The US has the most massive and effective propaganda system the world has ever seen. It includes the huge public relations industry (which in more honest days, described itself as dedicated to "propaganda"), the corporate media, and in fact a lot more. The US is the only industrial country where one cannot (on pain of exclusion from polite society) describe oneself as a socialist (and Communist parties function freely elsewhere). After "socialist" was demonized, attention turned next to "liberal" -- now almost a term of abuse. So the people who in other societies would be called social democrats, socialist, etc. ("liberal" is a special US term) now call themselves "progressives," which seems to have less dangerous connotations, though people who are dedicated slaves of private power are working hard to demonize that term too.
Jane Hamsher
It's a little weird, because historically the progressive movement was defined by muckrakers who fought for transparency and holding government accountable, whereas liberals are identified with the social safety net, the New Deal and "big government." O'Reilly claims to champion the former and despise the latter.I imagine he means he hates young people, who are more likely to call themselves "progressives," as opposed to their grandparents who still use the word "liberal." He's probably just pandering to his geriatric audience and doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Cindy Sheehan
Of course he is okay with "liberals" because it seems that liberal has grown to mean a person who is slightly left of center and supports the status quo as much as possible. I am not too crazy about liberals as they stand now and have (not too surprisingly) an opposing viewpoint of O'Reilly. To me, "progressive" is farther to the left of liberal and advocates for progress to the left in particularly social programs domestically and for the end to foreign wars of aggression--that's why O'Reilly "despises" them. But, he's a moron and we shouldn't really fret about anything he says.
John NIchols thenation.com
I give Bill O'Reilly credit for recognizing a distinction between progressives and liberals. It's real. Progressivism is a distinct political stream within the left politics of the United States. Rooted in rural populist traditions, progressivism has traditionally been more questioning of political and economic elites, more supportive of direct democracy (initiatives, referendums, recalls) and far more inclined to believe that politics is not just about elections. The great progressive leader of the early 20th century, Robert M. La Follette, said it best: "democracy is a life." His point was that activists have to be constantly engaged, constantly pushing for real and radical change. That sort of engagement is what elites fear, as it takes away the advantages they historically have gained as a result of their dominance of parties, government institutions and the media. This is why Bill O'Reilly despises progressives. He fears a political force that, historically, has gotten Americans focused on and active around core economic and social justice issues. And if we look at recent developments in the U.S., especially the uprisings in Wisconsin and Ohio and other states, he has reason to be frightened. Cautious liberalism is being rejected as a growing number of Americans determine that they want a real politics and a real democracy.
Danny Schechter of media channel.org
I am among the few progressives that appeared on O'Reilly's "SHOW" years ago. It is a show, showing off a parade of attitudes calculated to build audience among his think alikes. His problem is now, Glenn Beck, who out flanked him on the right with many of those who tired of Bill's well-honed shticks, now considering him a 'liberal," a sign of how effective Foxygen programming has been on viewers who only await the sound of familiar message points.When big Bill wanders into being serious, and taking himself even more seriously, he is forced to acknowledge the limits of his blather, but always with one eye over his shoulder to see how his kool aid is playing. From time to time, he has to make a correction, not of facts but language, and that's what he's doing now with the distinction he is trying to make between liberals and progressives. He knows his role is to divide without being conquered. That is one way to do it, to try to wean liberals and give them reasons to watch.
Kevin Gosztola of firedoglake.com, formerly of opednews.com
I tend to use "liberal" to describe activity by left-leaning people, who presumably support the Democratic Party. I use liberal to describe people who are willing to be gutless and not try and force President Barack Obama (or any Democratic president or politician) to make the changes they think are needed in government and society.I use "progressive" to describe people who are doing good work. They are engaged in activism. They believe in the system but are willing to push up against Democratic Party politics much more than "liberals." They aren't "lefties." They aren't completely radical. They do go to the root of a lot of problems, but they may still find the system can be salvaged and isn't as broken as "lefties" think.
The reality is that both liberals or progressives fold to Democrats and can be weak in their activism because they find incremental change acceptable, they don't think a politician will budge, they want to take what they can get from the system, they aren't "purists" or "sanctimonious."
People at Firedoglake actually get called "Firebaggers." It's a pejorative slung by "liberals" to describe a crowd of people who think what Obama or liberal politicians do is never enough. This is a term that people at the website have embraced. "Firebaggers" now means people who stick to their principles. If something was wrong when Bush did it, it is most definitely wrong and to be opposed if Obama continues it and does it too.
Kevin Zeese
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
4
4
