When I hear the term progressive, I think that I understand well enough what it means.
When I hear the same term qualified using another term, moderate, it becomes confusing, at least to me.
So, I went back to read again a dictionary definition of the word progress. The simple definitions I found only reinforced my understanding of the essence of the word progress. Here are some from an online dictionary.
noun
1. a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage.
2. developmental activity in science, technology, etc. ...
3. advancement in general.
4. growth or development; continuous improvement.
verb
1. to go forward or onward in space or time.
2. to grow or develop, as in complexity, scope, or severity; advance.
So, what does a moderate mean when it comes to a movement toward a higher stage? What does a moderate mean about a development in science? What does a moderate mean when it comes to advancement in general? What does a moderate mean when it comes to growth or development or continuous improvement?
It gets more interesting when one appears very excited about being on the cusp of a new frontier and the same self becomes unexcited when it comes to progressiveness and settles for being identified as a moderate in the quest for progress.
I submit that just because an idea is new doesn't mean it can become pragmatic overnight. In that case, pragmatic would be a better qualifier for a progressive. It may also be that the qualifier moderate is used within the confines of narrow economic policy. Even then, I think that the debate over pragmatism makes any point of contention in the debate clearer.
Progress is abound in the course of human history.
The experimentation with agriculture was progressive. People learned to plant seeds and harvest in abundance instead of looking for what nature alone had to offer. It led to settlements where civility and arts started to become progressive. Civilization was born and became progressive. The pursuit of understanding cause and effect may have started to flourish as early as then. The legend of Arghi Amani long before the naming of Argentina may be a case in point. Cultures developed and gave birth to wisdom. Philosophy was born and Socrates emerged, at least in my limited understanding.
Aberrations from civilization led to the renaissance movement, which in turn gave birth to renaissance men and women.
Anyone who has had an opportunity to visit the Da Vinci Exhibition can really understand how much impact one renaissance man can have on progress.
The uncovering by Galileo Galilei that the earth is not flat was a monumental progress in human history.
Isaac Newton's impact on science was one of the biggest progresses in human history. So was Albert Einstein's.
Deciphering and producing melodies out of noise and sound, including inventing and using acoustic instruments, was a great progress in art.
Did any of these impactful people on progress ever contemplate moderating their quest for knowledge? I have never come across that kind of quest? I have never heard of a moderate Einstein. It is anybody's wish to be as brilliant as Einstein. It is anybody's wish to be as brilliant as Newton, or Da Vinci, and so on.
In fact, I think that if they were alive today, they would be the leaders of progressives and very many people would be the students of progressives. To be a student of renaissance is to be a student of progress. Is it not?
In fact, I think that it can be argued that if aberrations from civilization didn't exist, renaissance movement wouldn't be necessary. This reminds me a question that I posited a while back on this forum whether ህዳሴ (renaissance) or ግስጋሴ (progress) is the right concept to use where there may not have an aberration from civilization? In other words, if there was no aberration from Greece's Classical Civilization, could it have been known as a progressive civilization instead of the need for redefining it in light of renaissance?
Once more, what does the term moderate mean when it comes to progress? Or is it a wrong characterization of what progressiveness means? Or is it misused to appease islands of ignorance when it comes to progressiveness?
No disrespect to the politicians who are campaigning to become leaders, including the new Obama and the noble Senator; some may well be progressives but identified by others as moderates. (While watching Mayor [deleted]'s speech in Iowa the night of the Iowa caucuses, at one point, it felt as if I was hearing Obama speak and my mind quickly raced though his tone of speech, physic, age, and education. At that point, I asked myself silently if he is the new Obama.)
In summary, as much as I have tried to understand the term moderate progressiveness, the term fails to make sense to me, or I fail to understand it. It can only make sense if it is a term used to hide behind the barriers put among humankind out of the islands of ignorance. As much as I can tell, the virtuous progressives, the renaissance men and women, didn't pursue sectarian laws in science and hence in progress.