Template talk:Progressivism sidebar

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Politics This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles

Hi, this template seems to be very US-centric. I added the globalise template, but it was removed. If it is going to appear on non-US articles it should really be adjusted to have a more world-wide view. - FrancisTyers 18:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind you adding this and it is a work in progress, so your right. --Northmeister 18:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen, lets just discuss what you and I want to add further before adding it. I don't like the addition of Jim Crow, how is that progressive? They were enacted by those opposed to Lincoln and Reconstruction and who favored classical liberal thought and small government in the South. It just doesn't fit. I suggest adding Reconstruction instead and under the banner of Programs, not ideas. --Northmeister 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FrancesTyers. This template should be less US-centric. I will remove the parties, since they are only American parties. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 22:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Liberalism and Christian Democracy Templates. This template should be organized as such. I am not to familar with progressive thought outside of the USA, so any help here would be appreciated. --Northmeister 18:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Crow and disfranchisement of the blacks was one of the Progressive movement "achievements" in the South--strongly endorsed by Wilson. It came 1890-1915, and was not connected to Reconstruction. it was part of effort to purify politics, seeing the blacks as corrupt. See books by Sheldon Hackney, C Vann Woodward, and most recently Michael Perman. Rjensen 19:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Crow was not progressive. Where did the progressive movement advocate Jim Crow? Further if it were part of it, which it is not, then it would belong in the programs. --Northmeister 20:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which historians consider the Whig Party to be part of the Progressivist movement? I had thought that they had disappreared before Progressivism became a political movement. -Will Beback 20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template is about the philosophy of Progressivism, not the Progressive movement, which you speak of which is called the Progressive Era. This is only a working template, it is subject to change to get it right. If you don't like the inclusion of the Whigs, let me know why. The whigs were not classical liberals. --Northmeister 20:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the contested portions of this template until we can ferret this stuff out. Jim Crow, I contest because it was not a part of the progressive ideal; it was an anathema to it. How anyone could argue that Jim Crow was progressive is beyond me; it was regressive and attempted to enfroce a version of conservative social philosophy on blacks in the south. Plus, Whig Party was contested by Will Beback, so took that out in consideration of objection for now. Took out any programs outside of Progressive era in America until information is gone through to include them. Rjensen contested New Deal as not being progressive..so I took out that and the programs that followed that in effort to be fair; while discussion commences. We need progressive oriented examples from the international scene. I ask here on out each of us add our thoughts below, let others comment and reach a consensus for further inclusion. --Northmeister 21:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the standard historical treatment is that progressivism was "for whites only" as C Vann Woodward explained in Origins of the New South and his classic "The Strange Career of Jum Crow". Disfranchisement was a major progressive "reform". (See Perman 2001). Woodrow Wilson continued the tradition by segregating the federal government employees. As for New Deal, it was part progressivbe and part anti-progressive. I think people want to hold up "progressivism" as a shining white model, but overlook the white part. Rjensen 21:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodrow Wilson was not the only Progressive. He in fact was at the fringe of Progressivism when it comes to what came before under Roosevelt. I don't concur about "for whites only" at all. You have to remember the era we are dealing with and some writers take things out of context from that era. What we are dealing with here is simply the roots and ideas of progressivism, not the era in question - which had a lot of racism in it. The South was not particularly progressive, most of the Progressives (and Abolitionists from earlier era) came from the North and Midwest, some from the West. You have to take the broad view of history and judge events for their times. I don't concur what so ever with the analysis you provide; although I am sure there were racists in the progressive movement as there is any many movements; it doesn't directly tie Jim Crow to Progressivism, and the New Freedom is a far cry from the progressive cause that was advocated prior to Wilson. --Northmeister 21:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say that the progressives in the South were almost all segregationists. They disfranchised the blacks. As for the North, the supporters of black rights were mostly conservatives--people like Rockefeller. Certainly not Teddy Roosevelt. (see Brownsville incident.) Rjensen 21:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brownsville is disputable. But, Roosevelt and progressivism was not about racism. Roosevelt said "There are good men and bad men of all nationalities, creeds and colors; and if this world of ours is ever to become what we hope some day it may become, it must be by the general recognition that the man's heart and soul, the man's worth and actions, determine his standing."

