Don't let the alt-left hijack the word "progressive".

[DanTex]

The term progressive refers to a set of policy objectives, including: union rights, higher taxes on the wealthy, green energy, environmental protection, criminal justice reform, reproductive rights, anti-discrimination, etc. These are things that almost all of us on DU agree about. And also that almost all Dems agree upon.

"Progressive" does not refer to people like Cornel West or Chris Hedges who incessantly attack the Democratic Party and in so doing help elect Republicans and forward their right-wing agenda. Because progressivism is not stupidity.

But in left-wing media, and some mainstream media, there is talk of tension between "progressives" and the Democratic Party. This is wrong. The people that have tension with the Democratic Party are the alt-left (and of course the right). They are the conspiracy nuts and Putin apologists (and in some cases Trump apologists too).

Of course, progressives can and will disagree with each other on policy specifics -- nobody agrees about everything. But the people who flatly smear the Democratic party as "neoliberal" or "GOP-lite" or whatever are not progressives, they are alt-left nutjobs.

[stonecutter357]

1. K&R

[murielm99]

2. I think a lot of people

started referring to themselves as progressive because the word liberal had been so besmirched. I regarded that as a cowardly choice, but I seldom said so to anyone who had made that choice.

Later, Sanders supporters hijacked the word and used it as a purity test.

I agree with your first paragraph, that these are the things most of us on this website agree on, that Democrats agree on.

I am a liberal. I will stick with JFK's definition of a liberal and continue to call myself one.

[sheshe2]

6. Similar to what I posted below.

Thanks Muriel.

[NastyRiffraff]

55. Thank you from a proud LIBERAL!

I hate what the word "progressive" has become, thanks to the alt-left. Liberalism has a proud history. We allowed the Right to define it, and it's time to take it back. I have nothing against people calling themselves progressive, if they don't smugly equate that with being pure.

There is no purity in politics; there never has been and never will be.

[TomCADem]

3. The Anti-Liberal/Democratic Folks from the "Left" Are Neoprogressive

They spend most of their energy attacking Democrats, progressives and other folks on the left and push a false equivalency that suggests that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.

On the right, Ted Cruz often practices this by trying to go to the "right" of everyone else and attacking other Republicans for not being "conservative" enough even though they are all extremely right-wing. While this is certainly opportunistic for Cruz, almost every other Republican hates Ted Cruz's guts.

Now, you see a similar temptation on the "left," which is helped by trolls, foreign and domestic, who are trying to undermine the Democrats. Sadly, Bernie Sanders is an easy dupe, since his whole schtick is to attack Democrats from the left. Of course, it is a bit ridiculous given the extreme proposals and policies emerging from Republicans and Donald Trump, but they know no other tactic.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

5. This

[betsuni]

12. I like "neoprogressive" -- it fits. (nt)

[QC]

27. Neoprogressive is a right wing slander against anyone to the right of Reagan.

http://www.libertywhip.com/liberty-blog/2015/10/25/neo-progressivism-the-cancer-in-the-left

I know you're very proud of the new insult and all, but is this really the kind of company you want to be keeping?

[NurseJackie]

82. And there you have it! Thank you!

[sheshe2]

4. Frankly I am tired of all these labels they chose to describe us.

True, I do hate the neoliberal and GOP-lite tag... that is just obscene and in fact a ridiculous smear. Me, I don't need a label to show who I am. I am and have always been a Democrat that believes social issues Must carry the same weight as economic issues, if one is left behind then the other is meaningless.

[mcar]

39. Amen!

I have been a liberal Democrat all my life. Now, because I supported, campaigned for and voted for HRC, I'm "republican lite?" Screw that shit.

[sheshe2]

43. I know, right?

[Thinkingabout]

77. Very well said, I also a life long Democrat who has fought for issues important to working people,

making everyone equal in the workplace, know healthcare is important to everyone, and I know if Democratic Issues are to continue them we must elect Democrats at all levels. Attacking Democrats will not get these issues on the books, it also will not elect Democrats.

