The terms "progressive," "progressivism," and their variants are ubiquitous in American policy discussions today. When appropriated by just about every group out there, do they lose all significance or become all the more relevant?
Daniela's take
The problem with a word like progress, and its derivatives, is that it's necessarily relative. While I believe in the significance of progressivism, I worry about the congratulatory, doe-eyed mood that's taken over the electorate. I worry that we'll settle and fall short of the most progressive progress possible.
The code word for progress in today's political lingua franca is, of course, change. It's been the theme of the past two years of presidential campaigning, as Barack Obama re-framed partisan politics into a choice between Washington-as-usual and Washington-as-it-could-be. After eight years of cronyism, bellicosity, and the debasement of civil liberties, Obama's resounding electoral success last week was as much a rejection of political sameness as it was a genuine confirmation of the need for change.
Yet despite messianic "Change Has Come" headlines, it is not enough to have voted in the first black president, or to be satisfied that Obama's White House will be more progressive than the one the neo-conservatives are about to vacate. (The former is, indeed, progress; the latter is simply obvious.) We can't accept the mainstream definition of progress as simply better-than-Bush. We need to demand that our elected officials seize this unique opportunity in American political discourse to progress significantly further to the left, and quit pandering to the center-right.
This is necessary because there's a stark difference between change we can believe in and change I believe will actually be enacted—
I believe in universal health care; but I believe what we'll get is an opt-in system that still panders to insurance companies' profit margins. I believe in energy independence; but I believe that we'll continue to heed inefficient, home-grown corn ethanol and so-called "clean coal" lobbies on our way there. I believe in the separation of church and state; but I believe that taxpayers' money will continue to be funneled to faith-based initiatives. The list goes on.
I harbor no illusions that all my progressive ideals will be met under an Obama presidency. He is, pundits' claims notwithstanding, decidedly not the herald of American progressivism (See: stances on death penalty, marriage equality, etc.), but he is the most liberal politician ever elected to the highest executive office. The political capital garnered by this election is an ideological mandate for progressivism that we've never had before. Gone is the need for Clintonian incrementalism—we can actually bet big.
The difference between progress I believe in and the progress I believe is most likely to actually occur under the forty-fourth presidency and one-hundred-eleventh Congress need not be so stark. More-than-better-than-Bush progress requires action: We must demand the most progress, not just enough progress.
Danish's take
The label progressive, when taken literally, would ostensibly be self-applied by anyone concerned with politics. After all, who would stand in the way of progress? That being said, I think the question that begs to be answered when determining who or what is progressive is what do we deem to be progress?
It's a testament to the unifying power of George W. Bush that at this moment large swaths of people of various political stripes can agree on just what progress means. Progress now means upholding the constitution, progress now means respecting the civil liberties of American citizens, and progress now means balancing the budget. It's only slight exaggeration to say that these ideas are now considered radical. We find ourselves in the midst of an America where libertarians and leftists alike are howling at the ease with which our federal government doles out public cash to irresponsible corporations. In a way, progress means going back to what we had before eight years of corporatism, cronyism, and neo-conservatism almost bankrupted our country in every sense of the word.
So just how useful is the term progressive now that it's been "appropriated by just about every group out there?" In my view, while the utility of the label may be waning, the idea of progress is now more important than ever. That we have reached a consensus on the direction our nation has been headed is an important milestone. Clichés often become clichés because they hold kernels of truth. The idea that it's darkest before it's light has never been more aptly demonstrated than when our nation voted Barack Hussein Obama into the land's highest office, only two short years after our troops handed over Saddam Hussein to his ignoble fate at the hands of a Shia mob. We know that where we were headed was the wrong place, so where do we, as progressives, want to go now?
The answer to that question somewhat depends on what kind of progressive you consider yourself to be. Yet, regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, it's hard to overstate just how transformative the period we're entering in is going to be. Like it or not, Barack Obama has been handed a mandate for change during a time when the very ground on which we stand is shifting. Whether President-elect Obama will use that mandate to enact a truly progressive agenda of reform or if he will pursue more self-serving Clintonesque triangulations remains to be seen, but that's where the "roots" come in.
The level of civic youth engagement hasn't ever been this high in our lifetimes, and the ability to participate has never been easier. It's up to us to set the course, and that's a huge part of why Whyroots chose to launch after the glamor of the election had already passed. A lot of people have been asking, "Now what?" The answer is clearly, "Now us."
Jacob's take
Untying the string that holds together the concepts in the word progressive, as it has been variously used, I find that these are what spill out: Increased government efficiency and benevolence through techno-scientific enlightenment; increased direct influence of citizens on government; increased leftward direction of policy towards socialism; change we can believe in. The string holding them together is apparently the notion of increase toward some final hopeful asymptote.
