Sunday, October 9, 2005
Hmmm. I really like this piece by a young progressive. It captures some of my feelings about why I consider myself a "progressive" more than a "liberal," but hadn't articulated. Cool.
The first key to understanding progressivism is that it's not the same as liberalism, as many might assume. "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics," Halpin said in an interview with Campus Progress. "It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept ... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressivism is not an ideology at all, but an attitude towards the world of politics that is far less black-and-white than conservatism or liberalism, breaking free from the false and divisive dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative that has dominated American politics for too long.
Said simply (perhaps oversimplifying), American liberalism is an ideology grounded in traditionally liberal American values: individual freedom, democratic government, freedom of thought and belief, and equal opportunity. Government intervention is generally seen as the solution to society's problem.
Progressivism, on the other hand, is far more flexible than any one ideology. Traditionally, conservatives see the world, especially human nature, as predictable and static. Liberals are often burdened with endless optimism - a belief that all problems can be solved through implementing utopian visions (especially through government intervention).
Progressives aren't simply liberals; progressives see the world for what it is, accept it as ever-changing and dynamic, and choose the best course of action in line with decidedly American values. [...]
Certainly, government involvement is one solution among many. CAP intern Suzanne Kahn, another young progressive, expressed one insight: "Progressives [understand] that government can be used as a force for good." But progressives don't simply ask "How can government help this situation," but "with the tools we have, both public and private, how can we solve this problem?"
It is value-driven
One reason that Americans commonly equate progressivism and liberalism is that progressive thought is often informed by liberal ethics - it's driven by a desire to promote fairness, human well-being and opportunity. CAP intern Andrew Fong puts it this way: "Progressives believe in maximizing human freedom and helping society (and its individual members) achieve their full potential." Fong reminds us that "power, wealth, and information must flow freely rather than be concentrated in the hands of a few so that all citizens have the means to contribute."
Conservatives often accuse progressives of rejecting a values- or morality-driven perspective on society and government. Nothing could be further from the truth: Progressives encourage personal and moral responsibility, and promote respect for ethical values.
Compare that with the false and empty chants of compassionate conservatives, who gladly engage in reckless and unjustified war; deny gays, lesbians and transgendered Americans their rights as citizens; condemn working families to a cycle of poverty; and err on the side of big business over public health and nature's untouched beauty. These are the same ‘principled' conservatives who whole-heartedly defend the most crooked legislator in decades, Tom DeLay.
Intriguing. Check out the Campus Progress Blog here.
Previous Comments
- ID
- 171831
- Comment
Hmmm. I like this article, but I've never seen a clear distinction made between "progressive" and "liberal," and I'm not sure I completely agree with this one. The author makes a reference to liberals believing that government can solve society's ills, for example; I don't think most liberals have historically believed this, though they have traditionally been more inclined to put the government to work on social welfare programs and so forth than conservatives. And the Wikipedia entry on liberalism in America makes a really weird distinction (emphasis mine): In the early 21st century, the term "liberalism" in the United States has been applied to a broad spectrum of viewpoints. As the Democratic Party, generally seen as the standard-bearer of liberalism, adopted the more centrist outlook of the DLC, the term "liberal" (applied to the party as a whole) became associated even with more centrist candidates and issues who, for example, support the death penalty or take pro-business positions. For this reason, and because many on the right have so heavily used "liberal" as a pejorative, some Americans on the left of the political spectrum have moved to progressivism. You know, there has been a pretty heavy stigma attached to the word "liberal"--but I don't think "excessively centrist" is what most people have in mind. If anything, international liberals tend to be to the left of American liberals--professing liberals in Europe and Canada, for example, tend to be borderline socialists. Personally, I answer to both "liberal" and "progressive," which isn't a very refined way of doing things but does the job until I can figure out what all these words mean. Call me anything but late for dinner--or moderate! (Or moderately late for dinner...) One thing I do love about this article is that it asks the question "What's the difference between a liberal and a progressive?," and maybe that's a discussion that those of us on the left should be having. Kudos to the author for tackling this. Cheers, TH
- Author
- Tom Head
- Date
- 2005-10-07T23:03:41-06:00
- ID
- 171832
- Comment
They could have left off the typical "EEVVVILLL Conservatives" paragraph. Otherwise interesting.