[hrmjustin]

7. I always thought myself to be fairly liberal and was shocked when I was called...

....DINO, DLC, Third Way, Republican Lite, and neoliberal for supporting Hillary Clinton.

[sweetloukillbot]

19. I understand where you're coming from

I always thought that I was a liberal, but apparently I'm a moderate DINO neoliberal. I personally prefer the term pragmatic realist.

[murielm99]

46. Have you ever visited a website called

politicalcompass.org? Go there and take their test. Read some of the articles, too. It is interesting. It is better and more informed than the name-calling here and in some other places. That site gives you a good picture of where you stand ideologically.

I thought freepers and right-wingers were the bullies of the internet. Many people on the left have turned out to be the biggest bullies of all.

[hrmjustin]

47. Thanks I will look it up.

And yes I have encountered plenty of bullies or as I called them the purists on our side.

[Igel]

8. Words are defined by communities of speakers.

It's the ultimate democracy. When you see a group imposing the definition on another as the One True Definition, you can call them fascist. Don't care who they are.

Words also tend to have multiple meanings, depending on context and community. I love dictionaries, but even the OED tends to be a bit simplistic when it comes to the complexity of even one language, English. I have dozens of Russian dictionaries, and one of my favorites is the unfinished 30+ volume dialect dictionary. And still I find words that aren't standard, aren't abusive, aren't in my dialect dictionaries, but are used. That's Russian: We won't discuss a language spread out even more, for longer, like Spanish or Arabic. Language is fascinating, and when it comes to what we think it should be the only response is the realization that we really, seriously, don't matter.

Some progressives loathe the (D) party. Some are in it. They often agree on values--then again, I've heard a lot of (R) with similar values. But they disagree on means, and often on some details they think important.

But we all get to self-define. I have no magic power or government authority to command their use of language. I can't keep kids in my own classroom from saying "bitch" and "cunt" or "fuck", I certainly can't keep complete strangers 1000 miles away from using "progressive" in ways that I think inappropriate.

I'm not God.

For which I'm pretty much as grateful as everybody else.

[loyalsister]

59. The Tyranny of Words is one of my favorite books

He made a similar observation. Abstract language loses it's meaning as it is used in a variety of ways. The word dog started out pretty concrete, but has lost meaning with metaphor. Language evolves. We can observe and adopt agreed upon meanings. But, trying to impose universal meaning on abstract words is bound to fail.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. That happened long ago.

I abhor the term as a personal designation and will not use to describe myself. I am liberal, and damn proud of it. I will not let the right steal it from me, but the word "progressive", IMO, was corrupted from its own constituents, which is why I won't use it for myself.

[All-In]

11. I am a realist

Reality chooses my pisitions. That and indesputable evidence.

[GulfCoast66]

13. I am a liberal

Progressives have a long and spotty history dating back over 100 years. You cannot take a term with that much history and try to clean it up regardless of your personal feelings

I realize most who call themselves progressive today are really just a little too cool to call themselves liberals or Democrats but still support all of the planks of the party.

But there still those that feel economic issues are all that matter and social issues like marriage equality and afimative actions are bothersome sideshows. Best delayed or even abandoned.

[Chevy]

14. Fair enough point

but written history has referred to those on the far left as progressive movements attacking moderate parties which aided the rise of fascist governments. That is nothing new.

[Leith]

15. I've Always Called Myself Progressive

I used to subscribe to a publication called The Progressive Populist. It was wonderful, full of columns by Jim Hightower, Alexander Cockburn, and Norman Solomon, cartoons by Tom Tomorrow and Ted Rall. Before all this was on the internet, I had it delivered to my house regularly. If anyone asked me what I was politically, I answered that I was populist progressive.

Nowadays, the reichwing has hijacked the term "populist" and the it seems as though the left abandoned the term "progressive." Let's take them back.

[Duppers]

16. Amen! ++++

Thank you.

