Restating the Names

It's time for an Aristotelean attempt at reordering the labels that the media has now used for years to distort the positions of the politicians they are supposed to be covering. Specifically, it's time to take a good look at the terms Conservative and Liberal.

Conservatism, loosley being the belief in smaller government, is a dead propostion. Both sides of the political spectrum seek to enlarge government. The Left still pursues those nasty social spending programs. You know, the ones that, like the New Deal, tend to work. The other side, while decrying government spending, seeks enlargement of government through the creation of federal bureaucracies charged with things like spying on the public, facilitating corporate intrusion into government, and the military (but only so corporate war-profiteers can make some more cash of the public cow. To hell with the vets).

However, the "press" consistently labels anyone with a "D' behind their name as liberal and anyone who supports government-run religious oppression as conservative.
So let's do some redefining.

The first term, that is gaining more usage, but is already being misapplied, is progressive. Progressively can be loosley defined as working for the benefit of the majority. Do not be misled. Progressives do represent the interest of disenfranchised minorities, etc. in the hopes that equality will benefit all.

The second term is Regressivism. Regressives represent the elite. Regressives seek to insulate extreme special interest groups through legislation.

So now, if we utilize the four terms we have, we can create four categories of political characterization. First, Progressivism can be combined with Liberalism. or the desire for quick systemic change, to create Liberal Progressives, or those who desire quick systemic change for the benefit of all. Secondly, we can combine Conservatism with Progressivism yielding Conservative Progressives, or those who want slow, managed change for the benefit of all. Thirdly, we have the Liberal Regressives. Sounds like a contradiction of terms, but this is what then "Neocons" actually consider themselves to be. Liberal Regressives, such as Dick Cheney, want quick, systemic change benefitting the few. Lastly, we have the Conservative Regressives, or John McCains, who want slow, managed change to benefit the few.

The problem that we are still left with is the divide between social agendas and economic agendas. A Rudolph Guliani poses a problem. Considered by the mainstream media to be a social "liberal" Guliani would seem to fall into the ranks of Conservative Progressives on social issues. However, as is often the case, Guliani's economic proposals would have the effect of creating an atmosphere where Regressives would dominate the social arena through economic policy. So what is he? Who knows?

What is certain is that Clinton is no Progressive and McCain is no Conservative.