Branding (4.00 / 1)

I found it interesting that you chose to use the word "branding" in your post regarding the Liberal/Progressive labels. Whether or not you did that intentionally, I'd agree that from a branding perspective the term "progressive" has advantages in that the Right has thoroughly co-opted the "liberal" label to the point it is viewed as a negative or out of the mainstream modifier. Once this happens it is much easier to re-brand than to rescue the brand. And in many respects, doing so also strengthens the brand as a great deal of thought and clarifying definition goes into the process of rebranding.

Personally, I use "progressive" to identify my views. For me, this comes from Gov. Dean's pragmatic approach of fiscal conservatism and social progressivism that brought me into the Democratic party with both feet. The distinction between "liberal" and "progressive" to me (and others will probably disagree) is this pragmatism. IMHO "liberal" is associated with an ideological far-left purity, whereas "progressive" is more pragmatic and covers a wider spectrum of the left. And before someone flame me, I'm not making a better/worse argument for one or the other, just stating opinion.

If teaching is so easy, then by all means get your degree, get your certificate, and see if you can last longer than the five years in the classroom 50% of those who enter the profession never make it to.

---

by: michael in chicago @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 15:18:51 PM CDT

Odd, given John F. Kennedy called himself (4.00 / 2)

a liberal.  Frankly, I think liberals like to call themselves progressives because the word liberal has been so demonized to mean "far left", that even those with clear liberal leanings have bought into the stigma.  

---

by: mass @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 21:42:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also weakness and indulgence (4.00 / 1)

"A liberal is someone who won't even fight for his own side". Robert Frost.

Liberals are also accused of being too indulgent to criminals, libertines, minorities, schoolchildren, poor people, foreigners, etc.  -- people we should be strict with. And to strict with upstanding folk who happen to destroy the environment, sell toxic products, their abuse workers, etc.

---

by: John Emerson @ Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 05:34:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

liberals are pussies, progressives are marching (it's time)

---

by: tunacan @ Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 09:55:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Liberals don't run (4.00 / 1)

from a label just because conservatives say bad things about them. Not sure I would agree with you on which of the two are "pussies."

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 14:34:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I, too, make a distinction and prefer progressive (0.00 / 0)

I share your keen observation about branding. As I tell my college history class "I will define myself" and chose "progressive" because, for me, 'liberalism' represents pie in the sky, ivory tower philosophy while 'progressivism' represents boots on the ground, fist in the air, grass roots populism. I also agree about fiscal conservatism: I think the right has successfully labeled liberal as "bleeding heart". We need social democracy, not a welfare state (and, of course, it is the capitalist right that gives us the welfare state - just another trick to destroy social cohesion). We need to define ourselves and take control of the narrative (eg. expose the lie of the capitalist marketplace that preaches small government, no regulation, free markets, Social Darwinism, laissez-faire, trickle-down, voodoo economics, etc.) Oh, and one last comment. I am exiting the neo-liberal, third way, Versaille Democratic Party with both feet.  

---

by: tunacan @ Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 09:53:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Progressive (4.00 / 7)

"Liberal" has a long and honorable history. But besides the relentless conservative/media attack on "tax and spend liberals", the term came to be associated with the Cold War liberals of the 1950s who purged communists, socialists, and other leftists from labor unions and supported the CIA as it overthrew left-leaning/democratic governments around the world. In the 1960s, the term was associated with LBJ and Humphrey as they escalated the Vietnam war and with liberal hawks like Scoop Jackson, the Senator from Boeing. To differentiate themselves, young anti-war activists called themselves "radicals", but then this term became too much associated with the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA), People's Temple, and other groups advocating violence or other craziness.

To avoid all these associations, people adopted various terms like "progressive", "populist", "democratic socialist", "feminist", "environmentalist", and "activist". It seems that "progressive" has been the most popular of these terms because it doesn't carry as much negative baggage as the others.

But the term can be very confusing since the "Third Way" think tank associated with the DLC is called the "Progressive Policy Institute".

I use the term "progressive" to encompass all the policy perspectives of recent grassroots social change movements: labor, civil rights, consumer, peace, feminist, anti-racist, anti-nuclear power/ pro-safe/renewable energy, anti-homophobia, pro-life, anti-corporate globalization, anti-income/wealth stratification, etc. But many people who call themselves "progressive" are anti-union or anti-abortion or support the war in Afghanistan or oppose gay marriage or support nuclear power or support globalization or support a large and dominating military.