[elmac]

17. I'm a socialist

but vote Democratic ticket in every GE. Democratic Socialist may be what some in the party call me. I really don't care what I'm called, liberal, progressive, it all fits. I am about as far left as you can get but I will never burn bridges if I can't have a perfect candidate to vote for. My main objective is to keep cons out of office even if that means voting for a center left candidate. Once elected we can concentrate on keeping them as far left as possible.

[klook]

18. This is no time for a purge.

It is time for all of us to join together and fight Trumpism and the Republican Party.

Trashing thread.

[leftstreet]

20. I'm tired of the alt-liberals, too

Just kidding, but I can't keep track of what all these labels mean anymore

[loyalsister]

61. It seems that they are used as self definition or as insult

What used to refer to a constellation of beliefs and political ideas has devolved, and the labels are often used in pretty superficial ways. Remember when "conservation" referred to taking care of the environment?

[JCanete]

21. what the fuck is the alt-left? I"m fine with figuring out a different way to distinguish lefty

progressives from other progressives, but there's no need to add your own labels to "others" who you disagree with. People are hyperbolic on both sides, and you're proving it. Your characterizations are just as bad as theirs. I'm not sure why you can't find room to legitimately disagree with people who may even vote or advocate differently than you. They can't have a point? There can't be logic behind their reasoning? They have to be stupid bozo conspiracy theorists who crazily don't think that Putin has performed a coup on America--which by the way ---is far fetched. American business interests pull too many strings, and could have Trump out on his ass tomorrow if they wanted. If Putin influenced something, it's only because these people find it just dandy. That's not a coup. That's fucking with our elections, with permission. The coup has already happened. Money owning our political process was the fucking coup.

[leftstreet]

22. +1

...and worth repeating:

"The coup has already happened. Money owning our political process was the fucking coup."

Yep

[JTFrog]

23. Wolves in sheeps clothing.

Nothing wrong with calling them what they really are. Actions speak louder than labels. Sorry, one can't be progressive while pretending Russian interference in our elections didn't happen or that the intelligence community is conducting a witch hunt , or by agreeing with and perpetuating propaganda and conspiracy theories and telling everyone how the Democrats are just as bad as the fucking traitorous KGOP.

Nope. Best to judge them by their actions and not their pre-printed self labeling.

[JCanete]

25. who are these people? if you err in any category then you are included? Because that's a whole lot

of different stuff, and awfully convenient to lump it all together.

this thread is literally about objecting to other people labeling democrats something other than progressive, which is done with criteria too. I'm sure some of those who call Dems Dinos, conservadems, etc. would say the same thing. "Nothing wrong with calling them what they really are." Some people have no sense of irony.

[Demsrule86]

31. If you don't vote for the Democrat in an election. If you stay home or go third party

than you can not be considered progressive...because essentially, you voted for the KGOP.

[JCanete]

50. no, that is ridiculous. I don't accept your litmus test any more than you accept other criteria

as a determiner of "progressive." I will not give Democrats a free pass that guarantees my vote just because they will never be the GOP. I don't expect others to either. If Democrats could count on that to such a degree, they wouldn't be as progressive a party as they are. At the end of the day when lefties decide they still aren't sold on our party, they very well may be making a huge mistake, but if there was no left wing pulling us that way with left-wing expectations, certain issues would never see the light of day.

[Demsrule86]

67. If you don't vote for the only engine for Democratic progressive policy...Democrats

You are of the right...not you in particular...but a general you. Vote Democratic always....if you don't than you elect Republicans regardless of what you do with your vote...gorillas, yucky Kremlin Jill or staying at home...all the same. A vote is not a protest but a means to an end...enacting progressive policy and stopping the right from destroying this country...the courts alone were worth voting for in 16...sorry, if you endanger health care social security, medicare, Medicaid and the environment...peoples civil rights too...by not voting Democratic, you are of the right. It is not a litmus test but a fact.

