"Regressive" is a good term for (much of) the American right.

[Integral]

Look, all I'm saying is that much of the right, especially the religious right, wants to go back to some perceived glorious past, like before the pill.

And many on the left want to move towards universal health insurance, which is little more than an expansion of New Deal/Great Society policy. Is Obama regressive?

 

[The Yankee]

The right-wingers are not alone in their desire for a rose-tinted return to imagined 'better times.'

Many in the left-wing wish to regress back to the 1960s, to a glorified liberal utopia they imagine
was close but never was. Which is not any different from conservative fantasies along the same
lines - These groups find the past comforting...They are both kidding themselves on...

...

Pretty much. Everyone always going back to their greatest triumphs, even if they've been decades past.

And many on the left want to move towards universal health insurance, which is little more than an expansion of New Deal/Great Society policy. Is Obama regressive?

But it's further along the timeline than 1925!

 

[Theige]

The right-wingers are not alone in their desire for a rose-tinted return to imagined 'better times.'

Many in the left-wing wish to regress back to the 1960s, to a glorified liberal utopia they imagine
was close but never was. Which is not any different from conservative fantasies along the same
lines - These groups find the past comforting...They are both kidding themselves on...

...

Yes, but the word "Liberal," to me anyways, means constantly improving society, because we will never be perfect, and nothing will ever be perfect. There is always room for improvement and progress.

So while you can always look to the past for ideas, the best ideas will be new, in my opinion.

To what end? Well, perfection of society, which will never be attained, but can certainly be striven for. But we can start by eliminating poverty, hunger, and homelessness.

 

[CurtSibling]

Yes, but the word "Liberal," to me anyways, means constantly improving society, because we will never be perfect, and nothing will ever be perfect. There is always room for improvement and progress.

To what end? Well, perfection of society, which will never be attained, but can certainly be striven for. But we can start by eliminating poverty, hunger, and homelessness.

The word 'liberal' has many connotations, depending where you go.

...

 

[Sims2789]

And many on the left want to move towards universal health insurance, which is little more than an expansion of New Deal/Great Society policy. Is Obama regressive?

No he's not. He doesn't go up there and say "we want expand the New Deal with universal healthcare."

The Democrats don't really tie healthcare into the future, except that they say we can do better than what we do now, and the way to do better is by trying something new, like universal healthcare.

 

[skadistic]

Aren't conservatives wanting of no change? How can that ( a neutral stance) be regressive? Regressive or progressive would be change in opposite directions most conservatives want status quo.

 

[Sims2789]

Aren't conservatives wanting of no change? How can that ( a neutral stance) be regressive? Regressive or progressive would be change in opposite directions most conservatives want status quo.

They usually want to go back to the past. Not too many of them say, "I like 2008. I like some abortions being legal, gays in the military if they don't tell other people, and some, but not all, states having healthcare." They want to ban abortion, kick gays out of the military, and revert to no one having healthcare.

 

[Integral]

No he's not. He doesn't go up there and say "we want expand the New Deal with universal healthcare."

The Democrats don't really tie healthcare into the future, except that they say we can do better than what we do now, and the way to do better is by trying something new, like universal healthcare.

But that's not new; in the American sense, it's a continuation of the Great Society programs, and in the European sense, it's been done before. Universal health insurance is not new in 2008, on either side of the Atlantic. Again, if we use that as a metric (and the Democratic Party is making UHI a big issue), then Obama and Clinton are as regressive as the Republicans.

 

[Sims2789]

But that's not new; in the American sense, it's a continuation of the Great Society programs, and in the European sense, it's been done before. Universal health insurance is not new in 2008, on either side of the Atlantic. Again, if we use that as a metric (and the Democratic Party is making UHI a big issue), then Obama and Clinton are as regressive as the Republicans.

It's never been tried in the US and it wasn't part of the Great Society. The Great Society spawned urban renewal which was a disastrous violation of property rights, and that was new.

 

[GoodGame]

I think the idea of a (pro)regressionist axis for pigeon-holing conservatism is biased and offensive. I view conservatism as a kind of traditionalism, which looks to the past for successful examples. Also, to assume that the future always equals a successful progression, is quite a stretch, else there would never be failures.

This definition sounds more like one for Facism, at least one of the motivating goals for a facist state, re: Italy under Mussolini.

Regressivism seeks to restore a glorified past and looks to old strategies and beliefs to solve the day's problems.

 

[Integral]

It's never been tried in the US and it wasn't part of the Great Society. The Great Society spawned urban renewal which was a disastrous violation of property rights, and that was new.

"It's never been tried in the US": But that makes it different, not new. New implies that it's never been tried before. You yourself say that a progressive idea must include "new ideas and methods"; well, providing government-funded health insurance isn't a new idea, and mandates and "lowering costs" aren't new methods.

Again, the problem with the regressive/progressive dichotomy is twofold. First, the connotations of the words imply that "regressives" have nothing new or useful to say, and are thus dismissable from the outset. Second, all of the candidates look to the past for the inspiration of their ideas. Some look farther back than others; some want to expand on old ideas and others want to revert to other old ideas. But very little of what we see today is geniunely new.

"wasn't part of the Great Society": Medicare. Government-funded health insurance. Sounds rather similar to what I'm hearing from Obama and Clinton: providing government-subsidized health insurance for those who can't afford it. How, exactly, is the expansion of an old program a new idea? That is not to say that UHI is a good or bad idea; the point is, it's not in any way, shape, or form a new idea.