Letter, Oyster Bay, NY, September 1, 1903 --Northmeister 21:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We might as well add the prohibition movement. As Ayers notes, "Prohibition forces shared most of the ideals of the progressive crusade: control over greedy monopolies and unruly citizens, government intervention, educational campaigns, economic growth." [The Promise of the New South: 1993 p 414] Rjensen 21:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Prohibition, add that to the Programs section. --Northmeister 21:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education, univiersities, science, medicine...all were major themes of the progressive movement and should get a heading. Say, "promoting science and education". Ayers notes "Aycock championed white education as a way to justify and redeem disfranchisement and during his term as governor oversaw dramatic changes in North Carolina's schools." [p 413] Rjensen 21:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should be added to the ideas section; is there an article to point to? --Northmeister 21:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think an article is needed badly. Rjensen 21:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, in so much as 'promoting science and education' which Educational progressivism speaks of already. --Northmeister 21:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" progressive factions gave educational reformers the most effective support. They were more ready to tax the capitalist and property-owner to provide the funds. On the other hand, the new progressivism was "For Whites Only," and hunger for opportunity conflicted with the doctrine of equality of opportunity." Separate and Unequal: Public School Campaigns and Racism in the Southern Seaboard States, 1901-1915. by Louis R. Harlan - 1968. Page 38. Rjensen 21:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Republican progressives (Norris, Borah, LaFollette, Hiram Johnson, Lindbergh etc) were mostly isolationists in 1920s and 1930s, fighting hard against the League of Nations and entry into WW1 and ww2. The Democrats were mostly anti-isolationist. I would tend to leave it out, but here it is 2006 and it's that way again. Rjensen 21:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but isolationist is so misused. Roosevelt was not an isolationist and he was the prime figure of the Progressive movement. America had a long tradition of not getting engaged in European conflicts, because George Washington warned us against this in his Farewell Address, so sentiment on all sides was high in this regard. Islolationism itself was not inherently progressive, it covered all sides and really shouldn't be included, like racism above. We all know our past, that racist policies were pursued from time to time as was the case with Australia, Canada, and most of Europe at the time. What we must put in is what signify's progressivism as a philosophy - it wasn't isolationism nor Jim Crow...it was progress through government intervention to achieve Jefferson's aims (according to Croly) with Hamilton's means (again Croly). See Here. If we keep this in mind we have a direction for what to include and not include. --Northmeister 21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the debate, here's an argument for discontinuity: "Looking back from the beginning of the twenty-first century, it appears that the Progressive movement was the last gasp of a polity seeking to preserve what it could of a (rapidly receding) American past. In this sense, the antitrust movement, conservation, prohibition, immigration restriction, and even woman's suffrage were the products of a powerful preservationist impulse more than of a forward looking quest for social and economic change." Morton Keller, "The New Deal and Progressivism" in The New Deal and the Triumph of Liberalism edited by Sidney M Milkis, Jerome M Mileur 2002: p 317 Rjensen 21:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I think that is a fringe view though, out of context of the whole era. Woman's suffrage as preservationist? I don't buy that argument. --Northmeister 22:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keller is one of the half-dozen most outstanding historians of progressivism, in my opinion. He's not at all fringe. Rjensen 00:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I accept that. Point taken. --Northmeister 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Conservation, looking ahead, and public welfare: "The object of government is the welfare of the people." "Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us." "The New Nationalism" speech, Osawatomie, Kansas, August 31, 1910 --Northmeister 22:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Woman's Rights...: "Much can be done by law towards putting women on a footing of complete and entire equal rights with man - including the right to vote, the right to hold and use property, and the right to enter any profession she desires on the same terms as the man."..."Women should have free access to every field of labor which they care to enter, and when their work is as valuable as that of a man it should be paid as highly." An Autobiography, 1913 Theodore Roosevelt. --Northmeister 22:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Big Business and Square Deal...: "We demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal." Letter to Sir Edward Gray, November 15, 1913 T.R. --Northmeister 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summation of Progressive ideal by Roosevelt...: "More important then aught else is the development of the broadest sympathy of man for man. The welfare of the wage-worker, the welfare of the tiller of the soil, upon these depend the welfare of the entire country; their good is not to be sought in pulling down others; but their good must be the prime object of all our statesmanship. - Materially we must strive to secure a broader economic opportunity for all men, so that