Liberalism -vs- Progressivism: A Meaningful Distinction?
Am I always updating my thinking on this issue or just spinning my wheels on a trivial problem of labels?
I don't like labels - never have.
I have always especially eschewed the label of 'Liberal'. In my late college days, when I 'flipped' my conservative identity in the first months of JFK's term, I found David Macdonald's definition of 'radical' most comfortable: in order to change society for the best, one had to engage in a responsible and intellectual process to discover the roots of existing evils. Thus, to be 'radical' was not to be extremist; it was simply to address policy directly from the roots of problems.
In that decade, I never felt comfortable with the "liberal" tag. On one hand there were the 'white liberals', which was definitely a pejorative term. And then there were my professors, some of whom were conservative.
As far as those liberal among them, I cop to having been frustrated by their refusal to commit to any position. That was their professional duty, of course: to entertain all perspectives or at least as many as possible, simultaneously. But their habit of mind - infinite or interminable toleration - epitomized liberalism for me, and I didn't like it. But taking action or supporting policies, backing candidates was above their pay scale, of course.
I just say this to establish that I currently don't avoid the label of 'liberal' for the reason that conservatives have done a good job in recent decades pummeling it into the ground, as is generally conceded.
Okay? I have never been a liberal. I went from being radical to hedonist, to my current Progressivism.
(Read my autobiography.)
Discussing the difference between Liberalism and Progressivism is a hard topic to launch. It's more a discussion of nuances among friends than a dialectic debate between adversaries.
Anything I can say in a normal length piece will be incomplete. I'll just start in a random fashion and say a little of what's been tugging at my mind. Only by inviting an exchange of ideas will I really grasp the extent to which my thoughts are tentative or settled.
Liberals
Liberals are good people. I mean it. (Some of my best friends are liberals.) They want to do good things. They see a problem, they want to fix it. Liberals are eclectic problem solvers.
Liberals continue to respond and address each new move serially, as if each event somehow occurred in a vacuum. But liberals often - give the impression anyway - of failing to 'connect the dots'.
When liberals see a problem, their immediate response is to spend some bucks or send in some troops.
Liberals have a laudatory view on every thing, every little thing. Many times it is an emotional-based, or 'morality'- based position. Those types of decisions tend to be static, predictable and not subject to re-examination. Liberals are often burdened with endless optimism which they apply everywhere.
That's all find and good with me. Especially as I find myself in sympathy with most liberal positions on each little issue and micro-issue. The issue is effectiveness in the long term, which requires attending to macro-issues.
But the problem is, that liberals are confronted with the problem of winning elections, with winning that 'next election', in our present case, the 2006 elections.
Having a liberal doctrinaire position on micro-issues used to be effective in American politics. That was before the country became the mass-society it is today. Before Democrats (under liberalism) could take a position on issue X in Belvedere California, and not just mention anything about it in Little Rock Arkansas. Now, with the omnipresence of the electronic media, everything said anywhere, is heard everywhere. A Democrat who might be winning on position Y in Arkansas stands to be embarrassed by his party's position on 'X' in California. There's no over all strategic calculation.
Thus, the Democratic Party, under liberalism, is often criticized as not standing for anything.
Progressives
Progressives prefer to look at problems through a big-picture lens, globally, strategically, in a pragmatic context.
Progressives see each evil or problem recognized individually by Liberals as only temporary obstacles to an over all project of establishing a permanent and irreversible humane direction in our national politics, and through that, our culture.
Progressives, to my mind, are more politically oriented. Where as liberals are casual citizen voters, Progressives are political between election years, which used to be thought of as 'off- years'. Progressives are never 'off' or on vacation.
Progressives are not so much on the lookout for new micro-issues for fresh sources of outrage. They are more interested in integrating small issues into a coherent whole. Instead of treating symptoms, they task themselves with systemic analysis and change.
Progressives are historically oriented. As their 'label' implies, progressions are nothing if not a sequence of stages along a continuum toward goals. Now Liberals may share the goals, but the point is Progressives are more focused on the series of objectives which have to be contested for and won along the way. These objectives have to be strategically addressed in some sort of prioritized array.
Progressives tend to be more politically pragmatic and strategic; liberals are less political, more idealistic. Whereas liberals tend to win converts over to their ideals, progressives try to win consensus on objectives.
When liberals talk of competing interests, they often fasten on the rights of individuals and the concerns of groups. Their concern is alway well-meant, not always misguided, but can be passing fashions. Progressives, OTOH, speak of the public interest, and the obligations of intermediate action needed to attain it.
A Minimalist Progressive Program:
The minimal program (goals and objectives) for a Progressive caucus, which aims renovate the Democratic Party's ability to restore American democracy and world leadership, include, (un-prioritized):
I don't like labels - never have.
I have always especially eschewed the label of 'Liberal'. In my late college days, when I 'flipped' my conservative identity in the first months of JFK's term, I found David Macdonald's definition of 'radical' most comfortable: in order to change society for the best, one had to engage in a responsible and intellectual process to discover the roots of existing evils. Thus, to be 'radical' was not to be extremist; it was simply to address policy directly from the roots of problems.