[JCanete]

69. blue dog dems have endangered those very things for decades. You accept that as okay because

sometimes they are on our side, but sometimes pragmatism is the excuse for signing on to the kinds of things that were bad for people. When you advocate for Gorsuch are you of the right? When you praise the decision to exit the paris accord are you of the right? My guess is you would say no. You far oversimplify things when you pretend that its just the left that is always wrong and the middle of the roaders who are always right, and that both don't have points and both don't sometimes get it wrong.

Tell me how you get progressive policy if you don't demand it from one of the parties? You think that everybody who gets elected is inclined to take the hard road and butt heads with the corporations and the rich without there even being a clamor at the bottom to do so? It takes the left demanding it. It takes politicians responding to their extended potential voter base. Whether or not at the end of the day the hold outs are too rigid and impractical is an entirely valid argument, but if you can't acknowledge the good with the bad of both the far left and the middle of the roaders, I don't think you're being entirely honest with yourself.

[Demsrule86]

72. Blue dogs will always be with us if we want a majority....and they are always better than the GOP.

You can't get everything you want...no one ever does...but consider what you get when you elect the GOP...Manchin and other blue dogs stood with us on health care or the bill would be passed already. You think their GOP replacement would? You can do nothing without a majority...vote for who you want in a primary, but come the election, vote Democratic always.

[JCanete]

75. that is like a statement to the effect of "we will never make progress. Just accept it." nt

[Demsrule86]

79. We will make progress...just not as fast as you might like.

If we don't have them...we get what we have now...being in the minority. Not only do we not make progress, we lose the courts and progressive policy.

[DanTex]

24. Short answer is anyone on the left who advocated for Stein or write-in (or Trump as "lesser evil").

No they don't have a point, and there isn't logic behind their reasoning. In theory could have a point, but in reality they don't. And now they are continuing to bash the Democratic Party, further aiding the GOP and its right-wing agenda.

If you want to defend these people, then go ahead and give it a shot. But defend the substance of what they say, don't hide behind empty rhetoric like "both sides" and "just as bad". Just because there are two "sides" doesn't mean that both of them have a point. It's not true when it comes to climate change. It's not true when it comes to supply-side economics. And it's also not true when it comes to the alt-left.

If you want to defend them, defend Susan Sarandon's "make things really explode" theory of the Trump presidency. Defend Jimmy Dore, who has dipped more than his toe into the Seth Rich conspiracies (merger of alt-left and alt-right on that one). Defend Chris Hedges who uses his show on Russian state-controlled media to attack the Democratic Party. Defend the jackasses trying to sue the DNC for "rigging" the primaries, led by an alt-left lawyer who has tweeted approvingly about pizzagate. Or simply go over to JPR, where the alt-leftists who previously polluted this message board have decided to congregate.

Also, I have no idea what you mean by "fucking with our elections, with permission." Russia hacked into the DNC, and into Podesta's account, and they released the stolen emails strategically in order to damage Clinton. Nobody gave them "permission."

[JCanete]

26. we've had these discussions before. I have defended the substance, even when I've disagreed with

some of the conclusions. You yourself have copped to being on that side of things yourself in a previous incarnation.
You consider your current take on politics the evolved one. Others would disagree.

I think I was pretty clear about what I meant. If the people who actually own the GOP politicians objected, there would be a serious investigation, a concerted media take-down, and there would be an impeachment. Russia is nothing in this story without the GOP and the GOP are just a bunch of empty suits waiting for their owners to pull their strings.

[DanTex]

30. Well then, if you already knew what "alt-left" meant, then why did you have to ask?

And since you jumped into this thread, maybe explain for other readers if not for me. Why is it OK for Chris Hedges to use his show on Russian state-run media to help Republicans win elections by convincing naive would-be progressives to waste their vote on a third party?

How is what I am saying anywhere near as hyperbolic as his saying that there's no difference between the parties?

Yes, I condemn the alt-left in strong language. But I am right, and being right makes all the difference. There is an enormous difference between the parties. Russia did hack the DNC and Podesta. Seth Rich was not assassinated by a hit man hired by the DNC. And there was no sex-trafficking ring run by the Clintons out of a pizza joint in DC.

