What is the difference between liberal and "progressive"?

[Ronnie]

If there is no difference, then why do people alternate between the terms?  Is it just like the difference between conservative and right winger?

[Ebowed]

There is no difference.

Democrats are forced to call themselves "progressive" because liberal has negative connotations.

[Хahar 🤔]

Liberal means a free marketer. Progressive doesn't.

[Meeker]

When I hear "liberal" I think of Ted Kennedy. More old timey Democrats, focused on bread and butter domestic issues and social equality.

When I hear "progressive" I think of Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold - younger folks concerned about more modern issues, especially with more interest in foreign affairs.

The difference is very slight, but if you look closely enough there is something there. It's difficult to describe, but I know it when I see it.


There's also a difference electoral strategy wise in a sense. I would say Hillary is running the campaign of a liberal. Obama is running the campaign of a progressive.

[Ebowed]

Liberal means a free marketer. Progressive doesn't.

In the context of the current political climate, not really.

Liberal has been successfully branded a 'dirty' word by the GOP, to the extent that even Democratic presidential candidates cannot call themselves "liberal" without fear of political problems.  We use "progressive" simply to get around this.

[Meeker]

Liberal means a free marketer. Progressive doesn't.

In the context of the current political climate, not really.

Liberal has been successfully branded a 'dirty' word by the GOP, to the extent that even Democratic presidential candidates cannot call themselves "liberal" without fear of political problems.  We use "progressive" simply to get around this.

This is also true.

[Sam Spade]

Historically (in the NYC area at least), progressive was normally a code word used by the Communist party to refer to each other after the late 1940s (and the red scare).  (yes, I have a direct source on this one)

Nowadays, I doubt there is really any difference, frankly.  The "get around" reasoning is actually correct for the time being.

[NDN]

There is no difference.

Democrats are forced to call themselves "progressive" because liberal has negative connotations.

Unfortunately it just comes off as pretentious most of the time.

[Ban my account ffs!]

There is no difference.

I am both liberal and progressive.  I believe in progressing society towards utopia by liberally spending *YOUR* money

In all seriousness... progressive is just a term thought up because weak-kneed Democrats (or rather, the non-Democratic voters they're trying to court) couldn't just keep the term liberal after the conservatives made it a dirty word.

I'm a liberal.  I think rich people should pay higher taxes so the poor aren't quite so miserable... so shoot me, or rather stab me because I'm going to take your guns away.. mwah hahahahaha

[MODU]

There is no difference, which is why I tend to correct people who say "progressive" as if it's a good thing.  Liberal is liberal.  Conservative is conservative.  If people want to constantly use labels, then they need to keep with their own labels.

[Franzl]

If we're only talking about social liberalism, then it's the same as being progressive. However, we are forced to use that title, as Republicans have turned "liberal" into a synonym of "terrorist....un-American....baby murderer.....etc.".

Economic liberalism, if of course, something entirely different, although not many Americans properly understand what liberalism is.

[TheresNoMoney]

I think of progressives as being more economically populist and more libertarian on social issues than liberals. The term "progressive" goes back to the Progressive Party in Wisconsin and Robert Lafollette.

[Stranger in a strange land]

In Europe, "liberal" means something akin to "libertarian." In America, it means "atheist homosexual, terrorist-sympathizing, Christ-hating, flag-burning, body-piercing, snooty, elitist, adulterous French Communist who will eat your children, take all your money, and force you to move out of your home to create a habitat for spotted owls." When I was growing up, I thought liberal was a pejorative because I never heard it used any other way. Progressive has far less negative connotations.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

In Europe, "liberal" means something akin to "libertarian." In America, it means "atheist homosexual, terrorist-sympathizing, Christ-hating, flag-burning, body-piercing, snooty, elitist, adulterous French Communist who will eat your children, take all your money, and force you to move out of your home to create a habitat for spotted owls." When I was growing up, I thought liberal was a pejorative because I never heard it used any other way. Progressive has far less negative connotations.

<Insert the "I don't see the Negative connotations" line here>

Yeah, basically the two words have basically came around to meaning the same thing. Except I suspect that Obama supporters are more likely to use the word "progressive" than Clinton's are (just a hunch, maybe wrong).

No word in the past 250 years have changed its meaning more times than the word "liberal". At first it originally meant a kind of libertarian rationalist (which should not at all confused with modern libertarianism, which is an irrational cult.)

[CARLHAYDEN]

A self-identified "progressive" is simply a liberal (in the present day meaning of the word) who is attempting to evade his/her true identity.  This evasion is typically used by liberal Democrats.

Among self-identified Republicans, the evasive term for liberal is "moderate."

Both attempts at evasion are laughable, sort of like calling a short person, "vertically challenged."

[Gustaf]

When I hear "liberal" I think of Ted Kennedy. More old timey Democrats, focused on bread and butter domestic issues and social equality.

