fact. PhilLiberty (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If I thought that PhilLiberty didn't know any better, I would point out that scare quotes are among WP:Words to avoid. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in WP:Words to avoid that says scare quotes are not to be used. Furthermore, WP:Words to avoid is referring to editor-created text and not to proper quotes from authorities. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote in question is fine IMO without the scare quotes since it fits in perfectly with the major theme of both the article and the lede -- progressivism as a reaction to the effects of industrialization and modernization. The problem is the attempt to treat Rothbard's politically motivated writings on an internet site with a clear agenda as if it represented a significant academic position. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote is not from Rothbard. It's from William L. Anderson. (Rothbard is a good source, but we'll argue that if/when it becomes relevant.) PhilLiberty (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the first footnote you added that was sourced to a Rothbard blog entry. The very first section of the article is "Tenets of early United States progressivism" and it has very specific identification and analysis of progressive issues. Why exactly in the lede should we ignore the actual content of the article and feature a fringe view unmentioned (probably justifiably) in the rest of the article? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm here as a result of a request filed at WP:EAR about what I assume is this dispute. Frankly, I don't understand the situation very well, but what I do understand is that continuing to revert the article itself to assert your preferred version, even if you aren't blatantly violating 3RR, is highly counterproductive and can still be considered revert warring. Please, be the bigger person and discuss this instead of reverting. And even if discussion is deadlocked, there are other options available. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have replied in detail at WP:EAR. Please note that the discussion section "NPOV dispute [FASCISM]" above is also part of this discussion.  Considering the content here plus the edit comments made when Phil was reverted there is no discussion deadlock -- four different editors have reverted Phl and nobody has come to support his position.  It is Phil against everybody else. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the previous section, I give some quotes supporting the claim that progressivism is closet fascism. The Rothbard quote links to LewRockwell.com, a reputable ezine, not a blog, and is a reprint of a chaper of a book (and was written long before the internet or blogs existed.) It is important to note the early progressive issues like blue laws, "Prussian system" education, anti-prostitution, etc. If these are not mentioned in the main text, they should be! PhilLiberty (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama
User talk:Highground79 reverted an IP addition of Barack Obama to a list of modern progressives. I have added a march 2009 Newsweek article by Eleanor Clift called "A Progressive Moment". That is just about as mainstream of an article as you can get. Here's a quote: "Obama calls himself a progressive." If you still disagree with calling Obama a progressive: find another source saying that he isn't and address the different points of view and note in the article that "commentators disagree over whether to call Obama a progressive."--Blargh29 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

All Inclusiveness
"Progressives also fought for the secret ballot and women's suffrage."

I love the fact that there is no citation on this lone sentence. The reason why, is because it's rather wrong. Some Progressives fought for the secret ballot. Some Progressives fought for Women's Suffrage. Most Progressives (at least in the late 19th - early 20th centrury) considered themselves part of a movement, not a political philosophy, and had different ideas as to what 'progress' constituted.

I'm just a simple country chicken, but it seems to me that someone should comb through this article and put a little more passivity into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 56.0.143.24 (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

on "progressivism" and "anti-Imperialism"
I notice on the internet, many of these self-proclaimed progressives tend to always, before and after Bush, oppose American foreign policy, in the name of "anti-imperialism/colonialism." I think there needs to be a part on the article about "progressivism"'s worldview. It tends to be extremely left wing, and out of the US mainstream, and you can see this on Daily Kos, Huffington Post, etc. Modern "progressivism" is more a far-left phenomenon, in terms of foreign policy.Tallicfan20 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How about showing both sides?
Are we interested in the truth or ideology?

Why don't we allow both sides to respectfully and fully define this subject and make it known that this is a disputed subject so that the truely objective reader can read both sides?

The definition of an open mind MUST include the principle of seeking the best argument on either side of a subject and making all decisions based on the most complete information set.

I agree we re-write. We already have the left's version, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.232.17 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

cross of gold
How do you have a political discussion of history of the progressive movement early 1900’s and have neutrality. Both major political parties and the talking heads of the left and the right view the progressives and the Bull Moose Party as a black eye. This was a center left party and very diverse group. But like all third parties or movements they had one major agenda social and economic changes was the progressive corner stone.

With the progressives we should look at what they fought for and what they actually accomplished:

8 hour day, succeeded and if you work more then 8 hours you are usually compensated more, although both the left and the right want to take that way from you.

Direct election of senators: succeeded I hope that all American contributors did get to use this off shoot of the progressive movement.