Historically, the word is definitely more than a synonym for leftism, given its bipartisan introduction to American politics led by Theodore Roosevelt. Reforms associated with early progressivism range from the left (women’s suffrage) to the right (prohibition). Perhaps the sixteenth amendment is most characteristic of this movement: by taking the power to elect Senators from the House and giving it to voters, progressives expressed their faith in the ability of the expanding middle class to use knowledge to govern itself rationally. There was supposed to be something good about this.
In the early twentieth century, progressivism was often a synonym for applied positivism—the notion that scientific knowledge is absolute, infallible, and ought to be used by government to perfect social order. The concept of social perfectibility via scientific rationality would eventually lend itself to eugenics movements in Europe and the United States, ironically culminating in unspeakable human rights violations and that death of positivism which we call post-modernism.
Since the end of the Second World War, progressive has been used more vaguely. As in its previous incarnations, it is closely tied to the notion of changing the status quo, though now we judge the way to change more reluctantly. Only when conservatives have control over the status quo do we think of progressivism as anti-conservative.
After twenty-eight years of manifest conservative desire for government failure, progressives can change government simply by making it work -- not necessarily by moving it left. Maybe the model for late progressivism is another policy we inherited from Theodore Roosevelt -- progressive taxation (which was also endorsed by famed communist Adam Smith). As Roosevelt said, progressive taxation implies "not the slightest sympathy" for socialism, but seeks simply to restructure and level the playing field of our capitalist economy.
I think progressive taxation shows that the critical concept for progressivism is that government should be reflexive, responding to evidence of its own effectiveness or lack thereof. To summarize verbosely, late progressivism entails the reflexive use of empirical principles to build effective government support structures that promote capitalist competition and provide basic services for an individualistic society.
Jonah's take
Let us not forget that "progressive" was the word liberals chose after the word "liberal" was so thoroughly vilified by all the Limbaughs and Coulters. We liberals were constantly portrayed as 'effete academics' with our arugula and espressos and for some reason our mascot was little Michael Dukakis in his stupid little tank.
But now we are not liberals, no, but progressives. Liberals believe in what's right, but they are whiny and have weak biceps and therefore don't actually do anything. But progressives! Progressives are driving a steam-powered locomotive through the dark heart of the country, hauling a load of Change in its cab. Yes, the word choice is much, much better. Progress intimates movement, action while liberal is now just a conversation over white wine. But what kind of 'progress' is to be made? We must look at the word in terms of application, of how best to act, and quick! Or else Coulter will condemn our shiny new rubrick before we've used it!
Martin Luther King, Jr. famously said, "Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice." Really Martin? Because until last week it seemed the arc of history was actually a straight line bent towards conservative Armageddon. I had resigned myself to the idea that each liberal state would eventually secede and become part of Sweden.
It's ironic that King believed this, given all he did to ensure that arc stay bent.
There are moments when, as progressives, we must lead the country to better itself, not simply wait for it to change, when it's our moral prerogative to accelerate the rate of progress with a little nudge. In the Brown v. Board ruling, Chief Justice Earl Warren did not simply rule against segregation but added that is must happen "with all deliberate speed." Was he the kind of "radical judge" the Bush administration is so fond of condemning? In their eyes, perhaps. Because he did not wait for the wrong to be righted. He chose his position of power to change that. Years after his decision, Warren explained his choice: "There were so many blocks preventing an immediate solution of the thing in reality that the best we could look for would be a progression of action."
A progression of action. Yes.
So the party of Dukakis and Carter are now "progressives." What does that mean? We are looking to the future. We are not content to rest on the laurels of our backwards and bigoted past. Unlike conservatives, who preach about so-called non-interventionist government (except of course when it comes to marriage and abortion and sending citizens to die in needless wars), we view the government as a machine that can protect and improve the lives of our citizens. And for once progressives are in charge of that machine. Let's see what happens.
Nathan's take
Last spring, one of the consultants at my management consulting firm won an election for part-time office in a south western state. He was elected on a progressive platform. During one of his first post-election meetings back at the firm, a senior executive and one of our clients joked with him that he wasn't sure how he felt about having someone so liberal and "pro-union" consulting for him. Meanwhile, over the course of the election, which included a primary contest, this consultant was criticized for his corporate ties by an opponent on the left. Seems as though no one is comfortable with a progressive in the corporate world.
Naturally so, you might say, given the amount of time prominent progressives spend railing against corporate power, and the huge sums of money corporations have spent lobbying against progressive government reforms. But many self-described progressives have collected a corporate paycheck, or had a parent's corporate paycheck pay their way through school, or at the very least spent money on corporate products. (Your outfit might be head-to-toe American Apparel, but your Converse kicks are as corporate as it gets.) So many progressive Dr. Jekyls with a lurking, corporate Mr. Hyde, eh?
