Since it's a centrist conservative

Since it's a centrist conservative party, we emphasize practicality. It's not that it doesn't add up. In a schematic way, progressives have emphasized reform and moderate conservatives have emphasized practicality in our country. (The actual concept of the word "moderate" is omitted here.)

And I think that the Democratic Party is a centrist conservative party, not a "false statement" but an honest evaluation as it is.

To tell you the story of the Democratic Party's haughty history
There was a time when the Democratic Party of Korea, which was criticized for turning right with the left blinker on during the Roh Moo Hyun administration, tried to accept and apply the progressive party's proposals, which can be seen as a decade from 2010 when it won local elections with free school meals during the Lee Myung Bak administration. And it was during the Moon Jae In administration that this line was implemented in a policy manner. But was the economic policy well received? Hong Jang-pyo's income-led growth and Kim Soo-hyun's 'Hate Again' real estate policy were accepted, but it can't be said to have worked out well, right?

If all the proposals on how progress can run the country, continue to grow, and distribute it evenly in reality have been broken, shouldn't we consider alternative discourse about what to do in the future? Well, the last one didn't go well, but it wasn't wrong, so let's think about it again and try it again, or let's try something new that fits the times. But I don't.

In fact, how should progress change the industrial structure of the Republic of Korea, how should the labor market be readjusted, how should the media be reformed, etc. Do you have any alternatives or concerns suitable for the transformed era? No submission? No. Only the sound of catching floating clouds. They don't suggest ideas other than throwing themselves at the workism debate.

I don't think the zeitgeist is practical. I think restoration of principles, not pragmatism, is the zeitgeist of the present. Because Yoon Suk Yeol only wears Cold War conservative ideology, people think that Korean society is a society that has only ideological struggle and no practicality.

Instead of real politics, let's shift the angle to a social unit. Conflict among the camps is so sharp that ideological struggle seems to be a battlefield. In many parts of real society, there is a raw struggle for interests.
For example, if you want to do business in Baemin, you have to register with us anyway. You have to pay the commission or go bankrupt. You go like this, or you have to build something in the metropolitan area without factories in the provinces, or you go abroad, or you have to live well at the individual level. What is this about ideology? When we go to the extremes of practicality from our own perspective, the principle is regarded as something very light and the community is crushed.

I think I wrote just a week ago that I should admit what I have to admit and think about the next one on the basis of it. Only when the reality is accurately recognized now will it be possible to see what to overcome and what to aim for. I think it is somewhat true if Representative Lee Jae-myung "regulates" the current Democratic Party of Korea as a moderate conservative. However, if the Democratic Party's "orientation" should be moderate conservative, I think we should argue about it.

But what is the aspect now? For example, read this article I have shared.
Aren't we just obsessed with the word "progress" itself, not submitting what progress is, what it should be like, and what we've done in the future?

If you go to the contents of it, not the liberal and conservative letters, you can't just say that conservatives only talk about economic growth, and the Democratic Party fought for democracy and human rights expansion against it. The conservative party president fought for democracy all his life and liquidated one session after taking office, faced Park Chung-hee's theory of economic growth with Kim Dae Jung's theory of economic growth, abolished the Australian system, and at the same time, there was a Democratic Party government pushing for an FTA. In the end, some conservative governments came to power with a representative pledge to democratize the economy even though they didn't keep their promises.

It is based on the spirit of the times, content, solution, and orientation, and it is not possible to get a hint at the problem of the present complicated situation by being obsessed with the letters of progressive and conservative. There is a force that worked hard on such things. It was like a Yoon Suk Yeol who just used to call it "liberal right" without any content.

In fact, the Democratic Party of Korea did not like to be classified as liberal or left-wing until 2010, when it won free school meals after the 2008 financial crisis. In fact, left-wingers called us liberal, not progressive, even if we were good at it, and when conflict between the two sides emerged, they did not use the term "conservative and progressive conflict" but rather "conservative conflict." Why? They used the term "innovation" to avoid the "progressive" position.

If I had to say so, I would say so. The point is that if you embrace those two words "the Democratic Party is a progressive party!" in the first place, will it become a progressive party? You have to aim for and protect them. They are simply arguing over their identity because they have nothing to do.