Primary education: My English might not be grammatically perfect but at least I can read and write just like everyone else contributing

Regulation and Trust busting: AT&T if it wasn’t busted up in the 80’s would have complete control over most of our internet which makes this discussion possible, if not for the regulation of trusts and monopolies, and the judicial decrees. While many of the progressives of the early 1900's would have a civil war over how it was done, all would agree it’s a good thing. I mean watch a movie or a TV show from before the brake up, and listen to the person telling the other person there is a long distant call, and then watch how fast they move. Now I get calls from India trying to sell me things.

Child labor laws: I wish they wouldn’t have succeeded; my two kids 11 and 13 could be supporting me right now.

The national parks and other public spaces: The last two presidents Bush and Clinton both added huge areas to this progressive idea. Bush added more areas under federal protection under his blue water program then any president in history

I do have issues with the last part of the article titled:

Contemporary progressivism

I would argue that this is not the modern equivilant of the early 1900 progressive movement. But I think that contemporary progressiveism is the evolution of ideas from the New Dealers and Great Society followers. Their historical roots may lay in the progressive movement, but by that logic you would also have to include them as the modern populist movement which as noted in the article only William Jennings Bryan is the only carry over into what we call progressives. I think many of the people listed would have issues being put in with loose money and loose credit circles of the populist, I think many of the people listed in this section would rather be nailed to “a cross of gold”

Other then the last section, I feel this was a very good overview of the progressive movement and as nutrual as it could be except for the last part.

I am sorry that I put some of my personal ideas, and a tad of humor into this. I didn't do any editing to the page, i will leave that to someone that can look up and verify what i said. just because its not wiki perfect doesn't mean what i say isn't true. This is also why i put it on the talk page not the main page.

Lostpl8 (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostpl8 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree the article should not claim that later "progressive" movements evolved from the original progressive movement. Lafollette and Wallace both supported TR's Progressive Party and Wallace's supporters would probably support today's progressives, but that only explains why each succeeding group of progressives found the description acceptable.  (I changed the article to reflect that).  I think that your description of the progressives as "center left" is incorrect.  They were trying to balance the interests of various groups in the US, while ensuring the country's economic and military strength.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would also agree that "center left" is inaccurate. Many progressives were actually quite conservative - some who wanted campaign reform were partially motivated by countering the growing immigrant vote in urban regions. I would contend that the progressives represented a coalition of interests with a broad base of support, rather than an actual ideology. 128.220.159.20 (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Biased and Self-Serving?
This article appears to be biased- it explains progressivism from within and without adequate criticism. The article found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era already describes progressivism in the United States. I recommend merging these two articles and adding criticism from without. Moreover, progressivism is not a thing of the past in the United States. With all the talk about progressives and Democrats, there's plenty of information to create an unbiased article about progressivism. 24.55.65.153 (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Progressivism originally referred to the movement in the early 1900s. The fact that subsequent groups have assumed the name is irrelevant.  It is hard to criticize progressivism because it was not a coherent ideology.  It's a bit like criticizing "Political ideology".  The two articles should not be combined as they are different subjects.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally the POV tag has stood for 12 months. i will remove it unless someone can provide reasons to keep it.  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Progressivism and the US Constitution

How progressives in America view the US Constitution would seem to be a fundamental and specific progressive trait. The Constitution is specific about limiting the power of government. Progressives want to take what ever power they need i.e. give government the power to enforce "fairness" where fairness is what the progressives define it to be. I would welcome a well written paragraph on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drayper (talk • contribs) 16:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * well the Progressives of 1900 read these words into the Constitution: "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare" -- so they tried to perfect the union by promoting general welfare and establishing justice. Critics said the words just quoted really did not mean anything. Rjensen (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As has already been stated, Progressivism isn't a pin point ideology. It is really hard to 'critique' it when they have opinions on many different things that are not all related. Honestly, I am pretty sure the people trying to add links to 'fascism' and stuff like that in the article have been watching Glenn Beck 174.114.231.69 (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Progressives fall in at least two categories, the German anti-corruption and the evangelical child-saver sorts which should be distinguished. But I would say looking over the long list of reading listed here, that altho not terrific, it is not bad, with few entirely worthless items.

