Go to Wikipedia today, and you’ll discover the myriad groups that have utilized the word “progressive” today. Search for “Progressive Party” in the US and you’ll find three different ones, led by such disparate figures as Theodore Roosevelt, Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and Henry Wallace; none of which represented the same thoughts. The use of the word “progressive” for members of the left-wing of the Democratic Party seems to have come into vogue as the word used to replace “liberal” by those who are ashamed to use the latter.
A Pew Research poll released in December found, that despite conservative commentator Glenn Beck’s Fox News-sponsored hit job on the word, “progressive” is the most popular political term, with 67% of respondents saying that they had a positive reaction to it (22% had a negative one). “Conservative” received a 62% positive reaction, while 30% had a negative reaction. Given this popularity, it should come as no surprise that politicians are quite willing to describe themselves as progressives. The word is all encompassing that it contains both politicians who are pro-worker and those who oppose labor, both those that favor progressive income tax and those that don’t, both those that support public education and those who want to destroy it.
Used as a catch-all, “progressive” is shorn of all meaning. Candidates are free to label themselves “progressive” in an attempt to appeal to the largest possible demographic. The regular citizen can use “progressive” to simply mean “what I believe,” and say that someone who believes differently just isn’t a progressive. Progressive is perhaps the word that requires the most contextualization in American society.
Once again, this is largely due to a lack of discipline. During the debt ceiling crisis at the end of the last summer, Nate Silver, the political numbers guru, predicted that the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the House could easily prevent the compromise’s passage and gain concessions for the left. Instead the vast majority of the Progressives voted in-step with the House leadership. That lack of discipline blew a chance to gain much needed-concessions. Instead the Progressive Caucus won for the American people an austerity-riddled bill that backloads the budget cuts to 2013, at which point a “new” Congress will be seated.
Progressive is a buzzword, like “the 99%” (witness both words’ proliferation on various groups attached to the Democratic Party). When a candidate or organization defines themselves based on these terms, it’s up to us ask what they means to them. Letting it sit there, undefined, is folly. We cannot take such people at face value.
Likewise, here in Rhode Island, we must start pushing for “progressive” to mean something more than “wants to be liked”. We need a Progressive Club, one that has a clear agenda and candidates who support that agenda. Now, extreme ideological rigor is a dangerous thing, and I don’t want to be interpreted as suggesting that’s what we need. But I am advocating consistency. Take a look at the sponsors of various legislation throughout the General Assembly. You’ll find the same folks who sponsor death penalty bills sponsoring bills to protect the homeless. You’ll find Republicans who introduce zero-based budget proposals introducing funding for low-income housing. And sometimes you won’t even find a legislator who describes them as “progressive” on the “progressive” bills.
Without a disciplined, consistent progressive constituency, we will continue to face a jumbled reality, where political chameleons will thrive and those more concerned with holding power than using it well will rise.
I’d like to know what your definition of Progressive is. What definition you would like to see a Progressive Part or Progressive Caucus in RI rally around?
Well, first, we have to realize that dogma isn’t going to be a solution or any good, whatsoever. I know you’re not saying that, but I wouldn’t want a really ideologically strict Progressive Club (that was changed during the editing process, I’ve taken the liberty to change it back).
When I say “Progressive Club” I mean a pressure group running political leaders (under whatever party’s banner; the most powerful Progressives were ex-Republicans, remember) and keeping the pressure on them to commit to its causes. Partly, thanks to the overall dominance of the Democratic Party in this state, and its informal power structure, constituencies are taken for granted.
For me, this means focusing on two things: a strong and fair tax system based on a progressive tax (something suggested by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations) and a serious discussion for how Rhode Island should look after progressive rule.
This vision should lay out clear standards. People should trust one another more. The poor, sick, elderly, and weak should be taken care of. Our state should be producing something which the country needs; a physical thing. Our state was built on manufacturing, and all the knowledge-economy and medical complex jobs we’re focused on can’t replace that manufacturing; especially for the vast majority of Rhode Islanders.
Progressives also need to be responsive to the needs of the average citizen (mainly by being drawn from their ranks). This can’t just be a Brown Alumni group. First, those folks have been running the state for almost its entire history, they don’t need more power. Second, they’re also very insulated from what the rest of Rhode Island faces. One of the good things out of Occupy is a (largely background) discussion about what government should look like, and about expanding and reforming democracy. I don’t know what reformed democracy should look like, but I believe “liquid democracy” at least gives a great starting point for the debate.
The term “liberal” has always been broad and has come to mean different things over time, so it is natural that subcategories would form within the larger category to facilitate like-minded individuals self identifying along a more refined set of core principles.
As the author noted, there is no one definition of “progressive,” but we do notice a rough set of core principles that modern-day progressives tend to adhere to. Among these principles are the following, which distinguish progressives from the broader category of “liberals,”:
- Progressives tend to follow a form of philosophical moral utilitarianism that roughly translates into the ends justifying the means. As long as progressives see a greater societal good resulting, detriment to any one individual is of lower importance than achieving that end.
- Progressives tend to believe that market mechanisms are fundamentally flawed and lead to inefficiencies. They view the proper role of government as being “hands on” in the economy and steering markets in particular directions from the top down, regardless of whether there is market failure present or not.
- Progressives tend to believe that immutable characteristics of individuals, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, age, and nationality, are significant components of the identity of that person. As a result, they believe that it is justified to treat or advance individuals differently according to these characteristics.
- Progressives tend to view the role of government beyond preventing harm. They view it as a legitimate and fundamental agent of societal change, at times even using it as the tool of first resort. They view top-down control mechanisms as more efficient and equitable in achieving these changes than bottom-up reforms, localized knowledge, and individual decision-making.
- Progressives tend to believe that it is possible to vote in a “right” set of politicians capable of tackling societal challenges. They generally support the functionaliies of an unelected administrative state in offering “expert” advice to politicians and being delegated the responsibility of regulating the market without the direct constraints of periodic elections.
RightToWork: Where are you getting this? Who is the “we” that is noticing this “rough set of core principles” that you’ve outlined?
It definitely supports the author’s main point that I don’t agree with most of your definition. I’m also not sure that “progressive” is best considered a “subcategory” of liberal.
“The use of the word ‘progressive’ for members of the left-wing of the Democratic Party seems to have come into vogue as the word used to replace ‘liberal’ by those who are ashamed to use the latter.”
I strongly disagree. The left-wing of the party is in no way ashamed of liberalism (evidenced by my screen name, no?). I’m kind of surprised to see it suggested here.
Dave Sirota did a good job a explaining the distiction:
“What’s the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive?”
– quote –
I often get asked what the difference between a “liberal” and a “progressive” is. The questions from the media on this subject are always something like, “Isn’t ‘progressive’ just another name for ‘liberal’ that people want to use because ‘liberal’ has become a bad word?”
The answer, in my opinion, is no – there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional “liberals” in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A “progressive” are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules…
Let’s be clear – most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America’s social safety net are noble and critical. It’s the other direction that’s the problem. Many of today’s liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today’s Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) – institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America’s middle-class.
– end quote –
PHL, I see exactly where you’re coming from. I don’t think I worded that as well as I should have.
The issue to me is less that it’s used to describe the left-wing of the Democratic Party, but that all parts of the Democratic Party will use the word “progressive” to describe their causes. If “progressive” is to stand for what Sirota says it does, then it has to start closing out many who use the word today. Hillary Clinton, a Third Way politician, has used “progressive” to describe herself; you can watch her response to whether she describes herself as a liberal here:www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc (if you watch past Clinton’s response, Mike Gravel makes a prophetic attack on Obama).
That said, I don’t agree when you say that the left-wing isn’t ashamed to use the word “liberal”. Perhaps “disdain” is a better word than “ashamed”. Plenty of people who define themselves as progressives draw the line at calling themselves “liberals” and refer to the sort of compromising they disdain as “liberal”. Maybe this is due to far-left rhetoric seeping into their discourse.
Mark - It is based on my own observations, conclusions, and readings about the modern self-identified “progressive” movement, just as any other definition of the term would be. If want “progressive” to mean something, then you have to identify what that something is. Please feel free to identify any areas in which you disagree with these characterizations and replace them with characterizations of your own. I am a big fan of allowing groups to self-identify however they please.
“those who oppose labor”
I lol’d. Like anyone actually “opposes labor.” Opposes closed shop legislation or unionism maybe. We can allow room for some rhetoric, but this characterization is just silly.
RTW, clearly I used “labor” there as a shorthand for “labor movement”. Plenty of folks have opposed the labor movement from its foundation and continue to oppose it today.
Now, if I had written “oppose work” then I’d agree with you. Only the lazy oppose work, although only as it applies to them.
The fact that you think labor is an appropriate shorthand for organized labor or the labor movement (whatever that means) illustrates my point that you are playing fast and loose with these terms. Despite what you think was “clear” to the reader, you directly contrasted “those who oppose labor” with “politicians who are pro-worker” in the same sentence, which implies that you were deliberately conflating workers with labor unions. One can very well be “pro-worker” and “anti-union” or “anti-closed shops” at the same time.
Even if you think we’re arguing semantics, semantic hygiene is important in these discussions and don’t ever assume otherwise.
In my original draft the line reads “…both politicians who oppose labor and support it…” and the rest of the sentence was arranged in contrasts like this. During editing this changed and the sentence is different; but the direction is the same. RI Future has an editor, and I don’t want to second-guess his decisions, but I assume he felt this language was either not clear enough or else not sharp enough. Elsewhere, “Club” was changed to “Party” and I changed this back since a party is different from a club and altered the meaning substantially. I let the other changes stand since the meaning of my words were unchanged.
Now, let’s be clear, I believe RI Future’s audience understands what “labor” connotes, but beyond that, I believe you are deliberating fogging the issue. Larger society absolutely understands that “labor” is tied to unionism; otherwise the phrase “Big Labor” wouldn’t exist as an epithet for powerful unions. “Labor” parties all draw or else once drew from trade unions for their membership. “Labor” equaling “unions” is a well-understood term.
The change to “labor” was my decision and was intended to connote labor unions.
Well tsk tsk, Brian. But Samuel, with your explanation you are again proving my point. “Labor” is not the same as “Unions” in fact, whether progressives choose to understand it that way or not. I am pro-labor and anti-closed shop unions. Unions use the term “labor” as synonymous with their cause precisely for the PR purposes we’ve identified, so I don’t think it’s responsible to adopt their loaded and inaccurate terminology, any more than terms like “pro-life” accurately depict progressives as “anti-life.” Yes, it’s semantics, but it is important because it frames the entire scope and nature of the dialog. I don’t even know how to address a statement like “progressives are pro-worker” or “pro-labor” because everyone is. Why can’t we just say what we mean? Say “pro-union.” Or my personal preference, “pro-closed shop.”
I said exactly what I mean. You think it means something else.