And the sad fact is, you don't have to wade to far into left-wing media to get exposed to all this nonsense and more. And, yeah, the alt-left is trying to hijack the term "progressive", trying to imply that to be progressive you have to watch RT and hate the Democratic Party. Like I said, if you're curious, go over to JPR, it's all there.

[JCanete]

53. Part of the problem is that there are lots of people you seem to lump into alt-left,

but I think its safe to say that they don't all agree on the things that you are lumping them into that category for.

Would you say Cornel West or Susan Sarandon believe the Pizza story? This is the problem with what you're doing. Yes, of course those things you are mentioning here are absurd--so absurd that the only people they could have possibly been convinced were people who wanted that shit to be true in the first place. If that is the definition of alt-left, well fine. I'll accept that tighter net of a definition.

When people say there are no differences between republicans and Democrats though, that is an altogether different statement that, depending on how literally you take it, means different things. Some people might simply be saying they are two sides of the same coin. They are both what constitutes the establishment and what the differences amount to is a lot of kabuki theater...not because they aren't fighting for different things, but because the way our Democrats fight makes people wonder sometimes if its all for show. People who mean it far more literally probably pay almost no attention to politics.

Others might just mean that both parties are perpetuating the problem by not addressing the main causes of it, the Democrats instead opting to fight the symptoms, which is a ruinous endeavor. That doesn't make them the same, but it makes the failure of one party to address the core issues, and with conviction, the enabler of the other party to continue to dominate.

I don't think its all for show. I think the establishment Democrats believe in their approach, even when I don't agree with it. When that happens I don't question the intentions, but I do question the judgement of that individual or he leadership in general and whether or not we should be looking for better options that push us in the right direction.

You are drawing your own conclusions about what it is to be a progressive. Who was more progressive during the lead up to the Iraq war? Sarandon or Clinton? Would we be better off today, would we be aware that we had blundered, if there hadn't always been people pushing, from day one, that this was a bad idea predicated on bullshit? Do you think people who had voted for the war would be out there trying to set the record straight and tarnish their own reputation in the process? Progressivism comes in a lot of different forms. Sometimes the people in the far left are right. Sometimes the people who are more moderate are right. I ascribe to your definition, no more than you ascribe to the ones you are railing about in your OP.

[Demsrule86]

73. Clinton was in the Senate ...thus had a responsibility and she was lied to like everyone else.

Saradon is free to run her mouth...and is an irresponsible liar...who helped elect Trump...big difference.

[JCanete]

74. so if you are in the Senate you are expected to do the expedient thing even though there were

plenty of people saying it was a bad move?

Was protesting the Iraq war important or was it not? Is it only our Dems in Washington who have to keep their powder dry or vote the safe way in order to keep their jobs who are the real progressives, or does it take both sides of that coin?

[Demsrule86]

80. She was lied to like all Americans and Kerry voted for the war as well...

as did many others...time to move.

[JCanete]

86. Why do you assume I think its totally fine that Kerry voted for it? I'm not fine that anybody voted

Last edited Tue Jun 13, 2017, 03:02 AM - Edit history (3)

for it. I do understand though, in-spite of being really frustrated with the decision to do so by our sitting Senators, that there are always factors to weigh, like political costs. There is a legitimate line of thinking that sometimes you have to go with the mob or get run over and replaced by Republicans who will do far worse. The point is though, that that decision has consequences that affect people in sometimes catastrophic ways. Yet it is beyond the pale when people decide that they aren't going to support candidates who are expedient, oh no, because.that there is an act of killing people by letting the GOP get into power...but it isn't beyond the pale to go with the flow and publicly support things that have no business being supported, like draconian crime policies...etc. because then you're just doing harm in the name of the greater good.

The point is these are different tactics, hopefully with the same goals in mind: a more progressive society. Either way, people are deciding, supposedly for the greater good, to let people suffer.

[Demsrule86]

81. The war vote is mostly used to bash Hillary...total BS...when others voted for the war as well.

[NurseJackie]

83. Sarandon was rather selective in that regard too.

PS: Fuck Susan Sarandon!