"Reproductive rights"
An editor has changed "abortion rights" to "reproductive rights." This is perilously close to WP:WEASEL. No one that I know of has ever questioned a woman's right to "reproduce." I am aware of attempts of various states to prevent women from terminating a pregnancy, rather the opposite of "reproductive rights." Euphemisms are fine, as are politically correct wording, but calling abortion "reproductive rights" is a bit much IMO.Student7 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The term reproductive rights has a specific defined meaning (broader than the right to abortion), even if it may seem to contain an inherent bias. The term "abortion right", like "gun rights" is poor English.  TFD (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but if the context is referring to abortion, then it needs to be clearer...-- Novus Orator 07:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the edit at issue is this one, which changed "easy access to abortion" to "reproductive rights" in a long list of issues which the article asserts (without citing supporting sources) can be included in modern issues for progressives. So, aside from the problem with unsupported assertions, the questions seem to be whether or not modern issues for progressives include reproductive rights, and whether or not "easy access for abortion" is included within "reproductive rights". On that second question, one alternative might be something like "reproductive rights (including easy access to abortion), perhaps with a link inside the parens to a Ref'd footnote explaining what "easy access to abortions" amounts to as a modern issue for progressives. I do note that the Reproductive rights article says that these rights include "the right to legal or safe abortion" but doesn't specifically define or mention "easy access" in relation to that. It does currently say, though, that a WHO article states "access to safe abortion improves women’s health, and vice versa. ...", "legalisation of abortion on request is a necessary but insufficient step toward improving women’s health", and "in some countries, such as India where abortion has been legal for decades, access to competent care remains restricted because of other barriers". Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Reproductive Rights seems just fine to me. Progressives support not just abortion rights, but also responsible family planning (the main purpose of Planned Parenthood) and prepared reproduction. Information on birth control and STDs seek to give people knowledge to protect themselves and their future. I dont agree that its at all a weasel word; Indeed, the "Abortion Rights" term is more likely to be the weasel word, as it is a wholly conservative construct; Within progressivism, abortion and reproduction rights are the same thing. As such, neither can be considerd an accurate description by the other side. In response to this, we should leave the most wide-ranging definition in place, which is the Reproductive Rights umbrella. "Abortion rights" refers to only a single facet of the whole, and tends to be used along with phrases like "Pro-Life" to invoke a certain public reaction.

If you wish to decry such rights, it would be more appropriate to note that if we make abortion illegal, we are effectively making women's health care decision a matter of government, not of her own, personal choice. It can also initiate a slippery sloap, where any failed pregnancy, miscaridge or stillbirth might result in punishment and an emotionally devestating investigation. "Abortion Rights" are a necessary peice if we wish to make helathcare the choice of the person, not of the state. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Cockburn and Ariana Huffington?
It seems to me that this page needs to pick one or the other commentators as being progressive, as they have vastly different policies. The same goes for broadcasters Amy Goodman and Rachel Maddow, their outlook is extremely different. IMO Cockburn is considerably to the left of Huffington. Personally I would probably call Cockburn and Goodman the progressives (they support people like Ralph Nader who runs as a political progressive) and Huffington and Maddow are liberals seeing as they support politicas liberals like Clinton and Obama. I suppose you could call Cockburn a leftist and Huffington a progresive, but IMO that's the wrong way to go. Either way they are clearly not in the same catagory. 68.188.25.170 (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While they may support them, they are critical of their policies. Huffington for example complained about the surge in A=fghanistan.  They would probably prefer a progressive president, but settle for candidates who can defeat conservatives.  TFD (talk) 04:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, but complaining about a surge is very different from Cockburn's policy, which was complete withdrawel. You really do have to pick one or the other as being progressive. Cockburn and Huffington disagree on virtually all aspects of US foreign and econimic policy 68.188.25.170 (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can have people who disagree on issues still being part of a gerneral group. The term "progressive" is not clearly defined, but would seem to mean supporters of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Progressive Democrats of America.  TFD (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

But they disagree on literally everything. Progressive and liberal are not the same thing 68.188.25.170 (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You need sources. TFD (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * They are the same thing. Logical fact (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary progressivism
I have tagged this section as POV. It mentions numerous people and organizations as progressive, but some of them are not normally described as progressives, and it is unclear why these particular examples are given. There are no sources for the section. TFD (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The rest of the article is very well referenced, but this section has nothing at all... 208.65.20.141 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Racism? Really?
You folks might want to go read the article on Woodrow Wilson. See also The Birth of a Nation, KKK, and segregation of the U.S. NavyDoobie61 (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

