Perhaps you would care to elaborate on your own definition of ‘progressive’ so that I have a better understanding of what you would expect a progressive to advocate? Do you simply use progressive and liberal as interchangeable terms that are synonymous or do you see progressivism as a particular set of goals within the broader frameworks of liberalism and conservatism?

Good luck with that.

You haven’t explained anything, you’ve just used a lot of words to say what I said in one sentence: It’s trivial to say that we should keep what works and change what doesn’t.

I’m not sure what other approach there is to life. From your statement should I believe that you prefer to change everything (even those things which work)?

So what? Things change. The original “progressive” movement was religious, anti-science and anti-technology. (William J. Bryan, of Scopes trial notoriety, was a notable early progressive.)

I think you may want to recheck your encyclopedia. While some members of the progressive movement were motivated by their faiths to seek changes the general consensus of Progressive Era reformers was that they rejected the Church as an instrument of change. This was why they came to rely so heavily on social programs.

And you’re right, things change. The Progressive Movement was ideologically superior in almost every way to the bastardized form of ‘progressivism’ that liberals lay claim to today. My goal is to change things back to something resembling the original movement, but within a conservative framework.

You want specifics? Here are a few:

- A complete evaluation of existing social programs, both public and private. Use a conservative approach to eliminate waste, loopholes and those taking advantage of the system.

- Union busting. The big unions are now as corrupt as the corporations they were created to fight.

- Conservation, conservation, conservation.

- Social justice through a cooperative effort of government, private and religious institutions.

- Education reform across the board based on the traditional model. Elimination of federal funding of education and return power to the states.

These are just a few ideas. The whole point of this blog is to explore ideas for a new Progressivism, not to declare them all from the start. If you want to debate the subtle nuances of the words progressive, conservative and liberal, we can do so ad nauseum, but there needs to be an understanding that liberal and progressive do not mean the same thing.

I attempted to define my particular politcal leanings in this post, but it’s pretty tough when you don’t fit the traditional molds.

It’s not tough. Use simple, specific declarative sentences. Just say, “I want to change X to be more Y. I want to keep Z from changing at all. For example, your feelings about “conservation” vs. “preservation” is fairly straightforward, the self-righteous, tendentious and pejorative characterization of those with whom you disagree notwithstanding.

As stated, among these are conservation, social justice, democratic reforms, etc.

Blah blah blah. Those are all bland generalizations.

<Those specific ideals shape the direction of my conservatism. They are the proverbial tail that wags the dog.

The metaphor appears inapt here.

For me, conservatism is not about a reluctance to change. It is about tradition. Traditional values, traditional ethics, tradtional morality.

You might want to look up “tradition” in the dictionary. And which traditions do you want to keep? Slavery? Racism? Sexism? Classism? Religious persecution? If you’re keeping some traditions and not others, you can no longer claim you’re valuing tradition for itself; your making a distinction within tradition. On what basis are you making that distinction?

It could be argued that the mentality of liberal = progressive is flawed because liberals do not adhere to all traditionally progressive ideals.

So what? Things change. The original “progressive” movement was religious, anti-science and anti-technology. (William J. Bryan, of Scopes trial notoriety, was a notable early progressive.)

I understand the perceived oxymoron because progressive has been so muddled with liberal in the last half-century.

No, that’s not the reason. Go back and re-read my comment. I mean precisely what I say, and I say precisely what I mean.

I appreciate your questions. I attempted to define my particular politcal leanings in this post, but it’s pretty tough when you don’t fit the traditional molds.

I look at Progressivism (capital P) as being a particular set of ideals as defined by the early Progressive Movement. As stated, among these are conservation, social justice, democratic reforms, etc. Those specific ideals shape the direction of my conservatism. They are the proverbial tail that wags the dog.

For me, conservatism is not about a reluctance to change. It is about tradition. Traditional values, traditional ethics, tradtional morality. It is my belief that we can pursue progressive goals within a conservative framework, hince progressive conservatism.

It could be argued that the mentality of liberal = progressive is flawed because liberals do not adhere to all traditionally progressive ideals. Liberals tend to favor preservation over conservation, for example. I also believe the liberal idea of social morality has strayed beyond the vision of the early Progressives.

I understand the perceived oxymoron because progressive has been so muddled with liberal in the last half-century. It’s my goal to A) Set progressivism outside the broad labels of liberal and conservative and to B) Remind people that it is not synonymous with liberalism. Once upon a time progressive goals were pursued by both sides of the aisle. I aim to try that again. Some of us are just going to differ in our ideals for how to get there.

- The Big Stick

It’s incumbent on you to specify precisely what you mean by “conservative” and “progressive”.

The usual literal meaning of “conservative” is someone who wants things to stay the same; the usual literal meaning of “progressive” is someone who wants things to change. While we shouldn’t have a slavish devotion to literal meanings, a descriptor that is a literal oxymoron does cause some confusion.

If you mean, “keep what works and change what doesn’t”, that’s a fairly trivial position: everyone wants to do that. The devil is in the details: What specifically does or doesn’t work, and what specifically do you mean by “working”?