[JCanete]

85. I'm not saying politics isn't complicated, I'm saying that was a vote that was in favor of

prosecuting an invasion that resulted in the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis. You have no quarter to offer lefties who didn't want to vote for Clinton because they did not help to prevent a Trump Presidency, but you will forgive other things entirely. The point isn't "Hillary bad."

[DanTex]

93. True, but the same could be said about the alt-right.

No, West or Sarandon don't believe or talk about pizzagate. And I'm sure not everyone on the alt-right believes it either. But, like I said, Jared Beck, the lawyer leading the DNC fraud lawsuit, who gets play all over left-wing media, has indeed tweeted about it. And even more voices on the alt-left talk about Seth Rich. Not to mention alt-left social media.

Sure, sometimes the far left is right. And yeah, of course, Sarandon was right and Clinton was wrong about the Iraq War. Then again, Sarandon campaigned for Nader, and so she had a hand in bringing about the administration that started the Iraq War.

What makes what I am calling the alt-left "alt" is the unhinged hatred of the Democratic Party, which generally plays out in people like Sarandon and West and Hedges actually helping Republicans win out of sheer spite. Jill Stein spent more time attacking Clinton than Trump in the campaign. When Cornel West says Clinton would be a "neoliberal disaster", that is just plain stupid. As were Sarandon's comments about Trump. And I've heard Hedges go even further, actually attacking Bernie Sanders for associating with the Democratic Party at all.

[Demsrule86]

32. Russia is everything because they hacked our elections and will do it again.

Russia supports the alt-left only so far as being a spoiler...they really support the KGOP. And this is not about politics...Russia is a threat to our republic...as are the alt-left and the KGOP in all their incarnations.

[JTFrog]

36. I don't trust anyone trying to minimize or dismiss Russia's interference in our elections.

I know for a fact we got slammed with Russian trolls here last year. Those that remain are extremely divisive.

[Demsrule86]

40. I agree ....I was looking at my ignore list...not a long one either.

And most on the list have not posted since the day before or after the election...also some had their privileges revoked. These were the folks that posted just filthy things about the Clintons.

[JCanete]

49. I do agree that Russia is a threat. I do agree that the fact that our GOP isn't up in arms

is telling. I do agree that they put energy into influencing our elections. I just think its all evidence of something far sicker than a foreign government's agenda, because again, if that agenda were not compatible with the standing powers in America, it would have already been thwarted. I don't have any illusions that Putin is running things here. He does have too much influence over Trump, but so long as Trump keeps trying to gut social programs and giveaway huge chunks of money to the rich, all of that is a-okay with the people who could change it in a heart-beat.

[Demsrule86]

68. Who could change it in a heartbeat? Democrats? That is doubtful

at the moment... I think it is a miracle Trump has not done worse.

[JCanete]

70. no of course not. The GOP is the corporate party. They are beholden. If the Koch brothers et al,

wanted the GOP to jump into action and get this clown out, he would be out. Its these people who run America. Not Putin.

[Demsrule86]

71. I agree with that...they want him to stay.

[QC]

28. It's a not-so-clever attempt to liken progressives to Richard Spencer

and his crew.

If only snarky nicknames got things done....

[Demsrule86]

33. attacking Democrats, helps people like Spencer. He has more power than ever before because

the alt-left (don't like that term) whatever voted for Stein, a gorilla, or stayed home. There can be no excuse for such folks as they enabled a psychotic madman who will literally kill Americans...and he ran on hurting people...but still such folks mumbled about how the parties are the same...they are not the same and never were. During an election, one votes for the candidate with the"D" next to his/her name period...or you are not any sort of progressive.

[QC]

34. If he has power, it's because he has a patron in the White House

and sugardaddies like Robert Mercer.

Punching hippies is fun, just like making up juvenile nicknames and screaming about B List actresses and obscure professors who make rap albums, but it really doesn't accomplish much.