POV
Wow. This article reads like Progressivism is the greatest thing ever. Perhaps there should be a bit of criticism?E2a2j (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide sources you believe should be included. TFD (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, there was a whole sentence defending the prohibition without references or proper spelling/ grammar that was more of the "Progressivism is unquestionable" POV and erronious in its claims. For one, again lacking citing in their claim, how about the contra view, especially now that alcohol in moderate consumption actually HELPS people as opposed to being a vice. Known for years and occasionally published again and again (2 glasses red wine; recent Fox news clip on 2 drinks [2 shots, 2 4fl-oz {a standard drink of wine is 5, I think a factual error on their reporting part} of wine, or 2 beers] helps by reducing inflammation, clotting agents, and enhanced insulin effectiveness) this was not presented alongside their one POV bias. Line deleted for inaccuracy, bias, lack of citing to their cause, and incorrect formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.79.164 (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That section was actually added a couple of hours before you removed it. Progressives were divided on prohibition as they were on most issues.  TFD (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue was not a glass of wine for dinner.  It was heavy drinking at saloons followed by fistfights, wife-beating, and shortage of food on the table as the man spent his spare money on liquor. Most--but not all-- progressives strongly supported prohibition (it was not the conservatives who voted it into the Constitution)  Rjensen (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the POV argument. The problems with this article start at the top. "...generally considered to be middle class and reformist in nature..." -- Progressivism in the US is decidedly not considered middle class, some of the wealthiest Americans then and now have identified themselves as Progressives, TD Roosevelt being a prime example. I should think defining progressivism in the context of some current progressive groups would offer some good insight. For instance, the CPC offers this definition -- "promote ... not just the powerful and the privileged". For once, let's not have a typical sort of Wikipedia bias infringe on what could be an interesting and currently topical article. 10stone5 (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources say that progressivism was largely middle class. While Teddy Roosevelt was a wealthy man, if only people in his income bracket had been progressives, it would not have attracted much support.  TFD (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary progressivism
I have tagged this section as POV. It mentions numerous people and organizations as progressive, but some of them are not normally described as progressives, and it is unclear why these particular examples are given. There are no sources for the section. TFD (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The rest of the article is very well referenced, but this section has nothing at all... 208.65.20.141 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I brought this citation over from the archives because neutrality has still not been resolved. 10stone5 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I found the list of progressives discomfiting in its over-inclusiveness (I call myself a progressive). I would like to suggest a criterion for inclusion in that list: If the person in question was a candidate, they canonly be included if they were considered, by progressives, to be the progressive choice in an election. Citing the election in question, and the progressive vs. non-progressive issue stances and support base, would substantiate the list. The two entries I found most discomfiting violated that rule the most explicitly. First was Al Gore, who was the liberal choice in the 2000 Democratic primary against the progressive Bill Bradley. Gore might be considered a progressive in other contexts, but not in 2000, his last race. Even more discomfiting was John Edwards' inclusion. In the 2008 Democratic primary, Edwards was the liberal, along with Kerry, against the progressive choices of Howard Dean, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich. Using this criteria, Barack Obama was the progressive choice in the 2008 primary against Hillary Clinton, and hence should be included in the list. Tell me what you think -- if you like that idea, I will edit the entire list accordingly and remove the citation afterwards. I suggest a table of the recent presidential primaries showing the progressive choices vs. the liberal choices, with citations (I will dig up all of those). For the non-political candidates, such as Noam Chomsky, I'll link to his issue stances at OnTheIssues.org -- he meets numerous criteria as stated elsewhere in the article (and I would certainly call Chomsky a progressive), as will several others in the list using the same method. If I can't find citations or liberal primary opponents, I'll remove the name from the list. JesseAlanGordon (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC) JesseAlanGordon


 * Almost all of it is unsourced and I will therefore remove it. TFD (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Cultural Motives for the Progressive Era
The cultural motive for progressivism is being very much ignored within this article. Prohibition is only mentioned briefly, and I think the cultural section could be structured more clearly. In Michael McGerr's book, "A Fierce Discontent", the desire for change is talked about in depth. He mentions that issues concerning progressives included, "Card playing, gambling, horse racing, Sabbath breaking, pornography, dance halls, contraception. But the problem of alcohol outweighed all these concerns in the 1900's" [Pg 84].

McGerr then on pg 84 continues to list prostitution as the second biggest issue, and divorce as the third. "In large part, then, the attempt to reshape adult behavior centered above all on campaigns to remove the trinity of temptations-- drink, prostitution, and divorce-- from the social environment." Damoosen (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The article covers four distinct, although loosely connected movements called progressive. Detailed explanations of the first (1900-1920) movement belong in its own article.  TFD (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Issue with citation #9
(Apologies if this is the wrong way to do this, literally just registered for this)

The line "and the elimination of supposedly corrupt black voters from the election booth.[9]" struck me as at odds with my understanding of the history of Progressivism in the US, so I tried to verify the citation using Google Books (imperfect, to be sure). I was only able to get full text of page 185, which appears to be the relevant quote: "Exclude the densely ignorant and the corrupt, including the whites of that class," for "the privilege of voting is not a natural right." That quote is attributed to William Calvin Oates, a man that appears to have no connection to Progressives. He is in fact identified as a Confederate officer and white supremacist who entered politics to try to stop "populist" movements in the state according to his article on Encyclopedia of Alabama (http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/). The EOA article on "populism in Alabama" doesn't make any explicit links to the Progressive Party of the early 20th century, but the "Populist party" supported farm workers and labor movement strikers. I can't verify the other two citations, but I'm dubious as to the citation's authenticity.