And the Right further muddies the waters by calling President Obama a "socialist" even though he supports the Afghanistan war, opposes gay marriage, supports nuclear power, supports corporate globalization, supports a large and dominating military and is soft in his support of unions, the GLBT community, abortion rights, consumer protection, privacy rights, and wealth redistribution.

As much as we are able, we need to be clear what we mean by the terms we use about ourselves. And as much as possible we need to get those who use our terminology to actually agree with all aspects of our peace/ justice/ sustainability/ compassion agenda so we are not so easily subverted by the Right's divide-and-conquer strategies.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 16:00:34 PM CDT

A Deeper Question Beyond Branding (4.00 / 10)

will have to be whether we manage to distinguish truly progressive thinking from neo-liberalism.  Unless we do so, I fear we will be in a for a very long, hard slog.

The historical precedents for this are not so good, on at least two counts:

First of all, the term "progressive" emerged in contrast with--if not absolute opposition to--the populist challenge.  It emerged as a highly contested term--claimed by everyone from McKinnely/Hannah conservative businessmen to folks who strongly embraced social reforms that were being pioneered in Europe at the time, as Europe's welfare states were starting to be built.  While the more "progressive" progressives won out in popular memory and political branding at the time, there's a strong argument to be made--as historian Gabriel Kolko has done--that the business conservatives were the big winners, after all.

Second, the modern use of the term emerged from two very different directions.  First was from the left, based on folks like myself, who adopted it to distance themselves from the Cold War liberals who brought us the Vietnam War.  It was further bolstered by continuities with the Progressive Era, particularly as embodied in Wisconsin progressivism and (1) The Progressive magazine, (2) the legacy of the La Follettes, (3) the critical historical tradition exemplified by William Appleman Williams, and (4) the student activism in Madison.  In contrast to this adoption of the term from the left--starting in the late 1960s, there was DLC/Third Way adoption of the term in the 1980s, culminating in their establishment of the "progressive policy institute."

In both instances, the term has been used by a wide range of people, whose disagreements are deep and profound.  This doesn't mean we shouldn't use the term, but we need to fight for our own definition of what it means, and against the neo-liberal version.

"Social democrat" might be a better term for us, but it's not an either/or thing.  Since the term "progressive" is much more widely used, it behooves us to struggle for giving progressive a distinctively social democratic meaning at the same time that we promoted a greater awareness of social democracy itself.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 16:21:56 PM CDT

All true (4.00 / 1)

Ultimately, I think the label is less important than what we do with it.  I'd like to see more discussion of what a progressive X policy looks like (like your piece of foreign policy) or discussing progressive, conservative and neo-liberal approaches to particular problems and how they differ.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 16:33:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

aoei (4.00 / 1)

You're getting at, what makes me uncomfortable about "progressive" - is that there doesn't seem to be anything like a coherent "progressivism" that is somehow distinct from liberalism (at least under the definition I have used here in past).  If so, the terms are synonymous and that's fine, and we should just all sort of agree to say "progressivism" and so forth (in our disorganized and inching way that the left does everything).

My preference is to treat them as synonymous because despite all the important intra-left debates that exist, I think there is some core value that makes one a leftist versus not, and while I'd have trouble articulating it, it comes down to whether you want to maximize human welfare or not.  I think everyone on that side of the divide needs to have some umbrella term of unity to rally behind because the other side of that line is the real problem.

I definitely don't want to end up like libertarians, with 19 different flavours of distinction that no one outside the group can really tell the difference between or gives a shit about.  

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 16:39:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Social Democracy vs. Liberalism (4.00 / 6)

For me, liberalism is an evolving tradition.  From around the time of Dickens, the more progressive British liberals realized that laissez-faire wasn't all it was cracked up to be, and set about trying to reformulate liberalism on a more realistic foundation.  That same logic played itself out in the US some 60-70 years later, during the 1930s. Neither of these are "social democracy" properly understood in the continental European sense, but they're getting there.

This was hardly the only such example, since liberalism didn't involve freedom of the press back in Locke's day, for instance.  So I'm fine with the idea of an evolving, trans-historical liberal tradition. But historically, it's been the case--and one can argue that logically it must be the case--that liberalism only expands its boundaries this way in part due to outside pressure and outside ideas.