I don't think it can really be any other way. There are bills to be paid, and there are only so many plum non-profit jobs to go around. Besides, someone has to donate something to make those NGOs run. Like it or not, corporations are extremely efficient engines of economic growth (financial meltdown or no meltdown, this point stands). Progressives have every reason to be wary of corporate ambitions to twist public servants to serve their self-interest at the expense of the public good. But corporate self-interest is very often aligned with the public good, not opposed.
Progressives need to avoid dogmatic opposition to corporations and businesses more generally. Society has too much to gain from efficient, well-run firms of all sizes, small and big alike. Progress demands pragmatism, not tribalism. So when considering the meaning of progressivism, let us define it by its successes, not its conflicts, by its ideals, and not by its caricatured enemies.
Ottavio's take
Here's what "progressive" should not mean.
In Guatemala there is a corporate slogan painted on billboards on the new but incomplete section of the inter-American highway by Cemento Progreso, the largest cement company in Central America. It reads: “Donde pasa el cemento pasa el progreso!” Where the cement goes progress follows! What kind of progress do they mean? Is their excitement justified?
Once the road is finished progress of a kind will come (the idea of the road alone has already spurred development). Finishing the road will benefit many. Any business relying on automotive transportation, which is to say almost every business, will benefit. Farmers will be able to transport their goods to markets with higher prices more easily. Many small businesses will see an increase in sales, as the number of visitors to the regions alongside the highway will increase. Inventory costs should go down due to lower transportation costs. Anyone who has to use the road will enjoy shorter travel times and a safer and smoother ride.
That said, contained in this Aldous Huxley-esque slogan are myriad known and unknown dangers. A few people have already died in landslides and other construction accidents in the name of this project. Many international chains that are bad for small businesses (Walmart and McDonald's, for example) have yet to expand throughout Guatemala due to lack of infrastructure. They will now be able to move into new areas and compete with local small businesses more easily. Real estate prices will increase in many beautiful locations that are now newly accessible by luxury cars forcing local people off of pieces of property that their families have lived on for generations.
In this slogan the word progress fails to acknowledge the numerous negative effects of development. It uses the positive connotation we have with the word progress to smooth over the nasty side effects. The political use of the word "progress" or "progressive" does the same thing. Progress is good but only if it is of a certain kind. Its important not to lose sight of the fact that it is much easier to cut down a forest, remove a mountain side and lay concrete than it is to remove concrete, build a mountainside, and plant a forest.
Robin's take
Progressive is a word that has come to define some of the greatest and worst rock bands (the Beatles and Kansas), a brand name for insurance (Progressive), and has largely been accepted as a synonym for "alternative" (as in: "My daughter attends a progressive school.").
But embodied in the word is and always has been the idea of moving forward. If I take a step forward towards a door, I am one step close and I have progressed towards it. However the one-dimensional aspect of the word and its binary implications of backwards and forwards is misleading. It assumes there is a door in front of me and a straight line to progress towards it. (What's behind that crazy door anyway?) In reality, the idea of moving forward is much more complicated, The axis of history and development is multi-dimensional and defined by a variety of values giving different directions and orientation to what progress is and isn't.
Moving backwards, in fact, can be a form of progress. A person who rides a bike or the train or even a horse today could be considered a much more forward-thinking person than the one who drives a car every day, even though the automobile, freeway systems, and the suburbs were all once hailed as signs of progressive living. So keeping in mind that the definition of progressive is largely determinate on one's own personal or collective values. Now is the time for our generation, through conversation and debate, to define our problems and aspirations and progress accordingly.
Sarah's take
In medicine, a progressive disease is one that continually increases in extent or severity. This is rather the opposite of what is meant by progressive politics, at least by those who adhere to its philosophy. Yet the comparison is not empty -- both uses of the word indicate a hot, unyielding move in one direction, ineluctable and necessary.
Boiled down to its essence, the nature of progressivism is contained in president-elect Barack Obama’s campaign slogan, “Change.” Progressivism looks forward, to the future, to a better time, to a future paradise not altogether dissimilar to communism as imagined by socialists. Progressivism is not so doctrinaire, however; the belief in gradual but steady human improvement is rooted in the Enlightenment, of which Cartesian skepticism is an essential element. This orientation toward the future is inseparable from the leftist viewpoint, just as romanticism of the past, of traditional values, is characteristic of the right. Yes, progressivism is rightly the mantle of the left. While a “Republican progressive” is not an oxymoron, a “conservative progressive” certainly is.
But progressivism is also a philosophy of dissatisfaction -- how could it be otherwise? Behind the optimism of “we can do better,” lies the less pleasant, “what we have presently is flawed.” And criticizing one’s country is paramount to criticizing oneself -- a disagreeable exercise if ever there were one. Thus the very philosophical power of progressivism belies a practical pitfall. Americans are positive thinkers if nothing else. Is this why progressivism has flourished most during times of true hardship in America -- for example, following the two greatest financial crises of the past century? Perhaps things must be undeniably in the toilet for Americans to truly embrace “change.”