Bulletbait (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It says, "[party chairman Robert J.] Lowe and [hero of the 1900 state convent Frank S.] White wanted to deprive all blacks of the franchise. If that meant eliminating a large number of whites, so be it. As reform-minded proto-progressives, they sought to produce honest elections and a qualified electorate."  It seems a poor reference, but some progressives did view the things they way they did.  And progressivism was not populism, even if they supported many of the same things.  Nonetheless, I think it should be removed.  TFD (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding footnote 9 =  Michael Perman. Struggle for Mastery.  On p 186 Perman states that in Alabama, 1901, the black belt whites wanted to be relieved of purchasing black votes to carry the election. "The delegates were quite serious" he adds.  He mentions bribery of black voters in Arkansas (p 63)  & Alabama (p177). On page 187, Perman notes the argument that buying votes corrupted young white men and the disfranchisement was seen as a reform.  On page 223 regarding Virginia, "the drive for disfranchisement had been initiated by men who saw themselves as reformers, even progressives."  On page 298, discussing Texas and Georgia, Perman says "in both states, disfranchisement was the weapon as well as the rallying cry in the fight for reform." the bottom line is that disfranchisement was used by the reform elements.  I'll fix the page numbers. Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The source does not explicitly tie this to the progressive movement. But an article about  the Progress Era in a book about Alabama does on pp. 206 ff.  TFD (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perman has a succinct summary in his more recent book: Rjensen (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This entry needs lists of deceased and living progressive thinkers (like the American Conservatism page has) as well as lists of books
Some suggestions for deceased folks (in no particular order): Jerry Mander Lewis Mumford George Orwell John Steinbeck Sinclair Lewis Margaret Sanger Martin Luther King Jr Robert Kennedy

Some suggestions for living folks: James Galbraith (still alive?) Kwame Appiah Amy Guttman Robert Kennedy Jr.

These lists of people could be organized by profession too.

Dfnarvaez (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Progressivism refers to four distinct political movements and it would be wrong to conflate them. Some of the people you list did not belong to any of them.  (Orwell, Steinbeck, Lewis, King, Kennedy that I am sure of - and probably more.)  People who were significant to progressivism should be mentioned in the article.  Upton Sinclair for example is mentioned.  There is also an article Modern liberalism in the United States that has a list.  TFD (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentence focuses on historical progressivism without mention of modern 'new' progressivism
The statement that the progressive era "reached its height in the early 20th century" lacks nuances. Certainly it refers to historical progressivism, that of the late 19th century through 30's. However there have also been "modern" progressivist movements in the 60's/70's for example.

152.3.34.82 (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism
With the upcoming election in the US this page is being vandalized frequently. Should it be locked? OccurLeaky (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Capitalized section headings
I'm not sure if it's necessary to capitalize the section titles here: this seems inconsistent with the usual style of section headings in Wikipedia. Jarble (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Pete Buttigieg as a progressive
Numerous editors, primarily anonymous IP editors, have been removing Pete Buttigieg from the Definition section without leaving an edit summary. As the 2020 presidential campaign section of the Pete Buttigieg article states, Buttigieg described himself as a progressive and a supporter of democratic capitalism.