 

[Ecofarm]

The term is: reactionary.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Aren't conservatives wanting of no change? How can that ( a neutral stance) be regressive? Regressive or progressive would be change in opposite directions most conservatives want status quo.

They usually want to go back to the past. Not too many of them say, "I like 2008. I like some abortions being legal, gays in the military if they don't tell other people, and some, but not all, states having healthcare." They want to ban abortion, kick gays out of the military, and revert to no one having healthcare.

Although it feels rather unpleasant I have to agree with skad. Conservatives oppose changes to the status quo. They might well aim to roll back some of the more recent successes of progressive politics, but they generally fall in line with the new status quo before long.

The fact is progressives have yet to fully win the arguments on universal healthcare and homosexuality in America. Conservatives see the small gains that have been made in these areas as contrary to the status quo, not part of it. In Europe the same politicians who staunchly opposed any relaxation of laws on homosexuality are now broadly supportive of gay rights.

There's a reason regressive is not a widespread political term. The fact is that it rarely ever happens. Conservatives fight to stall progress but it always comes eventually. There are very few instances of countries reintroducing slavery or capital punishment, or stripping women of the vote or minorities of legal rights. The only movements that have had any success at holding out against centuries of human progress have been religions.

 

[brennan]

Of course Conservatives can be regressive. They can oppose changes that have already been made.

 

[RedRalph]

I think the word reactionary does this job, and it is indeed accurate to describe much of the US right wing.

 

[Cullyn]

Progressivism seeks to solve problems and improve America with current ideas and is not limited by what's already been tried. Regressivism seeks to restore a glorified past and looks to old strategies and beliefs to solve the day's problems.

Because they look to the past, I think that regressive is a more descriptive and more accurate term for today's right than conservative since conservative means many things. For example, being fiscally conservative could mean that you support a balanced budget and reduced spending, or it could mean that you support tax cuts coupled with spending increases. Being socially conservative could be synonymous with social libertarianism, but it could also mean that you want to expand government power into people's personal lives.

So, I don't think all members of the American right are regressives. Reagan, for example, focused on both the future and the past and wanted to move America forward through less government. If he were a regressive, he would have wanted to move us backward to when there was less government, like Ron Paul.

the further politics moves from the centre the more extreme it looks. For someone on the Left, the American right are seen as hopelessly extreme, conservative and regressive, yet to those on the right they see they left in similar ways. They are in ways, both correct, that it why the majority of people are in the centre, and can pick the bits they prefer form both sides. I would contend that the idea of less government is a fallacy, what is required is a more inclusive government, one that allows the citizen to easy illy interact with. And i say this as a Public Service worker.

Warning!! Rant -

Spoiler :

I would also say that sometimes i get very fed up with the high moral grounds many of my fellow Europeans have in regard to the USA. In the past 200 odd years that the USA has been around i have failed to see it being anything less than a democracy. Can France, Germany, Italy, Russia or even the UK say the same? As for there foreign policy, the scramble for Africa?

 

[JerichoHill]

We can't even agee on the definitions of these words.

I think that painting the "American right" as regressive is a false statement, just as painting the "American left" as regressive is as well.

Both sides are as varied as the colors on a prism. Almost no one is 100% lefty tree hugger or 100% righty Jesus freak. I believe comparisons like these are unhelpful. They create an "us vs them" dichotomy, which is exactly one of the problems in this country today.

 

[IglooDame]

I think Sims understands (viscerally, if not intellectually) that successfully applying the terms helps frame the debate. The folks that favor greater regulation and/or banning of firearms are known as pro-"gun control". They're lobbying in many ways (by and large, unsuccessfully) to change "gun control" to "gun safety". The group on one side of the abortion debate calls themselves "pro-life" and their opponents "anti-life" or "pro-abortion", their opponents call themselves "pro-choice" and their opponents "anti-choice".

Personally, I'll be damned if I'm willing to allow someone who opposes my position choose the term that everyone will use in describing my position.

 

[Sims2789]

I think Sims understands (viscerally, if not intellectually) that successfully applying the terms helps frame the debate. The folks that favor greater regulation and/or banning of firearms are known as pro-"gun control". They're lobbying in many ways (by and large, unsuccessfully) to change "gun control" to "gun safety". The group on one side of the abortion debate calls themselves "pro-life" and their opponents "anti-life" or "pro-abortion", their opponents call themselves "pro-choice" and their opponents "anti-choice".

Personally, I'll be damned if I'm willing to allow someone who opposes my position choose the term that everyone will use in describing my position.

Yes, I do understand that. The right associated "liberal" with hippie/socialist and I even commonly edit Wikipedia articles to replace "pro-life" with "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice" with "pro-abortion" since pro-life and pro-choice are framed.

Framing, though not deceptively, was my original intention in using the word "regressive," but I ended up not doing that in this thread.

I should have said that we should just start using it since it isn't a pretty term and it's more applicable to conservatism than to liberalism, since that's what I was originally thinking. Instead I created precise definitions for regression and progress.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

I even commonly edit Wikipedia articles to replace "pro-life" with "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice" with "pro-abortion" since pro-life and pro-choice are framed.

I'm pro-choice, but I'm certainly no pro-abortion. Pro-abortion is a horribly loaded term that almost nobody would wish to be associated with. How on Earth could you prefer it over the quite accurate pro-choice?