This is why I persist in defining myself as a radical, rather a liberal:  I see liberalism as a good thing in terms of what it codifies, but as generally lacking in the generative power of advancement.  Of course, I differ fundamentally from those radicals who consider liberalism as the enemy.  And it's this specific positioning--as a radical friendly critic of liberalism--that gives specific content to what I mean in calling myself "progressive"--because this is how I see genuine, fundamental progress being made: by challenging the traditional structures of liberalism to expand them to meet new challenges.

Hmmm.  I think this merits a diary.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 16:54:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I generally agree with you on that (4.00 / 4)

Liberalism tries to express every major issue either in terms of individual rights or the rights of minority groups. "The Four Freedoms" (esp. "freedom from want") were  a way of shoehorning a bit of social democracy, socialism, or communitarianism into liberalism. Majoritarian arguments tend to be forbidden.

To elucidate my point: a majoritarian emphasis which led to, say, a $2 increase in the minimum wage and a 4% unemployment rate (a basically social democratic approach) would do black Americans a lot more good than the whole array of liberal, minority-oriented programs out there: MLK Boulevard, MLK Day, Black History Month, Black Studies programs, affirmative action, hate crimes laws, etc.  

---

by: John Emerson @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 17:13:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right (4.00 / 1)

The UK New Liberals--and some New Dealers following similar logic--shifted ground by looking at society as a whole and what it would take pragmatically to make the theoretical liberal aim of autonomy a reality. (A similar approach was taken by Italian liberal socialists, following Carlo Rosselli.)

Given that liberalism has always grown out of pragmatic arguments (religious tolerance was a practical solution long before it was reinvented as a principle in its own right) these different groups of thnkers were all on solid ground.  But more conservative liberals (Isaiah Berlin, anyone?) always opposed the evolution of new frameworks to supplant the old.

Clearly there could have been a new foundation--and this is what Rawls was basically up to--but it's a long way from lengthly tomes to cliches.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 18:01:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

left vs right (0.00 / 0)

I would argue that the primary distinction between liberalism and conservatism can be boiled down to democracy vs having a ruling class. When liberals wielded considerable power after the New Deal, I think they were partially co-opted by the ruling class and partially constrained by ruling class power, leading to some policies that were distinctly anti-liberal (Cold War, Vietnam, etc.) and others that were sub-optimal and had some negative side effects that could be blamed on liberals. I still think the term liberal is very useful to describe an ideology that favors democracy and the policy inclinations that naturally flow from an opposition to domination by a ruling class. Most of these are economic and are mostly obvious. Culturally, an opposition to ruling class strategies to divide and conquer the masses by rejecting racism and other right-wing culture issues.

This seems like a very clear and easy to comprehend distinction. We should be going balls out defending liberalism, explaining the inherent suckiness of conservatism, and pointing out when "liberal" politicians and policies are in fact not being liberal.

Progressivism is a far murkier deal historically, as you yourself explained nicely. It doesn't make much sense to me to abandon "liberal" for "progressive" if we think that language is anything more than just a game for people with short memories.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 15:35:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think Lakoff has done a great job (4.00 / 5)

of articulating something more clear about his definition (which I largely share) about progressive values. This is one version.

Empathy is at the heart of progressive thought. It is the capacity to put oneself in the shoes of others -- not just individuals, but whole categories of people: one's countrymen, those in other countries, other living beings, especially those who are in some way oppressed, threatened, or harmed. Empathy is the capacity to care, to feel what others feel, to understand what others are facing and what their lives are like. Empathy extends well beyond feeling to understanding, and it extends beyond individuals to groups, communities, peoples, even species. Empathy is at the heart of real rationality, because it goes to the heart of our values, which are the basis of our sense of justice.

Progressives care about others as well as themselves. They have a moral obligation to act on their empathy -- a social responsibility in addition to personal responsibility, a responsibility to make the world better by making themselves better. This leads to a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them. Protection includes worker, consumer, and environmental protection as well as safety nets and health care. Empowerment includes what is in the President's stimulus plan: infrastructure, education, communication, energy, the availability of credit from banks, a stock market that works. No one can earn anything at all in this country without protection and empowerment by the government. All progressive legislation is made on this basis.

