A progressive approach to political labels

While I found “Speaking Democrat” by Geoffrey Nunberg (Current, June 11) informative, I disagreed with one point. I believe that “progressive” is a stronger moniker than “liberal” for two

reasons: One, it is literally and directly contradictory to “conservative” -- “progressive” meaning “forward looking,” with its opposite meaning, generally, “resistant to change.” Two, I

believe that the right has succeeded in making the word “liberal” stand for “morally unrestrained and licentious” and that correcting the record on what “liberal” means is a battle that

ranks low on the list of contemporary political priorities.

Given that Americans have seen the failures of their government -- Republicans enriching the wealthy at the expense of other classes, and Democrats standing by, powerless to do anything

about it because of a lack of identity and courage -- it seems only natural that they would rather elect someone interested in advancing the country rather than spoiling it. After all, in

the United States, some words -- like “socialist” -- are beyond repair.

The Democrats’ refusal to admit that it is their liberal philosophy and not the packaging that is to blame is amazing. Nunberg finds that Democrats are losing because of their lack of

developing smart sloganeering. So the dumb voting public votes for more Republicans than Democrats because they fall prey to the way they present their agenda via slogans? Could it be that

the Republican Party has better ideas that work than Democrats have?