> I'm not sure how cutting back social services points to a liberal and progressive government at all. If anything it points to a more conservative one. Most progressives simply call themselves that but, like the Clintons, their actions are the exact opposite.
That depends on which services are being cut, and why.
If policies do not achieve liberal goals, even if those policies were initiated by liberals at some point in the past, it makes sense for today's liberal politicians to modify or eliminate those policies.
For example, if a welfare program is keeping people in poverty indefinitely, it doesn't work. A liberal or progressive would want a program that lifts people out of poverty. That was Bill Clinton's argument for welfare reform.
That depends on which services are being cut, and why.
If policies do not achieve liberal goals, even if those policies were initiated by liberals at some point in the past, it makes sense for today's liberal politicians to modify or eliminate those policies.
For example, if a welfare program is keeping people in poverty indefinitely, it doesn't work. A liberal or progressive would want a program that lifts people out of poverty. That was Bill Clinton's argument for welfare reform.