Is this necessarily different from "liberalism"? I'm not sure.  But is it useful? I am confident that it is - and that is what matters to me.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 17:00:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Think You Can Use Them Interchangable At Lakoff's Level of Analysis (4.00 / 2)

But one can argue that what sets liberalism apart is its focus on resolving certain tensions.  One side of this inevitably seems to involve granting more deference to ego & authority than is wise to do.  More focus on The Wealth of Nations and not enough on The Theory of the Moral Sentiments would be one way to put it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 17:11:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Someone could have empathy and still be a conservative. (4.00 / 1)

That's the problem I see with this definition. I think it would be an extremely misguided opinion, but one could sincerely believe that an authoritarian structuring of society would be best for everyone. Lakoff explains well the underlying psychology that makes it more likely to be liberal or conservative. But his explanation does not actually define a specific governing philosophy.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 15:42:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Many conservatives argue that they do support taking care of others (4.00 / 1)

just not through the government.  They argue that government does a poor job of helping those in need, and that by levying taxes and imposing regulations, stifle the ability of private actors to do the necessary work of helping others. (I highly recommend reading The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater, for a fuller explanation.)

We can argue over how valid these arguments are, but absent mind-reading powers, we cannot argue the sincerity with which these conservatives hold their beliefs, and their honest desire to help others - just not through government.

Many liberals miss this distinction and self-servingly claim that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that "liberals care about other people and conservatives don't".  Again, unless you can read conservatives' minds and find that they don't really give a shit about others even as they say they do, this is simply untrue.  It's also quite stupid and insulting, no better than "conservatives are patriotic and liberals aren't".

Making the distinction over one of the role of government, rather than a petty argument over who's a good person and who's not, gets closer to the meat of the ideological division, and makes for a much better contest of ideas anyway.

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 18:02:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Again, you have misread Lakoff (0.00 / 0)

He is not arguing about people's motives.  In addition, what people argue are their reasons for their positions is irrelevant to his point.  He is offering an explanation for this difference, not reporting on the reasons people offer.

Lakoff is making an argument about the role of government - he's not making an argument about who's a good person.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 23:32:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lakoff never suggested (0.00 / 0)

that conservative individuals lack empathy.  He said that empathy ties together what look like various unrelated policy positions, and that different values (primarily obedience to authority) tie together the various policy positions that make up conservative thought.  It has nothing to do with motives - thus it doesn't matter if one justifies authoritarianism because one thinks it is good for people.

As for your claim that he doesn't define a governing philosophy, I'm not sure what you mean.  I suspect you are misreading him, substituting a more internal psychological state approach for one rooted in looking at how political language is structured.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 23:15:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My point is that the real difference (4.00 / 1)

between liberalism vs conservatism throughout history seems to be one of democracy vs authoritarianism. That single distinction can explain almost all policy differences. A psychology of empathy (and psychology is what Lakoff emphasizes) does not preclude choosing conservatism i.e. authoritarianism. Empathy and authoritarianism are not polar opposites, and so empathy or it's lack do not adequately define the distinction between left/liberal/progressive and right/conservative/authoritarian.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 01:13:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also, Lakoff seems to be using the term (0.00 / 0)

"progressive" rather than "liberal" for no discernible reason other than to run from the label that conservatives have more effectively demonized.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 01:22:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

p.s. I don't mean to completely dismiss Lakoff's (4.00 / 1)

insights. I just don't agree 100% with his take on everything.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 01:24:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What of a conservative who deeply cares about helping others (4.00 / 1)

and therefore wants "government to get off my back so I can give more of my money to charities"?

We might scoff at his reasoning, but we can't deny that he truly wants to help others, just not through the government.

Progressives care about others as well as themselves. They have a moral obligation to act on their empathy -- a social responsibility in addition to personal responsibility, a responsibility to make the world better by making themselves better. This leads to a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them.

The part I bolded is the weak link in this argument here.  It's true that most progressives support "more government" because they want government to act on that social responsibility.  It's the other direction (the direction that Lakoff writes in) that's trickier.  It doesn't necessarily follow that if you care about social responsibility, you are required to be a progressive who supports more government action to meet that social responsibility.

I do think that many, if not most, conservatives don't really care about other people (though I also happen to think that many progressives don't really care about other people either - human beings are just selfish).  But I would not make it a diagnostic difference between liberalism and conservatism.