Please provide citations for why Buttigieg should not be listed in the Definition section if you oppose the characterization of Buttigieg as progressive. Peaceray (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The reference was to, "the rise in popularity of progressives such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg." While the first are identified as belonging to the progressive wing of the party, Buttigieg is not. See for example an article from the BBC: "A tension between the so-called progressive wing of the party, led by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and the moderates like Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg is dominating the primary elections."
 * Your source quotes Buttigieg as saying, "I think of myself as progressive." He's not trying to place himself in the progressive group but tries to argue that he is just as progressive as they are. But in any case self-identification can be self-serving so fails rs. Also, if we add Buttigiwg, we should add Biden, Harris and the rest of the Democratic party.
 * TFD (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You have alluded to but not provided citations. This has been an ongoing problem that people think that their original research trumps what is in the article. As the verifiability not truth essay suggests, Editors ... may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them. If you disagree with the assertion that Buttigieg is progressive, present citations countering that statement & get consensus on the here before removing cited material. Otherwise it is simply disruptive editing & edit warring. Peaceray (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I know that I am taking a hard line on this, but I am fed up with IP editors simply taking this material with no edit summary & repeatedly asking that people discuss this & get consensus here on the talk page only to have registered editors disregard those requests & ignoring the spirit of WP:BRD. Peaceray (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to provide a link. Here it is. As you can see, the article in the link distinguishes between a progressive wing of the party represented by people such as Sanders and Warren and a moderate wing represented by people such as Buttigieg. Meanwhile in your source Buttigieg does not call himself a progressive and meanwhile if he did it would not be a reliable source. Furthermore, even if he were a progressive, he would not be significant enough to the topic to include him.
 * Can you explain to me why you think that Buttigieg is a progressive, while Biden and Harris are not?
 * TFD (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's another article, from McClatchy: "How progressives are plotting to stop Pete Buttigieg’s rise in the 2020 race." It says Buttigieg "shows signs of undercutting a progressive’s path to victory in the 2020 primary." TFD (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To be precise, the Beauchamp article quotes Buttigieg as saying I think of myself as progressive. Let me introduce several citations that counter yours. Each seems to imply that Buttigieg is progressive or is part of a group of progressives.
 * I am not much interested in debating this. I frankly have many pressing things to do on Wikipedia. But if you can come up with several additional citations & others consent to remove Buttigieg from the definition, I am not going to stand by my lonesome. I would suggest that the easiest path forward might be to add qualifying language & citations. There may be a place for both bona fide & marginal progressives in the article. Of course, if one has a reactionary Trumpist/Republican perspective, then one would tend to call all of them radical socialists. Peaceray (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not much interested in debating this. I frankly have many pressing things to do on Wikipedia. But if you can come up with several additional citations & others consent to remove Buttigieg from the definition, I am not going to stand by my lonesome. I would suggest that the easiest path forward might be to add qualifying language & citations. There may be a place for both bona fide & marginal progressives in the article. Of course, if one has a reactionary Trumpist/Republican perspective, then one would tend to call all of them radical socialists. Peaceray (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not much interested in debating this. I frankly have many pressing things to do on Wikipedia. But if you can come up with several additional citations & others consent to remove Buttigieg from the definition, I am not going to stand by my lonesome. I would suggest that the easiest path forward might be to add qualifying language & citations. There may be a place for both bona fide & marginal progressives in the article. Of course, if one has a reactionary Trumpist/Republican perspective, then one would tend to call all of them radical socialists. Peaceray (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not much interested in debating this. I frankly have many pressing things to do on Wikipedia. But if you can come up with several additional citations & others consent to remove Buttigieg from the definition, I am not going to stand by my lonesome. I would suggest that the easiest path forward might be to add qualifying language & citations. There may be a place for both bona fide & marginal progressives in the article. Of course, if one has a reactionary Trumpist/Republican perspective, then one would tend to call all of them radical socialists. Peaceray (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not much interested in debating this. I frankly have many pressing things to do on Wikipedia. But if you can come up with several additional citations & others consent to remove Buttigieg from the definition, I am not going to stand by my lonesome. I would suggest that the easiest path forward might be to add qualifying language & citations. There may be a place for both bona fide & marginal progressives in the article. Of course, if one has a reactionary Trumpist/Republican perspective, then one would tend to call all of them radical socialists. Peaceray (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not much interested in debating this. I frankly have many pressing things to do on Wikipedia. But if you can come up with several additional citations & others consent to remove Buttigieg from the definition, I am not going to stand by my lonesome. I would suggest that the easiest path forward might be to add qualifying language & citations. There may be a place for both bona fide & marginal progressives in the article. Of course, if one has a reactionary Trumpist/Republican perspective, then one would tend to call all of them radical socialists. Peaceray (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not much interested in debating this. I frankly have many pressing things to do on Wikipedia. But if you can come up with several additional citations & others consent to remove Buttigieg from the definition, I am not going to stand by my lonesome. I would suggest that the easiest path forward might be to add qualifying language & citations. There may be a place for both bona fide & marginal progressives in the article. Of course, if one has a reactionary Trumpist/Republican perspective, then one would tend to call all of them radical socialists. Peaceray (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

First, opinion pieces and what someone says about themselves fail rs. Second, none of your sources call him a progressive. Even if it is true that Buttigieg is progressive, or he once was a progressive, or progressives welcomed his appointment to cabinet or that he would have been the most progressive candidate in history, none of this places him the progressive wing of the party.

