Liberals, at what point is state expansion, and redefining social norms a bad idea in your opinion?

[Edward K. Carrington]

In other words, is there any degree of Progressivism you would oppose?

[thewindywest]

/they cannot think for themselves - give up on them.

[skinnybun744]

You understand that public sector employment has DROPPED significantly under Obama, right?

[miniatureminister863]

The second part of your question is hard to answer, as I don't think 'redefining social norms' is the province of any one political tendency or faction. 'Social norms' evolve over time, and while I tend to be suspicious of sudden efforts to alter radically what is considered acceptable, I'm equally suspicious of reactionary efforts to resist inevitable change.

As for 'state expansion' - I'm fairly much a pragmatist. What things can the state best do that the market is unwilling or unable to achieve? What public goods will the market not achieve without intervention or regulation from the state? I don't think this requires wholesale public ownership of all the means of production, but you might very well think that the free market in America today has completely failed to achieve some significant major public goods - universal healthcare, for example - and that the state has a legitimate interest in stepping in to achieve this. (Whether the state has in fact done so is of course another matter.) In short, the proof is in the pudding. I have no strong ideological commitment to making the state do what industry can do better. I merely oppose the assumption that private enterprise is always and invariably more efficient than public enterprise. I think it should be obvious to everyone by now that this is not always the case.