-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
The global swing to the right :-)
- Thread starter AngryAnt
- Start date
Harry said:
serious or rhetorical question? If its the former: In a nutshell, based on the idea of progress obviously, social, cultural and economic. Developing policy on the basis of science and research. Whitlam is viewed as the ultimate progressive, free healthcare and uni education, making divorce easy, setting up indigenous land rights in the NT (Fraser then passed it, he was pretty progressive relative to his successors), the Racial disrimination ACt, banning oil drilling on the GBR. His economics were flaky, some down to him and his cabinet, some down to global factors.
the opposite of progressive is reactionary. Being opposed to social change, unless it is returning to a prior state. Like banning divorce. Going back to the white Aus policy.
On drugs, a reactionary wants all drugs banned, they are viewed as morally bad. A progressive would look at the evidence of impacts and benefits and base their policy decision on that
To be fair to reactionaries everywhere, they could also claim to be conservatives - basing their ideas on tried and tested social forms that have survived for hundreds or thousands of years. The "if it ain't broke don't fix it" school of thought.
problem with this school is that the world changes, so an assumption that what worked before must work now is fatally flawed. and if you look closely at what actually "worked" before, you generally find it only worked in benefiting a particular ideology or interest group anyway.
problem with this school is that the world changes, so an assumption that what worked before must work now is fatally flawed. and if you look closely at what actually "worked" before, you generally find it only worked in benefiting a particular ideology or interest group anyway.
year of the tiger said:
the spectrum is 1. reactionary (change is good but based on banning anything that causes problems, going back to old-fashioned ways) > 2. conservative (resist change, change can bring unintended negatives and impact those who have it good or OK) > 3. progressive (we should respond to and embrace change, it leads to improvements).
simplification of course. but thats it in a nutshell.
Is it progressive to go back to a way of life that was better for the majority?
Is it progressive if change only benefits a small % of the population to the detriment to the rest?
Is legalising a drug progressive as it makes it easier and better for the small % who use?
Progressives are quick to claim "progress"
Is it progressive if change only benefits a small % of the population to the detriment to the rest?
Is legalising a drug progressive as it makes it easier and better for the small % who use?
Progressives are quick to claim "progress"
tigersnake said:
Need to add the Oppressive Party, see North Korea. But I'm still in awe of Kim Jong Il's golfing record.
Harry said:
complex questions that I can't answer simply. I was just giving basically textbook definitions in answer to the question. Its interesting. As has been said, neo-Liberalism has failed due to the increasing inequality. It just keeps increasing the size of the underclass, reducing the middle class and keeps concentrating greater wealth in the hands of fewer people. So what will the solutions, or attempted solutions be? A lot could well be return to old ways, like less outsourcing and contracting and more in-house divisions and full-time jobs. People being happy with steady profits from companies rather than constant profit growth. So positive change might be a result of what are reactionary in some ways. (probably won't, those strategies will be done in new ways but still, the point stands).
As I said, it is simplistic. In practise you can get progressive conservatives, and conservative progressives. (Most stay away from reactionary, unless you work for 2GB or are a religious fundamentalist).
It's the left that changed what Liberal means. Having said that, the current Liberal party certainly doesn't align with the original meaning either.Ian4 said:
Ian4 said:
They called themselves that as a counter point to the growing labour movement and the emerging Labor party because they saw Labor as ideologues (and possibly socialists) and wanted to paint themselves as the polar opposite. In truth they were nationalists and protectionists. They never were "liberal".
KnightersRevenge said:
correct me if I'm wrong, but what I recall from high school history class is that the united Australia party was created by a split in the Labor party in the 1930's (Joseph Lyons). the UAP eventually became the liberals. in other words, the were born out of the Labor party.
anyway, going back to the word "progressive." from my ideological point of view, I would say progressive is the opposite of word conservative. eg. I would say being pro gay marriage is a progressive view, while being against it is a conservative view.
Progressive is defined by what it isn't? Interestingly progressives championed prohibition.Ian4 said:
Giardiasis said:
Not that surprising is it? The "temperance" movement was about improving the lives of people through reduced alcoholism. Sounds pretty progressive. The problem with any ideology though is what happens when it gains power. It tends toward authoritarianism it would seem. It is one thing to promote a healthy lifesyle, quite another to mandate it.
<
Burqa Poll
|
The Imam of Peace
>