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 11:41:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lakoff's insights are not an effective argument. (0.00 / 0)

Let's appreciate Lakoff's insights for what they are. They give us on the left valuable psychological insights that help us understand why people embrace certain political ideas. I am not dismissing his observations about the psychological role of empathy. But that doesn't make it an effective explicit argument to make to sell a conservative on liberalism. As you point out, "I'm caring and you're not" is not an effective argument. I think it's much more effective to champion the actual political perspective of liberalism/progressivism rather than "we're right because we're nicer than you."

And for me, that perspective is that government should benefit society as a whole and that democracy is the best way to achieve that. This perspective does not magically determine exactly the proper size and scope of government, but it does lead to policies that minimize the power of a would-be ruling class to interfere with the overall will of the people.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 14:55:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I want to clarify (0.00 / 0)

that I don't endorse the conservative worldview at all - just the opposite, in fact.  I have made defending and championing the role of active government the cause of my political life.  I think the argument that an unorganized assemblage of private charities and institutions can somehow better provide for the country than a unified democratic government is the stupidest shit argument I've ever heard.  I'm just saying that while it's fair to criticize that argument, it's not as fair to impugn conservatives' motives.

And yes, by trying to delve into the psychological underpinnings of ideology, Lakoff is making an issue out of people's motives, cuz he's trying to explain where people are coming from.  I applaud his efforts, but I think a simple empathy vs. authority argument misses a vital second axis about more government vs. less government.  Putting that second axis in gets a better and fairer picture of where various ideological sympathies lie:

more empathy, more government - liberals/progressives
less empathy, more government - civil authoritarians
more empathy, less government - conservatives who give to charities
less empathy, less government - heartless/selfish conservatives

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Wed Sep 08, 2010 at 11:55:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You Read My Mind (Maybe) (4.00 / 3)

"Social democrat" might be a better term for us, but it's not an either/or thing.  Since the term "progressive" is much more widely used, it behooves us to struggle for giving progressive a distinctively social democratic meaning at the same time that we promoted a greater awareness of social democracy itself.

I think Daniel or someone posted a diary recently about Social Democrats in the UK (if I recall) that crystallized the problem between the liberal and progressive labels. And Daniel's post today with the video about empathy made the insight even more clear.

What's missing in progressive and liberal labels is any mention of community, society, empathy, and related concepts. Instead, progressive and liberal suggest "progress" and a set of ideas in contrast with authoritarianism (although, as you and others point out, liberal and progressive can be associated with authoritarian interests).

The only label that really seems free of this fuzzy definition and authoritarian risk is "social democrat." The word social links nicely with "Social Security" and collective action (even if it's the PTA) and a host of programs whose core value is creating change through individual and collective actions that improve the overall social fabric. It also contrasts sharply with Republican and Third Way ideas which are mostly about power and the maintenance of power, as well as selfish individuality and greed. Social Democrat also conveys the idea of using modern knowledge and experience to solve intractable social problems (although, as others have written in the past, government by expert often is a ruse to have government by elites).

The only negative is that "Social Democrat" is similar to "socialist," a term Republicans like to throw around as if it is evil incarnate (Communism being dead, for the most part). But it's possible using the label Social Democrat would be a clean way to emphasize the accomplishments of this political approach and contrast with corporate Democrats. It's hard to say you're a Social Democrat if you set up a commission whose goal is to cripple if not gut Social Security. But you might get away with saying you're a liberal who pushes that sort of policy.

So, if it mattered, I would describe myself as a Social Democrat and would want to be considered part of that tradition.

---

by: TSlavin @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 21:19:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ObamaCare and FinReg (0.00 / 0)

"Claimed" is the key word. My reading of Kolco suggests the Progressive Movement was co-opted by the corporations to both protect them from competition and to make sure they regulated themselves. This is no different than today, with ObamaCare and FinReg being sold to the American public as real reform when it is just another example of fox in the henhouse reform (and the poor tea party, astro-turf populists don't even understand this - the enemy of the populist farmers and the progressives was the (big) corporation; the tea party is funded by (big) corporations). Brandeis fought against "bigness" and today we have been hoisted by "too big to fail" once again.

