So, by that definition Trump is a radical progressive president, probably one of the most progressive in history, given the raft of changes he’s implemented in such a short time and the nation’s rapid progress towards fascism.
Right, that’s why the term regressive. It’s the opposite side of conservative from progressive. For changes, but ones that make things worse. I accept that it’s not a term anyone would use to self describe and it’s not an accepted part of neutral political discourse, but it’s nonetheless a useful term.
Strictly showing, regressive should mean specifically undoing earlier progress. Which captures a lot of Trump’s actions. Rolling back rights on abortion, undoing advancements in LGBTQ+ rights, going back to a very 19th century style of treating non-white people.
But in other aspects, I’d say he’s being straight-up authoritarian, in a way that doesn’t really sit anywhere on this spectrum. Passing all these tariffs could be described as regressing to pre-WW2 economics, but going about it by ignoring the law—which actually requires congress to set tariffs—is not progressive, conservative, or regressive. That’s just authoritarian. Openly threatening companies & countries to extort them for bribes (see: Apple’s gold watch, Qatar’s jet) is just corrupt authoritarian behaviour.
You’re illustrating my point - that assertions about how Labor is really a conservative party, are subjective and unhelpful.
the term regressive. It’s the opposite side of conservative from progressive. For changes, but ones that make things worse
Apparently half of voting Americans would disagree with you, as they seem to believe Trump’s changes will make things better.
My original point is, an assertion that Labor is a conservative party is essentially a “both sides” argument, which discourages people from engaging with politics. Admittedly, it’s less egregious in Australia given that we have preferential voting, but it’s still an annoying Americanism.
Everything you’ve said is the very definition of subjective - making up your own definitions for complex concepts without any regard for the meaning of those terms.
Did you just make that up according to your own thoughts on progressive vs conservative ?
Umm, no? That’s what the words mean. Conservatives conserve the status quo. Progressives want society to progress.
So, by that definition Trump is a radical progressive president, probably one of the most progressive in history, given the raft of changes he’s implemented in such a short time and the nation’s rapid progress towards fascism.
Right, that’s why the term regressive. It’s the opposite side of conservative from progressive. For changes, but ones that make things worse. I accept that it’s not a term anyone would use to self describe and it’s not an accepted part of neutral political discourse, but it’s nonetheless a useful term.
Strictly showing, regressive should mean specifically undoing earlier progress. Which captures a lot of Trump’s actions. Rolling back rights on abortion, undoing advancements in LGBTQ+ rights, going back to a very 19th century style of treating non-white people.
But in other aspects, I’d say he’s being straight-up authoritarian, in a way that doesn’t really sit anywhere on this spectrum. Passing all these tariffs could be described as regressing to pre-WW2 economics, but going about it by ignoring the law—which actually requires congress to set tariffs—is not progressive, conservative, or regressive. That’s just authoritarian. Openly threatening companies & countries to extort them for bribes (see: Apple’s gold watch, Qatar’s jet) is just corrupt authoritarian behaviour.
You’re illustrating my point - that assertions about how Labor is really a conservative party, are subjective and unhelpful.
Apparently half of voting Americans would disagree with you, as they seem to believe Trump’s changes will make things better.
My original point is, an assertion that Labor is a conservative party is essentially a “both sides” argument, which discourages people from engaging with politics. Admittedly, it’s less egregious in Australia given that we have preferential voting, but it’s still an annoying Americanism.
I don’t know how, after everything I’ve said, that can possibly be anyone’s takeaway.
Everything you’ve said is the very definition of subjective - making up your own definitions for complex concepts without any regard for the meaning of those terms.
Nothing about my definitions is subjective.
You know what is subjective? Relying on how parties choose to self-identify, regardless of the truth of their actual policies.