Note that Hillary Clinton said she was a progressive who got things done, Biden said he was the most progressive president since FDR, Nancy Pelosi said "I am a progressive." I am sure that every major leading Democrat has said something similar and they all have endorsed progressive policies to some degree. Why single out Buttigieg?

Also, since there are reliable sources that say Buttigieg is not part of the progressive wing of the party, we cannot state as a fact that he is.

TFD (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Guardian/Kaiser headline: Pete Buttigieg might be the most progressive candidate ever to run for president


 * Boston Herald/Graham: Ironically, Mayor Pete actually has a track record on infrastructure in South Bend: His progressive “Smart Streets” initiative that involved planting trees, lowering speed limits and shutting down lanes of traffic. The result was rush hour back ups and clogged streets, which Buttiegieg referred to as “pain points” from his progressive agenda.
 * Washington Post/Berman Buttigieg isn’t the first progressive to argue against ending tuition.
 * In flat contradiction to your argument that none of your sources call him a progressive, please see those three quotes that explicitly call Buttigieg a progressive.
 * Your contention that opinion pieces ... fail rs falls flat when the two citations that you offer could also be consider opinon / anlysis.
 * I am not accepting original research (as in an argument that lacks verification) over The Guardian, The Boston Herald, or The Washington Post. You have alluded to, but not provided more than two, reliable sources that say Buttigieg is not part of the progressive wing of the party.
 * I now suggest that we change the content to reflect the progressive spectrum, with Sanders, Warren, & Ocasio-Cortez as highly progressive on one end & moderate-to-progressive politicians, such as Buttigieg & others, towards the other. But to completely dismiss Buttigieg as not being progressive when there are reliable sources that do runs counter to WP:VNT. Peaceray (talk)
 * You have to look at the larger context, not just pull quotes.
 * The Guardian/Kaiser piece is commentary (and might is doing a ton of heavy lifting there.) Furthermore, it only mentions progressivism once in the body; and the context is a "contrarian 'wow, when you think about it, isn't this unexpected?' sort of thing, ie. it's worded in a way the author intends to be shocking, showing that their opinion isn't widely-held.
 * The Boston Herald/Graham and Washington Post/Berman pieces are just passing mentions.
 * Do you have any sources saying that he is an important figure in modern progressivism? Any sources that discuss his progressive politics in-depth, or which detail how he has made the country more progressive?  Because I could easily find massive piles of such sources for anyone on the list.  These read like a pile of everything you could find when searching for "Buttigieg progressive" and if they're the best you could find then they're incredibly weaksauce. For comparison, a quick search turns up books, scholarly papers, and so forth entirely dedicated to the role each of the other names listed play in modern American progressivism - treating Buttigieg the same way due to a handful of passing mentions is WP:UNDUE. --Aquillion (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Should Pete Buttigieg be included in a sentence about progressives?
Should Pete Buttigieg be included in the following sentence in the article: "With the rise in popularity of progressives such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg the term progressive began to carry greater cultural currency, particularly in the 2016 Democratic primaries." 18:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * Exclude One of these things is not like the others. While the term progressive can be used broadly to include anyone who is a Democrat, in this context it refers to a specific faction, of which Sanders, Warren and Ocasio-Cortez are leading members. On the other hand, if used broadly, then why include Buttigieg while ignoring more prominent Democrats such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi? TFD (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Modify, as suggested above. While Sanders, Warren, & Ocasio-Cortez are clearly progressive, others who call themselves or whom reliable sources call progressive, such as Buttigieg, should also be mentioned appropriately. With respect to the statement that the term progressive can be used broadly to include anyone who is a Democrat, please see the different view detailed in Blue Dog Coalition. Peaceray (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exclude per TFD. Buttigieg is a member of the party's moderate faction, whereas Warren, Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are unambiguous leftists. All could be described as progressive, but Buttigieg is a different kettle of fish to the others and shouldn't be included in this way. YttriumShrew (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources say that he is kind of "moderate" one  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 20:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Others call him progressive. Please see the citations that I noted above. Peaceray (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exclude per TFD, but even more importantly, per Alexander's comment above regarding what sources say. If he is a moderate, he is not a progressive, and absolutely should not be included in this list. Fieari (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then what about the Guardian/Kaiser, Boston Herald/Graham, & Washington Post/Berman citations that I posted above? These are reliable sources & they all call Buttigieg progressive. Why should we favor the other citations' viewpoint over these? Peaceray (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable to say that when reliable sources of equivalent reputation disagree or contradict each other, and it isn't a clearly overwhelmed minority position, the issue is in dispute, and should not be stated as fact. Fieari (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that is is reasonable to say that there are both die-hard progressives & moderate progressives, & that both should be discussed int the article. Peaceray (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exclude Not only is Buttigieg not a progressive, he also had no impact on the 2016 primaries, rendering his inclusion in the sentence questionable even if he were progressive. BSMRD (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exclude any mention of Buttigieg in any context (specifically opposing any rewording or modification to try and shoehorn him in.)  