each shall have a better chance to show the stuff of which he is made. - Spiritually and ethically we must strive to bring about clean living and right thinking. We appreciate also that the things of the soul are immeasurably more important. - The foundation-stone of national life is, and ever must be, the high individual character of the average citizen." Muck-rake speech. --Northmeister 22:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Keller notes, immigration restriction 1900-1930 was also a Progressive reform. It was strongly opposed by big business (then and now--they wanted cheap labor), and strongly supported by most reformers and all labor unions. Rjensen 21:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration restriction was more nativist in nature; but your right in so much as labor wanted to ensure wages would remain high to support a higher standard of living for working men of the time - controlled immigration would ensure that. The progressives supported stricter guidelines because large numbers of immigrants tended as today to hold wages down which is why big business also like today supports open doors. --Northmeister 21:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • yes, exactly. Note that the 1965 Immigration reform law (written by Ted Kennedy) dropped the old quotas BUT began the first restrictions on immigration from Mexico. They suddenly became illegals. Rjensen 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, traditionally there was no restriction on immigration from Latin America or the Western Hemisphere - the pre-1965 law was 2% of those here already (in 1948 racist restrictions against Asians were removed). --Northmeister 22:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of motives for immigration restriction from many groups. The general progressive instinct on immigration was control of it; so to ensure higher wages for the working class. --Northmeister 22:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are we using to justify putting the Whigs in the progressive philosophy? -Will Beback 23:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took that out for now. To concentrate on building a consensus here for what should be included, then we will get back to specifics like above. --Northmeister 00:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heading change? In any light, if it remains that, it should read Progressive not Progressivist as that is not a standard usage. This is an attempt at a series like Christian Democracy and Liberalism and Conservatism. So I don't see a reason to change the heading. --Northmeister 23:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the heading to make it clear that this is about the philosophy, not the movement, as you told me above. "-Ist" vs "-ism" doesn't matter, it just sounded better. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC) -Will Beback 23:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word does matter, we should use the standard usage "Progressive" as "Conservative" is used not "Conservatist". On the other matter, yes I said that, but this is a work in progress and in the end should resemble the Liberalism, Socialism, Conservatism, and Christian Democracy series. I understand however why you changed the heading I just don't think it needs changing. --Northmeister 00:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback why are you breaking up the consensus making here by reverts and additions that editors here agreed should not be made until we come to conclusions? Please restore the original and let's discuss this. --Northmeister 00:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about the philosophy rather than the movement, as you said before, then we should clarify that. Otherwise it will be confusing, since a number of elements of the movement are included in the template. Where did we form the consensus to make this about the philosophy rather than the movement, anyway? -Will Beback 00:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your the one changing the heading without discussing things to philosophy. --Northmeister 00:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this is incorrect? "The template is about the philosophy of Progressivism, not the Progressive movement, which you speak of which is called the Progressive Era. This is only a working template, it is subject to change to get it right." Is it subject to change or not? Is it about the philosophy or not? Le'ts be consistent. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read our discussion here and elsewhere Rjensen and I agreed to add material to the template if we concur or a consensus forms to do so. Discussion was underway on several fronts to ferret this template out. What I wrote was true overall, but like Liberalism (see the template or Conservatism) I was following a general template standard with Series used. I see no reason to change that general standard. This template will in the end, with consensus and discussion be similar to Liberalism, Christian Democracy, and Conservatism, all series. Change -yes. But after discussion between editors, so we can debate merits of things. --Northmeister 00:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback, can you please give Northmeister a chance to work on this without having to justify everything. He needs some space to chill for awhile. That is reasonable, right. Nothing harmful being done here. FloNight ^talk 00:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Getting back to the scope of the template, why shouldn't it be about both the philosophy and the movement? If it's just about the philosophy, there's little reason to including all the historical material. -Will Beback 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We all have to justify our edits on Wikipedia. Anyone who wants to work alone should stick to draft pages or blogs. I'm willing to work toward consensus here. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)-[reply]