[Demsrule86]

35. Alt-left are not hippies... there are no hippies anymore...silly term.

The patron in the White House was put in power by those who claim to be progressive but voted for Stein, a gorilla, or stayed home...and I would argue, they are not progressive.

[QC]

37. Yep, it was the Greens. Not Putin, not Libertarian voters,

of whom there were far more, not Comey (oops, we're supposed to adore him now), not the shitty corporate media, not over-reliance on data analytics--it was the Greens.

Whatever.

[Demsrule86]

41. It was Greens and Putin's trolls who fooled many on the so called Alt-left ,but not

Libertarians who took votes from Trump,. Had Kremlin Jill not run, Hillary would be president today. She alone had enough votes to swing the important states to Hillary.

[Chevy]

54. The defense of Greens on this sight is sickening n/t

[Demsrule86]

65. I agree. There can be no defense of these folks...they are not progressive or green.

They suck on all levels...I despise them all.

[Chevy]

52. You mean the ones who follow and defend the TYT

Last edited Wed Jun 14, 2017, 12:26 PM - Edit history (2)

who employ people who get retweeted by Richard Spencer and his friends often, say it ain't so.

[QC]

56. I dunno. You should probably ask someone who supports them. n/t

[Chevy]

60. Well stick around for awhile enough of them here at DU n/t

[Gothmog]

29. I agree with your analysis

[mcar]

38. Thank you!

I am a liberal, a Democrat and a progressive. I vote Democratic and work for positive change.

Those who constantly trash the Democratic party instead of paying attention to the horror that surrounds us are neither liberals or progressives.

[Orsino]

42. Our party is scattered across the spectrum from neoliberal to progressive.

Neoliberal positions should and will be called out by progressives, and broad-brushing millions of us isn't going to be helpful.

As with patriotism, party loyalty should demand that we try to perfect our institutions rather than merely deflecting criticism.

[Abu Pepe]

44. progressive means liberal not far left or lefist nt

[RandomAccess]

45. Your argument

loses a lot of effectiveness since it's wrapped in the misguided term "alt-left."

I don't know why people don't understand that when they use this term they are validating, normalizing and creating a false equivalency of part of the left with the alt-right, who self-identify with Richard Spender's term.

There IS no "alt-left."

There are no groups who in any way come close to matching the type of destructiveness to our democracy and to vulnerable populations that the ideology of the alt-right represents. There IS NO EQUIVALENCY, but the term "alt-left" itself, because of its neat and precise equivalent structure, insists there is.

Any destructiveness you may feel people further left than you have done because they don't believe or behave as you want them to really doesn't equal the damage you and others are doing by using the term "alt-left" to describe anyone, for any reason. As I said, it validates and normalizes the repugnant alt-right as if it represents an appropriate or acceptable set of values and ideals. And, of course, it simultaneously implies the left must also have a bigoted, potentially physically violent, autocratic and repressive component, which it does not. In short, there IS no fascism-of-the-left, but the use of the term "alt-left" suggests that there is.

For these reasons it is a horrifically injurious term for ALL the Left, and I hope you and others will reconsider its use.

Besides, people get to self-identify as they see fit. I still like Liberal, myself, over a term that came from the Progressive Era, 1890 - 1920.

So your main accomplishment here, whether you wish to recognize it or not, is to alienate people. Aren't we all tired of that? I know I am. This is the United States where people get to believe what they want and, within reason, do what they want, DU rules notwithstanding. Your anti-left rant isn't going to convince anyone or make them see the light (er, YOUR light), so what exactly do you hope to accomplish?

Look. I don't agree with these people either. I too am very angry with them for not being smart enough, sophisticated enough, well-informed enough and responsible enough to vote in a way that would not help Trump. (But that's not what got him elected and I would hope we all understand that by now - in which case it's high time to drop all the tired arguments about these people.) I prefer to aim my anger at Trump and the people MOST responsible for getting and keeping him there.

BTW, how do you propose to prevent anyone from self-identifying as a progressive and thus "hijacking" the term?