- Author
- Ironghost
- Date
- 2005-10-09T23:33:23-06:00
- ID
- 171833
- Comment
Agreed, Iron. I think it is important to not stereotype all conversatives or all Republicans as one way, or followers of this administration, etc. I've been trying hard to get away from stereotypical language. Understand when I say "wingnuts," for instance, I'm not talking about all Republicans or all conservatives. I'm talking about wingnuts. There are huge differences, just as not all people who do not consider themselves Bushites, or Republicans or conservatives cannot easily be pigeonholed, either. That's ultimately what this piece is about. I, for one, never call myself "liberal," unless it's some sort of joke about "us liberals" or such, and even that I don't say very often. And it's not because I think it's a dirty word, although it's certainly been bastardized. It's because I don't identify politically with what "liberal" has come to mean. I've long called myself "progressive" for many of the same reasons stated in the above article. To me, "liberals" are much more partisan these days than a "progressive" is likely to be. For instance, I think it was a very progressive thing to do to call out Clinton's immoral behavior (which isn't just about sex; it's about lying, disparaging Lewinsky publicly, cheating on your wife with your kid in the same building, covering up, and acting in ways very unbecoming to a feminist, to name a few). Hell, I would have have called it out if he had been a Republican; why in hell wouldn't I hold him accountable if he was a Democrat? I don't believe in that level of personal, or political, hypocrisy. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for me to be partisan. Anyway, too tired to say much more tonight on this, but will again soon.
- Author
- ladd
- Date
- 2005-10-09T23:43:15-06:00
- ID
- 171834
- Comment
Oh, I'd agree every side has it's share of idiots ("wingnuts"). Sad thing is, they're the only ones who get air time.
- Author
- Ironghost
- Date
- 2005-10-10T07:51:51-06:00
- ID
- 171835
- Comment
Actually, I agree there are nuts at both extremes, but I don't agree with the airtime part exactly. I think a big problem these days is that the timid media (of being labeled "liberal media") usually "balance" wingnuts on the right with moderates and moderate liberals -- playing right into the hands of the wingnuts who try to proclaim that anyone "left" of them is a commie who wants the government to own everything (like, say, a David Sanders goes on and on about). In effect, they marginalize the middle, when it should be the extreme wingnuts who want government flushed down the toilet who should be presented as the radicals that they are -- and balanced with the nutballs on the left who think that government is the answer to everything. ("Nutballs" is my label for extreme lefties, who piss me off, too. We just don't hear as much from them these days; thus, my point here. Truth is, the actual radicals on both sides should cancel each other out, so that independent thinkers who aren't slaves to partisanship can figure out how to get stuff done. But the radical right has the corporate media running scared, although it's gotten somewhat better of late). Let me say this: Had the mainstream media once taken the time to research what the phrase "compassionate conservative" means, and what it was designed to mean by the man who came up with the phrase, then George W. Bush might not have been elected the first time. Hint: It's one of those oxymoronic, Orwellian phrases that this administration loves so much, like "No Child Left Behind." That is, it means the opposite of what it sounds like, and was meant to. That is, the phrase means that the only way to help the poor is to starve them into doing more to help themselves. Thus, such "tough love" is "compassionate." There is nothing "moderate" about this Texas-grown concept, I assure you. Think most people know that? If not, blame the "liberal media." Using the same logic, one might argue (or kid around) that you might as well abort all black babies because their lives are going to suck anyway, due to the bad parents who are having them, and they are being bred to be criminals. (This is also called eugenics, and scientific racism, and has been funded with mega think-tank money over the years, and into the present.) That's compassionate conservative thinking at its finest. So is limiting opportunities for the poor to and then blaming then for making bad choices, and proclaiming that it's because their neighborhoods are "breeding" criminals.
- Author
- ladd
- Date
- 2005-10-10T08:56:43-06:00
- ID
- 171836
- Comment
Politics is an Us vs Them game, sadly. It's not a "All of Us" process.
- Author
- Ironghost
- Date
- 2005-10-10T11:38:14-06:00
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID