Bring back real 'progressives'
The word has been hijacked by liberals who fear the L-word. Here's what progressivism really means, and why we need more of it.
Progressivism, apparently, is this year’s beige. It goes with everything.
You may have seen primary election endorsements from Fuse Washington, a self-proclaimed progressive political group kept alive by determination and the Internet. (And what does “fuse” stand for? To irreparably join together or to ignite? I can’t tell, and that concerns me. Neither option sounds terribly promising.) I will undoubtedly vote for a number of people on the Fuse list, although I’m still wondering how, in their estimation, Susan Hutchinson, who’s never been in government, is a more credible candidate than Alan Lobdell, who has.
But the biggest thing I noticed about Fuse’s list for progressives to vote for was that nobody on that list qualifies as what I understand to be a progressive. They’re all either labor or green candidates, and while progressivism is not antithetical to those points of view, that’s not its major thrust.
For example, Fuse endorsed old-line Democrats Dow Constantine and Larry Phillips for King County Executive (and I think they’re worthy candidates), but the folks who might actually qualify as progressive, state Rep. Ross Hunter and state Sen. Fred Jarrett, were lumped in with newsie Susie as legitimate but unworthy.
So, folks, a little history. "Progressivism" evolved in response to the urban machines and big business politics of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. When waves of southern and eastern Europeans began to immigrate to this country after the Civil War, they found themselves unloved and underserved by the old line patricians who ran much of the country. The political machines were forged in response, welding these immigrants and their descendants into formidable voting blocs that effectively ran a lot of big cities for several decades.
Mayor Richard J. Daley’s Chicago machine was the last of these, and fairly typical. The machine got things done; and if you played along, you got service and response from your government. On the other hand, it was not a terribly inclusive form of politics. It did not tolerate diversity, either in viewpoints or non-white ethnicity; contracts were more likely to be awarded on the basis of kickbacks than for merit.
Big business, meanwhile, grew rapidly after the Civil War, made possible by the advance of canals, railroads, the telegraph, and then the telephone. Big trusts such as the railroads dominated the national political scene, controlling the U.S. Senate and hence the Supreme Court, thereby blocking any attempt at regulation.
Enter the Progressives, who were the people in between — small business owners, urban professionals, middle-class respectables, and advocates for fair and clean government and an even playing field. Progressives pushed for non-partisan elections to undercut the power of the machines and for a positive role for government in managing the economy. Above all, they were not anti-business, even if they tended to bust up some giant trusts. Figures such as Sen. Bob La Follette Sr. and Teddy Roosevelt were much more like Dan Evans Republicans than like Ralph Naderites.
Fuse Washington’s statement of goals mentions nothing of this; it’s all green, egalitarian, and civil libertarian. It sounds all sort of post-modern liberal, and that’s when I realized that “progressive” has become this year’s beige: They’re liberals (who dare not speak the name).
Of course, the term “liberal” has become so thoroughly demonized by the far right that you can’t call yourself that anymore and expect to win an election. Remember the way the elder George Bush used to say “lllliberal” in a way that conjured up an image of a tree-hugging, lizard-licking, drug-using, gay fascist commie criminal pervert, and you’ll recall how “liberal” went of vogue.
Which is too bad. "Liberal" has a broader meaning, and in strict terms, in the U.S. we’re all children of classical liberalism: a system of social organization that features democratic institutions, reliance on markets, and a relatively high degree of civil liberties. That’s what the Founding Fathers believed in (not a theocracy), and we continue to operate largely in that way.
But labels are how we understand things, and, sadly, they triumph far too often in post-modern America. It’s not really "waterboarding"; it’s just surfing, really slowly. So, for a militant moderate such as me, liberals claiming to be progressives is a point of some concern, because it means they’re selling something they’re not going to deliver.
One reason is that a lot of Democrats have never understood business and the market. Similarly, many Republicans misunderstand poverty as nothing more than a moral failing. Libertarians believe that the market will solve everything. (Sorry, kids: No amount of reading Ayn Rand will make Libertarianism actually work. And it’s been tried.) Democrats have an understandable concern for the poor, just as Republicans have a fondness for the market. The hard part — the really hard part — is finding a balance. For instance, every step toward equality of economic outcome is necessarily a step away from market efficiency, and vice versa. The trade-offs here are fairly substantial.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Wed, Aug 5, 9:54 a.m. inappropriate
Terms are definitely being misused.
The far right use the word "liberal" when they mean "libertine". Rather than describing a push for equality and civil freedoms, they use it to describe amoral freethinkers. It's funny that the synonyms for libertine (sensualist, debauchee, etc) seem to better fit the wife-cheating "conservatives".
The earnest discussion of liberal vs. progressive dates back to Hillary Clinton's campaign at least, http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1888 .
If liberalism as a word is dead, I'm personally in favor of the term "leftist". Mostly because it's so often followed by the word "rebel".
Posted Wed, Aug 5, 4:47 p.m. inappropriate
There's something rich about "going back in history" to determine the true roots of the term "progressive." Language changes. Philosophically, "liberal" as a core term is meaningless. Progressive defines a core philosophical truth for me, and therefore, I use the term. It also contrasts nicely, both politically and philosophically with "conservative."
You sound grumpy. Like yesterday was better than today. And, that's certainly not a progressive view.
Posted Wed, Aug 5, 5:43 p.m. inappropriate
Libertarianism is organized around the principle of maximum individual liberty. Your dismissive account flattens a diverse political philosophy and amounts to a caricature. I would also point out that equality of outcomes is not feasible in a society that distinguishes by differences in ability. That's why you work at a Community College and write garbage for a marginal enterprise composed of has-been's and never-will-be's.
Posted Wed, Aug 5, 6:33 p.m. inappropriate
Thanks for this article.
Posted Wed, Aug 5, 7:14 p.m. inappropriate
Or, maybe, Progressives think some people have so little respect for the views of others that the feel free to co-opt a label or brand in order to schill an idiology not progressive enough to evolve a new term that describes them in a better light.
Republican/Libertarian co-opting has similar, only the battle appeared (to me, anyway) over owning the Republic brand name. Then Tom DeLay stunk up the place.
I am a Progressive, conservative Dem, and I think both Clinton and Obama are more Progressive than many Liberals care for.
I had thought about recycling a dead political party name from a couple hundred years ago and adopting it, filling it with Progressive stuff, but I see no good point in that, besides, there may be a few Whigs lurking on the internet, ready to raise the red flag of hypocracy, and fight me on my anti-slavery position.
Posted Thu, Aug 6, 3:11 p.m. inappropriate
To respond to Mr. Wade:
Thank you for your note of warmest contempt.
Libertarianism was tried in this country in the 19th century with the result that we had a serious economic crash about every 15 years. It makes no more sense than Marxism. It's not based on facts, results, or numbers, just a blind faith in the perfection of markets. Show me some tiny shred of proof that it works. It's a religion, not a political philosophy. In this country, you are welcome to worship in that church but I don't have to vote for it.
Meanwhile, I teach at a community college because I want to, not because I have to. This past year I was voted in as the president-elect of the Pacific Northwest Association of Political Scientists, and will be only the third president of the organization who's from a community college in its 60-year history.
But none of that matters to you, I'm sure.
Posted Thu, Aug 6, 4:35 p.m. inappropriate
I think the author is conflating libertarianism with laissez-faire proto-capitalism, and that conflation is unwarranted. For true capitalism and libertarianism to flourish, the rule of law is essential. In the 19th century, "business" interests usually sought and received perks and favors from corrupt government officials who were all too eager to sell influence to the highest bidder. There is nothing libertarian about this kind of mobocracy. It's exactly the kind of political pull system that Ayn Rand railed against. If you want to boil Rand's philosophy down into one simple slogan, try the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That said, I agree with the author's basic premise that those who define themselves as "progressives" today do not seek progress at all, but a return to the failed New Deal policies of the 1930s. Not all change is progress.
Posted Thu, Aug 6, 5:57 p.m. inappropriate
I liked this piece ... A LOT. Had not thought about looking at the history of the Progressive Party ... and while I expect that there is a lot of opportunity for compare/contrast ... well, it was a darn good piece.
/deb eddy
Posted Sat, Aug 8, 10:52 a.m. inappropriate
Just look at the stunning array of laws, regulations and taxes we have today. Wives have to work because, unlike our fathers generation (I'm 56)one income cannot pay the bills.
I see this as a result of liberal thinking. More laws and taxes will solve the problem of the day. After the particular problem is solved or not, the laws and taxes continue along with the bureacrats they support.
Where is liberty in this formula? personal acountability? individual productivity? It is lost in the process required by all this big gov, big labor, and yes, big business who play the game perhaps the best of all.
If your definition of "progressive" rings true, why am I not hearing more about breaking up these cabals?
Posted Sat, Aug 8, 2:36 p.m. inappropriate
Let's just call neo-liberalism what it is, a thinly veiled accomodation to Milton Friedman, with some green and bleeding heart liberal mantras thrown in.
That said, guess I am a left-progressive.
Posted Mon, Aug 24, 9:35 a.m. inappropriate
Thanks for this article. I appreciated it and enjoyed it.
The dismissive comment about Libertarianism not working was a little irritating, though. Big 'L' Libertarians can be dogmatic, absolutist and extreme. But, that said, their general beliefs are personal autonomy and freedom. These are serious ideas. And to be so dismissive of them just makes me think the writer is another partisan.
We all accept that totalitarian communism "doesn't work." But that's not stopping us from giving socialism a chance. Maybe Libertarianism doesn't work either. But some of us think freedom's still a fantastic idea.