[Chevy]

58. The Alt left is here to stay

as long as the so called left continue to minimize and mock POC concerns about civil rights and continue to push for caucuses which disfranchise POC,seniors and people who actually have jobs so a bunch of well to do white kids can stomp their feet and yell the recent TYT talking points. Personally I'm using the term Rose petals now but please try to convince POC who use Twitter that the Alt-left doesn't exist.

[RandomAccess]

95. Aaargh

I didn't say they didn't exist, I said that's the wrong damn term to use for them.

[melman]

90. They know exactly what they're doing

It's all very deliberate and meant to do exactly what you describe here:

"I don't know why people don't understand that when they use this term they are validating, normalizing and creating a false equivalency of part of the left with the alt-right, who self-identify with Richard Spender's term."

They do understand and that is precisely what threads like this are meant to do.

[Kentonio]

92. Sadly true

[RandomAccess]

94. :-(

Sad to hear that.

[aikoaiko]

48. The label "progressive" is much bigger than unequivocal loyalty to the Democratic party.

You don't get to hijack it either.

[BainsBane]

88. Yet it's been made much smaller

about unequivocal loyalty to one man. Funny that.

[Eliot Rosewater]

51. Agreed, I am however not a progressive, I am a radical liberal.

Radical in that I believe everyone should have food, housing and medical care.

[BlueJac]

57. alt-left.

WTF? Quit slicing and dicing the Democratic Party. Looks like the Republican name callers!

[DefenseLawyer]

62. Maybe you should win something before you start issuing orders n/t

[Chevy]

76. You win something? Interesting. n/t

[DefenseLawyer]

78. Yeah, like say, an election. n/t

[Chevy]

84. Yeah was focusing on the YOU part obviously

you are they, whoever they may be.

[BainsBane]

89. Good advice

Amazingly, the orders are coming from people who have won nothing, not a single seat or nomination anywhere at anytime. Evidently the cause emerging from the people's summit is to expand the caucus system--a mechanism with the lowest and least diverse voter participation of any.

[YCHDT]

63. Thank you for this, progress is NOT stupidity

[Cha]

64. I don't.. I know what "progressive" means...

it means actually getting things DONE.. Like President Obama..

[Justice]

66. Amen to that!

[MountCleaners]

87. There is a progressive caucus....

How many times do I have to post this? I suppose these people are just trying to shun the word "liberal".



https://cpc-grijalva.house.gov/caucus-members/

House Members
Alma Adams
Nanette Barragán 
Karen Bass
Don Beyer
Lisa Blunt Rochester
Suzanne Bonamici
Michael Capuano
André Carson
Judy Chu
Katherine Clark
Yvette Clarke
Wm.Lacy Clay
Steve Cohen
Bonnie Watson Coleman
John Conyers
Elijah Cummings
Danny Davis
Peter DeFazio
Rosa DeLauro
Val Demings
Debbie Dingell 
Lloyd Doggett
Keith Ellison
Adriano Espaillat
Dwight Evans
Lois Frankel
Marcia Fudge
Luis Gutiérrez
Jared Huffman
Hakeem Jeffries
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Hank Johnson
Joe Kennedy III
Ruben Kihuen
Brenda Lawrence
Barbara Lee
John Lewis
Ted Lieu
David Loebsack
Alan Lowenthal
Carolyn Maloney
James McGovern
Gwen Moore
Jerrold Nadler
Grace Napolitano 
Rick Nolan
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Frank Pallone
Chellie Pingree
Jared Polis
José Serrano
Carol Shea-Porter
Louise Slaughter
Bennie Thompson
Nydia Velázquez
Maxine Waters
Peter Welch
Frederica Wilson
John Yarmuth

[Kentonio]

91. Alt-left? What an absolute crock

Where are these supposed saboteurs who never stop attacking liberals? Because here all we see is an endless parade of people lining up to attack Sanders and anyone on the left. And now apparently being on the left means you're just like the neo-nazis on the right? Utterly offensive and divisive bullshit.

God, its lucky there isn't anything important happening right now that we should be concentrating on..