For our country's progressive ills, is progressivism the remedy?
Walter's take
I can think of two possible origins of "progressive" as an ideology. First, Theodore Roosevelt’s “Progressive Party,” which was founded on egalitarian principles in 1912. The second comes from economics: a “progressive” tax is a tax scheme that burdens in the wealthy more heavily than a proportional tax. These two uses are consistent, and this etymology speaks to the unifying progressive principle: active egalitarianism.
In America, two major principles have emerged as touchstones for egalitarian progress. The first comes from the 18th to the late 19th century, the equality of opportunity. That principle accepted inequality of income, health, and other circumstances as natural but maintained that people of low-status could rise to the top through industry. Abraham Lincoln, before his first inauguration, said that that the principle that held the union together was the promise that “all should have an equal chance.” This principle was appropriate for a nation that was largely agrarian and in which an empire of land lay unexploited, cheaply available on the frontier.
Three constraints ultimately limited the upward mobility of Americans. First, owing to new technology and larger markets, the scale of American industry expanded dramatically with the rise of the steel, railroad, and oil industries and new workers could no longer expect to one day own their businesses. Second, increased immigration from Europe lowered wages in cities. Most importantly, the Frontier was declared closed in the 1890s and with that went the once infinite source of possibility--the West, which had enabled opportunity for centuries. Equality of opportunity was a false promise shortly after the civil war.
These constraints gave raise to a new principle whose touchstone was equality of condition rather than of opportunity: this was the birth of the progressive movement, in my mind. Greater equality of conditions was largely to be achieved through government policy (restricting child labor, limiting the work week, restricting immigration, and strengthening unions). Income was also to be transferred from the rich to the poor through progressive income tax. Abraham Lincoln signed Revenue Act of 1862, which instituted the first federal income tax--before being overturned by the Supreme Court some thirty years later. William Jennings Bryan and his Populist Party fought for a more progressive income tax in the late 1890s, Theodore Roosevelt founded the Progressive Party (Bull Moose Party) in the election of 1912, and in 1913 Congress passed the 16th Amendment, which enabled a non-apportioned federal income tax.
The progressive movement’s legacy is not simply an emphasis on redistribution; it was the realization that the old ethos did not work for the modern economy. So to me, what distinguishes a progressive is not the lonely and simple goal of “more redistribution” to the extent of the modern welfare state (that’s not Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressivism), nor even a strict defense of equality of condition. Rather unifying principle is an adapted notion of egalitarianism that recognizes that the promise of equality of opportunity will no longer be fulfilled by an abundance of wealth and capital beyond the frontier. Rather, the state must actively enable equality of opportunities.
More recently, the older, do-it-yourself version of egalitarianism has come back to favor, enabled by a marriage of convenience between a wealthy elite who are not interested in egalitarianism, and a coalition of evangelicals whose faith emphasizes personal responsibility. All I can say for the former group is that their politics are consistent with their interests. As for latter, who have become the most powerful political coalition in American politics, their emphasis on personal responsibility is based on the insane and willfully-dishonest notion that equal opportunity is possible without government support. The most important plank of progressive ideology rejects this laissez-faire approach to egalitarianism.
Will's take
I think the essence of progressivism is contained in the simple ideal of human progress, that of moving from a society characterized by scarcity and fear toward one of sustenance and acceptance. From trust-busting, to the New Deal, to civil rights, women's rights, and now gay rights. This last issue is sadly still on the vanguard of American society, as evidenced by the pass of the gay marriage ban in California last week, no matter how dastardly the tactics of its supporters.
Note that this progress is an ideal, one that never comes automatically. Living in San Francisco, it's easy to fall prey to a sort of techno-utopianism in which the march of science and knowledge (from Graham Bell to Google) inevitably lead to more freedom and prosperity for society. This is a common enough trope (dating back at least to the Enlightenment, in the West) that remains surprisingly resilient in the face of all the 20th century's industrially-fueled terror. While this may be true for the educationally mobile and stock-holding upper middle class (all bets are off if this credit crisis really picks up steam), income inequality in America today is higher than at any time since the time of the very trusts Teddy Roosevelt notoriously busted.
One thing that the Progressive Party and their spiritual heirs have always taken to heart is the contrary warning that without a fight, power tends to beget more power, and that the increased wealth of our modern society doesn't necessarily result in material changes for the mass of Americans. Whether this makes all the competing groups vying for the title of "progressive" worthy of the charge is debatable, but the idea remains a useful, even necessary one in November of 2008.
RSS Feed