Why can't democrats identify what Progressive Goals Are? Or What Progressive Policy is? Or How it meets goals?

Question

I've asked a couple of questions. What is democrats "Progressive" Policy? ... I'm an independent. Just wondering what democrats call "progressive policy". What policies are "progressive"? What does Progressive actually mean to democrats?

Why can't they answer this simple question? How can you be progressive and not know what it really means?

Question 2: Democrats ... What is the end goal of progressive policy?

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?

Still no answers, but web sites and telling me to Google? WOW, Why can't they answer these simple questions? I can answer anything to do with anything I support, give the specifics, the goals, empirical evidence, WHY CAN"T THEY? How can you be invested in something you don't even understand well enough to define? It's mind boggeling.

Answer 1

I think they need to be honest for a change and just tell everyone they really are pushing for socialism.  

Answer 2

To really know the progressive movement and their rhetoric is to see that it was never meant to work as a governing philosophy, just to take advantage of some feelings and turn them into a religious level social phenomena that could be used to gain power.

The sheep following the other sheep following the wolves of the progressive movement can't explain to you, because they don't know. They get double talk and bull stuff and for them and their group thinking state of mind, that the group accepts is good enough. Have you really ever seen a hard core progressive sheep express goals in cause and effect and hard factual data? Nooooo ... it's all character assassination of those they have built up as evil, it's like any other fascist movement.

The expressed 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.