I'm not working alone. It has turned out to be about both per above discussion I asked you to join, but you refuse, instead you bring up stuff like the above. I don't want an edit war, I'm tired of that stuff. As I have said in the past AGF towards me, work with me not against me, and stop this following me and then giving me the third degree all the time. I removed material when you protested to discuss it here; and you carry on as if the above discussion and talk is not taking place. --Northmeister 00:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created a social democracy template - after all, social democracy is arguably the most popular ideology on the planet at the moment. And although it originated as a branch of socialism, so did communism; yet communism had its own template and social democracy didn't.

Now, it seems to me that progressivism is just an American term for the kinds of policies that would be called social democratic in other parts of the world. So I am proposing to create a combined "Social democracy and Progressivism" template. What do you think? -- Nikodemos 22:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have great doubts about this template, since progressivism is a typical American ideology. Social democracy might be a non-US-equivalant, but other ideologies can be progressive. At the moment I would say, rename this template in American Progressivism. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 09:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of the Social democracy template was a good idea. However, I don't think a combined Social democracy and Progressivism template would be wise. --Loremaster 16:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm starting to see your point already - in the sense that I can't imagine a combined template that would be fair to both sides. I withdraw my proposal. -- Nikodemos 02:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What academic sources are you using to indicate that such a term exists; that such a philosophy has anything to do with the core principles of Progressivism rooted in a Positive view of Government action to right wrongs and oversee the economy for fairness and productivity? Let's have them forthright - and I will agree to include this term. Libertarianism is the direct opposite of Progressivism - it's view of government is negative -this term seems anarchy-based it's like saying Communist capitalism. Please provide verifiable sources below from accredited authors on this term - its uses - and enlighten me as to how this 'philosophy' resembles Progressivism by giving me an outline to compare below. --Northmeister 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC) -Update: Followed the links on the article page - term by all defiinitions is just another form of 'classical liberalism'. --Northmeister 03:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hybrid philosophy.....and there is even a political party based on it. I don't know about it being used in academic sources but I'll take a look into it. Bottom line is that it is used by secondary sources to describe such a hybrid philosophy, just do a google search. Zachorious 04:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response - and I didn't mean to be overbearing. Though I still do not see its connection to progressive thought I'll leave well enough alone on this as long as other editors don't have a problem with it. --Northmeister 04:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like this, such as {{Social democracy sidebar}}, {{Christian Democracy sidebar}} etc. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a movement to extend the moral circle of humankind, I think Animal rights are an article worth being included in Progressivism template. Do you agree?

Robfbms (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are mentions of anti-racism and feminism in the template yet nothing about equality for sexuality. It seems to me that such ideologies would fall in line with progressivism, given the emphasis on progress in social equality (though, I admit, I don't have any sources with which to point to for evidence, unfortunately).

Jaft (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no evidence that purple, nor any other colour, is consistently used to represent progressive politics. No justification was given when it was added (edit history). I propose the flag be removed from this sidebar template. If a symbol can be found to replace the flag that would be ideal. (See also: Political colour) --Korakys (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure exactly how to do this with CSS, but I propose we fix the alignment of the text in this template. As it's currently built, the text is centered within the container which is pushed over by the "show" buttons. If we could put the "show" button within a full-width container, perhaps we could assign the text to be center-aligned to the container div.

@Aunger67: I see you added the Fist and Rose symbol as the symbol for Progressivism. While there certainly are progressive parties that use it (due to overlapping ideological/political ideas), isn't the symbol more typically used for social-democratic/democratic socialist parties? DM5Pedia 18:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why did you remove the link to Portal:Philosophy and Portal:Politics? DM5Pedia 18:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Removed philosophy link by accident--am certainly fine with that going back up. Regarding Fist and Rose--it has a strong connection to social democratic parties (somewhat to socialism as well, but a little less). Modern center-left parties that are broadly progressive rather than overtly socialist (such as the Labour Party) include the imagery of the rose. Labour Party is perhaps the closest cousin to the Democratic Party as well, and both of those traditions define a lot of the commentary and philosophy around 21st century progressivism. Aunger67 (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progressivism is also one of the most dominant forms of center-left politics right now given its incorporation of both social liberal and social democratic ideas. Aunger67 (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SOCIALISM is not PROGRESSIVISM.

Progressivism is a sub-social democracy movement adapted to American material conditions; hence, Chomsky and Zizek are socialists and communists, not progressivists. ManOfDirt (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Chomsky was there before. I'll remove Zizek now. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]