Progressive, to me, indicates a dissatisfaction with aspects of the current state of affiars and a definite desire to move beyond it. This much is readily agreeable but also heavily ambiguous - it could mean anything. For me, the term 'progressive' has definite Bernsteinian socialist connotations (although I'm sure many LibDems would beg to differ); to be prgressive is to seek incremental reform of the system. But it also has a definite and clear end goal; it has to, otherwise the impetus for it would be lacking and one could not seek any principled assurance that the views they were led to were correct.
I am no keen on distinguishing between the domestic and foreign spheres (this all too easily leads to their unnatural divorce) but with regard to the former I mist certainly view the primary progressive goal as being the equalisation of life chances for all. The preservation of civil liberty is of paramount concern in the domestic sphere, but not something that I would subsume under the banner of 'progressivism' - the provisions for it do not so much require moving forward as they require not moving backwards (a distinction I hope we can all agree on).
The equalising of life chances is, of course, of extreme importance in the foreign sphere, too. But I made the dstinction between the two spheres both because the approach must differ and the emphasis on equalising life chances is slightly less in the case of foreign policy. It is too eas t use equality of life chances as a justifying or legitimating factor for heavy handed impositions upon other countries and cultures, but it must also be recognised that in some instances, the equality of life chances is better served in the long-run if on seeks to totally oppose negative regimes (e.g. Zimbabwe) rather than support their selective desire for an equality of life chances (which is really opportunism masquerading as equality, and not the equality of life chances at all).
btw, the 'fabian terrorist' thng was shamelessly attempting to get more views. if you actually wish to know te lame story, read my previous posts.
although, i'd appreciate it if people could post ther genuine comments about the use of the term 'progressive' in politics - it genuinely intrigues me, mainly because the term seems rather empty and while I have attempted to give it a meaning I would sincerely appreciate your comments//thoughts....