Most sources describe him as part of the party's moderate wing; note that of the sources above saying otherwise, they're essentially all either commentary (often worded in specifically contrarian lines) or are ones citing his own words about himself rather than saying it in the author's voice. If this were his article we could maybe note those somewhere deep in the article when discussing how he frames himself and the full range of commentary about him, but it's silly to highlight him here based on such weak sourcing, especially when everyone else listed has extensive sourcing directly connecting them to the rise of progressivism today. Just searching "+Buttigieg +progressivism" and throwing every source you find onto the page isn't enough, you have to look at the context - the sources for the other figures listed plainly describe them as central to progressivism today. Almost anyone in the Democratic party is going to "court progressives" or the like at some point or otherwise try to appeal to them; that doesn't make them a notable figure in the history of progressivism. His inclusion would obviously be placing WP:UNDUE weight on a fringe descriptor used only by a few opinion pieces and passing mentions. --Aquillion (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Exclude - Even if there are some sources that refer to him as a progressive, the amount of citations for him being a moderate is greater. Even if the two were half and half I would still vote to exclude, since the other three names in the list are unambiguously referred to as progressives, while he is not. PraiseVivec (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy close as exclude as per WP:SNOWBALL Got it, let's remove Buttigieg. I had originally resisted this because:
 * IP editors were deleting without an edit summary
 * IP editors were making deletions without providing a citation
 * At least one registered editor had made the deletion while a discussion was occurring.
 * There were citations that indicated that Buttigieg was progressive.
 * I now see that this was WP:UNDUE, therefore I am requesting that we close this & remove Buttigieg. Peaceray (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
Can we discuss how poorly written this sentence is, with or without Pete included? Of the three people mentioned, only Bernie ran in the 2016 primaries. Warren did not in 2016 and AOC wasn't elected to Congress until two years later. Calidum 19:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. In 2016, progressives were behind the "Ready for Warren" campaign. Once Warren decided not to run, the organization switched allegiance to Sanders. The media referred to these people as "progressives." The term was already in use because of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, founded in 1991 by Bernie Sanders among other members of Congress, representing the left of the Democratic Party, Progressive Democrats of America, founded in 2004, which supported Sanders in his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns, and the Vermont Progressive Party, which was formed in 1981 to support Bernie Sanders who was an independent mayor of Burlington, Vermont.
 * The Vermont Progressive Party saw itself as a recreation of the state section of the Progressive Party (United States, 1948), which was a left-wing coalition in support of presidential candidate Henry Wallace, whose family had supported the earlier Progressive Parties of 1912 and 1924. That's not to say that modern progressives are the incarnation of Teddy Roosevelt, it just explains how the name was adopted by successive groups.
 * Adding to the confusion is that Hillary Clinton's supporters claimed the title for themselves ("I'm a progressive who gets things done!") The term progressive is viewed more favorably than liberal. Nonetheless, a distinction must be made between these two factions, whatever we chose to call them.
 * TFD (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There does indeed seem to be two factions, those who are flat-out progressive & those who are on the progressive side of moderate. Historically the US progressive label was used initially for the Progressive faction of the Republican party & Liberal was applied to primarily the Democratic party. It is ironic that Democrats have adopted who is traditionally a label for Republicans.
 * But to the point: why do we not discuss both progressive factions (AOC–Sanders–Warren-etc. & the moderate progressives) in this article? Peaceray (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What's a moderate progressive and who is included? I couldn't find the term in a google search and don't think we should invent it for this article. TFD (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that there should be an inclusion of the wolf-in-sheep's clothing moderate-posturing-as-progressive phenomena. There certainly seems to be those who are more moderate claiming the progressive mantle, & such politicians are sometimes labeled as progressive by the press. I do not think this is limited to Butttigieg. Perhaps such a discussion in the article could be generic. Peaceray (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Just change "in" to "after" so it reads "With the rise in popularity of progressives such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren the term progressive began to carry greater cultural currency, particularly after the 2016 Democratic primaries." The 2016 primary was an important event in the timeline, but it was more the start of the current progressive moment than anything else. (No, this still doesn't mean we can include Buttigieg.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Economics of Social Justice and Injustice
— Assignment last updated by CoVo2023 (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)