In that decade, I never felt comfortable with the "liberal" tag. On one hand there were the 'white liberals', which was definitely a pejorative term. And then there were my professors, some of whom were conservative.
As far as those liberal among them, I cop to having been frustrated by their refusal to commit to any position. That was their professional duty, of course: to entertain all perspectives or at least as many as possible, simultaneously. But their habit of mind - infinite or interminable toleration - epitomized liberalism for me, and I didn't like it. But taking action or supporting policies, backing candidates was above their pay scale, of course.
I just say this to establish that I currently don't avoid the label of 'liberal' for the reason that conservatives have done a good job in recent decades pummeling it into the ground, as is generally conceded.
Okay? I have never been a liberal. I went from being radical to hedonist, to my current Progressivism.
(Read my autobiography.)
Discussing the difference between Liberalism and Progressivism is a hard topic to launch. It's more a discussion of nuances among friends than a dialectic debate between adversaries.
Anything I can say in a normal length piece will be incomplete. I'll just start in a random fashion and say a little of what's been tugging at my mind. Only by inviting an exchange of ideas will I really grasp the extent to which my thoughts are tentative or settled.
Liberals
Liberals are good people. I mean it. (Some of my best friends are liberals.) They want to do good things. They see a problem, they want to fix it. Liberals are eclectic problem solvers.
Liberals continue to respond and address each new move serially, as if each event somehow occurred in a vacuum. But liberals often - give the impression anyway - of failing to 'connect the dots'.
When liberals see a problem, their immediate response is to spend some bucks or send in some troops.
Liberals have a laudatory view on every thing, every little thing. Many times it is an emotional-based, or 'morality'- based position. Those types of decisions tend to be static, predictable and not subject to re-examination. Liberals are often burdened with endless optimism which they apply everywhere.
That's all find and good with me. Especially as I find myself in sympathy with most liberal positions on each little issue and micro-issue. The issue is effectiveness in the long term, which requires attending to macro-issues.
But the problem is, that liberals are confronted with the problem of winning elections, with winning that 'next election', in our present case, the 2006 elections.
Having a liberal doctrinaire position on micro-issues used to be effective in American politics. That was before the country became the mass-society it is today. Before Democrats (under liberalism) could take a position on issue X in Belvedere California, and not just mention anything about it in Little Rock Arkansas. Now, with the omnipresence of the electronic media, everything said anywhere, is heard everywhere. A Democrat who might be winning on position Y in Arkansas stands to be embarrassed by his party's position on 'X' in California. There's no over all strategic calculation.
Thus, the Democratic Party, under liberalism, is often criticized as not standing for anything.
Progressives
Progressives prefer to look at problems through a big-picture lens, globally, strategically, in a pragmatic context.
Progressives see each evil or problem recognized individually by Liberals as only temporary obstacles to an over all project of establishing a permanent and irreversible humane direction in our national politics, and through that, our culture.
Progressives, to my mind, are more politically oriented. Where as liberals are casual citizen voters, Progressives are political between election years, which used to be thought of as 'off- years'. Progressives are never 'off' or on vacation.
Progressives are not so much on the lookout for new micro-issues for fresh sources of outrage. They are more interested in integrating small issues into a coherent whole. Instead of treating symptoms, they task themselves with systemic analysis and change.
Progressives are historically oriented. As their 'label' implies, progressions are nothing if not a sequence of stages along a continuum toward goals. Now Liberals may share the goals, but the point is Progressives are more focused on the series of objectives which have to be contested for and won along the way. These objectives have to be strategically addressed in some sort of prioritized array.
Progressives tend to be more politically pragmatic and strategic; liberals are less political, more idealistic. Whereas liberals tend to win converts over to their ideals, progressives try to win consensus on objectives.
When liberals talk of competing interests, they often fasten on the rights of individuals and the concerns of groups. Their concern is alway well-meant, not always misguided, but can be passing fashions. Progressives, OTOH, speak of the public interest, and the obligations of intermediate action needed to attain it.
A Minimalist Progressive Program:
The minimal program (goals and objectives) for a Progressive caucus, which aims renovate the Democratic Party's ability to restore American democracy and world leadership, include, (un-prioritized):
- Restoration of the Progressive Income Tax. Consider this as a sine quo non.
- Balance the Federal Budget.
- Annually begin paying down the deficit.
- Acknowledge the fact of global warming. Sign the Kyoto Agreement.
- Legislate fuel economy and energy conservation. Set significant, even ambitious Corporate Average Fuel, and heavily tax Hummers, and hummer-like vehicles.
- End illegal immigration by conforming defacto immigration to de jure immigration, (one way or the other).
- Declaration that the primary front in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) is still Afghanistan.
- Restore the state National Guards to the purposes for which they were intended. They are state national guards, not imperial praetorian guards.
- End the back-door draft: repeal the stop-loss executive order.
- Raise the minimum wage.
- Double of the earned income tax credit.
- Legislate to recognize Civil Unions for Same Sex Couples.
- Legislate a National Single-payer Health Care insurance- Canadian Style.
Return to The Vigil and comments?
posted by Vigilante at 9:12 AM
<< Home