Democrats ... What is the end goal of progressive policy?

Question

I am an independent, and would like a left, or democrat perspective on these questions, about this question.

What are progressive policies and what is the cause and effect that these goals will set in play to get us to those end goals?

What is the historical success of those types of policies in the past? Some examples?

What are examples of some governments who are now implementing progressive policy? What kind of success are they having?

Answer 1

I'm no democrat, not even a fan, but I think I can give you more insight into the movement than any democrat, because to understand it is to see it's not going to work. It's to see that it was never meant to work, just to take advantage of some feelings and turn them into a religious level social phenomena that could be used to gain power.

The end goals are great, much as Marxism has a great end goal. The problem is that it's more of an emotional movement than a thought out practical system. Even their leaders don't define practical cause and effects of their policy, they kind of stumble through explanations and turn almost every time to emotional pleas. If you don't think discrimination through affirmative actions is set in a poor foundation which can't really work, you're a racist, they will not argue rationally, but hang a label on you and use that to assassinate your character. If you think that the high tax rate put on those with higher incomes is a bad idea, they will say you hate the poor and are only out for the rich, even though taxing the higher levels of income ends in lower revenues and ends up hurting the poor more than anyone, every time. It's not like  there is a question of this, we have data on it because it's never been otherwise. Kennedy knew this, and they worship JFK, so why do they scorn the wisdom of his highly successful policy? They really can't answer that, because they really can't use facts, because their policies and goals don't gel, and demonstrated facts prove this. The progressive movement is nothing but a power grab, much as Marxism has been used for time after time, what is the success rate of socialistic policy? I'll use the next paragraph to go over that.

When you look at the success rate of leftist policy, it's always been devastating to the economies it's been used in. Point Blank, it doesn't work. Not that everything to do with the leftist ideals are bad, but the leftist economical precepts are counter productive, every time. Not everything about them, but the core elements. Unions are good in many ways to keep a balance between employers and employees, but natural relationships between them are, not imposed relationships that are forced on, like using violence to break Unions, or government regulations to force Unions on the workforce. That results in an abusive situation where one side has an unnatural advantage over the other and when the balance is destroyed it always results in a situation in which the losing side is too put down and the balance collapses. That situation is bad for the over all economy because it either destroys the business all of them depend on leaving nothing, or the owners in a overly powerful situation in which most of the country is poor and can no longer afford to buy the products.

If the progressive movement wasn't so based on group think they might  look at some of what they support without really understanding why. It's based on being part of a group, and that group pretty much replaces rational consideration of facts. They just assume that all those other people who seem so sure of what they say, can't be wrong. Plus their own social standing depends on it. If they go against the group they are cast out and become social pariahs, they can't even do business or keep a job with those who are into that group think, so they pretty much have to go along.

Answer 2

Answer is here...

http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Signet-Clas...  

Answer 3

I don't speak for the democrat party, but I would say the great historical success of "progressiveism" is that it corrected the more heinous abuses of capitalism that were afflicting the public in the early part of the last century, thus improving the lives of millions and simultaneously depriving communists of their arguments for revolution.  

If it makes sense to talk about the "end goals" of progressiveism, I'd say they are to generally ameliorate the conflict between the classes, in an ongoing way, so as to best serve the common interests of all.  

But again, that's just me talking you understand.