When I hear "progressive" I think of Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold - younger folks concerned about more modern issues, especially with more interest in foreign affairs.

The difference is very slight, but if you look closely enough there is something there. It's difficult to describe, but I know it when I see it.


There's also a difference electoral strategy wise in a sense. I would say Hillary is running the campaign of a liberal. Obama is running the campaign of a progressive.

Yup. Though Porce is right too.

[Bluegrass Cruiser 420]

When I think of liberal I think of classical liberalism to which much of personal beliefs are based upon.  To call a leftist a "liberal" to me though is an egregious misappropriation of the term.  Thus the correct definition is quite different from a so-called "progressive" which is another euphemism for a socialist.

[Franzl]

When I think of liberal I think of classical liberalism to which much of personal beliefs are based upon.  To call a leftist a "liberal" to me though is an egregious misappropriation of the term.  Thus the correct definition is quite different from a so-called "progressive" which is another euphemism for a socialist.

I agree with the first part, that the word "liberal" means something different then most people think.

But you should learn more about what socialism is.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

When I think of liberal I think of classical liberalism to which much of personal beliefs are based upon.  To call a leftist a "liberal" to me though is an egregious misappropriation of the term.  Thus the correct definition is quite different from a so-called "progressive" which is another euphemism for a socialist.

I agree with the first part, that the word "liberal" means something different then most people think.

But you should learn more about what socialism is.

They should also find out alot about what "Classical Liberalism" is too. (Hint it does not = libertarian in the US context)

[Ban my account ffs!]

When I think of liberal I think of classical liberalism to which much of personal beliefs are based upon.  To call a leftist a "liberal" to me though is an egregious misappropriation of the term.  Thus the correct definition is quite different from a so-called "progressive" which is another euphemism for a socialist.

Kind of like conservatism is a euphemism for fascist.  As long as we're defining the other side.

[Хahar 🤔]

When I think of liberal I think of classical liberalism to which much of personal beliefs are based upon.  To call a leftist a "liberal" to me though is an egregious misappropriation of the term.  Thus the correct definition is quite different from a so-called "progressive" which is another euphemism for a socialist.

Kind of like conservatism is a euphemism for fascist.  As long as we're defining the other side.

Nyet.

[Ban my account ffs!]

When I think of liberal I think of classical liberalism to which much of personal beliefs are based upon.  To call a leftist a "liberal" to me though is an egregious misappropriation of the term.  Thus the correct definition is quite different from a so-called "progressive" which is another euphemism for a socialist.

Kind of like conservatism is a euphemism for fascist.  As long as we're defining the other side.

Nyet.

I was being sarcastic.  As if this guy has any idea what socialism or even "leftism" really is.  He's just throwing out labels that are supposed to be "bad" as a cheap (but effective) way to demean the other side.

[Franzl]

When I think of liberal I think of classical liberalism to which much of personal beliefs are based upon.  To call a leftist a "liberal" to me though is an egregious misappropriation of the term.  Thus the correct definition is quite different from a so-called "progressive" which is another euphemism for a socialist.

Kind of like conservatism is a euphemism for fascist.  As long as we're defining the other side.

Nyet.

I was being sarcastic.  As if this guy has any idea what socialism or even "leftism" really is.  He's just throwing out labels that are supposed to be "bad" as a cheap (but effective) way to demean the other side.

And that's what really gets on my nerves after a certain amount of time. Especially in American politics, people are often so uninformed that they aren't able to actually debate you on issues, and have to resort to cheap labels.

Naturally, it's a tendency everywhere, but I think American politics are far too polarized, perhaps as a result of the two party system, in which many people consider "the other side" to be evil.

All it leads to is eternal stalemate.

[Bluegrass Cruiser 420]

When I think of liberal I think of classical liberalism to which much of personal beliefs are based upon.  To call a leftist a "liberal" to me though is an egregious misappropriation of the term.  Thus the correct definition is quite different from a so-called "progressive" which is another euphemism for a socialist.

Kind of like conservatism is a euphemism for fascist.  As long as we're defining the other side.

No since fascism is simply a nationalist socialism. That is why most historical fascists were socialists before having differences about the role of one's national origin in their political identity.

[Bluegrass Cruiser 420]

When I think of liberal I think of classical liberalism to which much of personal beliefs are based upon.  To call a leftist a "liberal" to me though is an egregious misappropriation of the term.  Thus the correct definition is quite different from a so-called "progressive" which is another euphemism for a socialist.

Kind of like conservatism is a euphemism for fascist.  As long as we're defining the other side.

Nyet.

I was being sarcastic.  As if this guy has any idea what socialism or even "leftism" really is.  He's just throwing out labels that are supposed to be "bad" as a cheap (but effective) way to demean the other side.

No I know what socialism is and that it is basically statism in one form or another it can be "democratic" or can be more "authoritarian".   And it has many different synonyms for it .  I sorry if you find it offensive. 

mutters bullsh**t under my breath