---

by: tunacan @ Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 10:08:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Progressive v. Liberal (4.00 / 4)

There's a venomous few pages in Schlesinger's "The Vital Center" explaining why progressives are no damn good. The distinction he makes is that liberals are tough-minded and pragmatic whereas progressives are moralistic. (Context: many progressives had turned against Roosevelt in 1937 and afterwards because of their opposition to the war, Roosevelt's attempts to expand the executive power, and Roosevelt's disastrous 1937 austerity budget. Then after the war some of the pro-war progressives turned against Truman because they opposed the Cold War).

Lasch in "The New Radicalism in America" describes the liberals around WWI similarly, as consciously tough-minded and amoral.

In both cases a degree of militarism and power-worship is seen in the liberals.

The tough-minded amoralism also tended toward a manipulative political style, whereby you tell the people what you think will work to get their support and then go ahead with whatever you'd planned all along. It also was associated with interest-group bloc politics where you work as much as possible through vote-contractors on a "trust us" basis, rather than trying to persuade the voters directly or to build a political movement.

As I've said before, the word "progressive" has too many meanings: pre- Teddy Roosevelt progressives, TR progressives, the LaFollette machine in Wisconsin, the 1924 LaFollette national campaign, the "Prairie Progressives" 1915-1940, and the Wallace Progressives in 1948. But a common thread may be uncomfortable or hostile relationships with the party establishments of the two major parties.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 16:49:49 PM CDT

As I've Just Noted Upthread (4.00 / 1)

My own use of the term has it's own particular significance, but it clearly comes out of the historical context of the 60s, where the Cold War liberals were acting just as you describe.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 16:57:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Note that my definition is the opposite of Michael's. (4.00 / 1)

I also am not so sure about the antagonism between Progressives, except for Teddy Roosevelt, and Populists. Roosevelt kidnapped the progressives the way Bryan (a Democrat) kidnapped the Populists. LaFollette didn't support him and supported Wilson (as did Bryan). The Populists were effectivelt defunct by 1900, and most of the history of progressivism is after that point.

Most histories also overemphasize the rural, agrarian nature of the populists, and their supposed ignorance. I will grant, though, that progressives in general were more cautious and less radical than populists.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 17:04:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This seems (0.00 / 0)

To describe what we today call "neoconservatives" though I think neoliberals share at least some of the neocons' willingness to deceive the public while doing things "for their own good."  The two neo ideologies seem to share an elitist bias.

So it doesn't surprise me that neocons could be found in other periods hiding as "liberals" even then.  Fuckers.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 21:52:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The progressive vacuum (4.00 / 2)

I just heard a reporter on the NBC Nightly News say the Democrats have no message.  I'd say progressive has no message.  It seems to me Democrats became progressives when they stopped having the guts to stand for the basics of The New Deal. They've never come up with anything to replace it.  What's progressive?  It seems to be defined by what it's not.  Not conservative and not liberal.  Not really anything.

I'm a liberal.  At least I know what that means to me: unions, pensions, social security, Medicare, civil rights, clean air.... all the stuff we used to be proud of standing with and standing for.  

Tommorrow is Labor Day. Imagine the audacity of folks willing to name a day after labor.  Imagine progressives doing that today.  You can't.

---

by: Aliceann @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 18:06:57 PM CDT

Progressives are not more timid liberals (4.00 / 3)

In the world of today the timid ones are the centrists who unfortunately control the party. The House Progressive Caucus includes most of the Democrats fighting for the issues you mentioned.

I think that we've established that "progressive" does not have a commonly accepted meaning, though. I think of progressives as tougher than liberals, not less so, but two people here think the opposite.  

---

by: John Emerson @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 18:16:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree she is confusing progressive with centrist (0.00 / 0)

but the progressive caucus makes this easy since it includes guys like Barney Frank who clearly represent the banking  establishment rather than the new deal.  Also the progressives caved on public option in the liberal tradition of working within the system.

My blog  

---

by: Dameocrat @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 18:59:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Frank has been a horrible disappointment (0.00 / 0)

He's good on a lot of things, but on finance he is one of the worst.

---

by: John Emerson @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 19:27:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think you are confusing progressives with centrists (0.00 / 0)

but it is easy to do since the dlc calls their "thunk tank" Progressive Policy Institute"  The Tory's in England have appropriated the term too.

My blog  

---

by: Dameocrat @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 18:57:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed. The word "progressive" has come to (0.00 / 0)

leave a bad taste with me.  It doesn't stand for anything.

---

by: mass @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 21:45:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Liberals want to work within the system (4.00 / 1)

In Obama's case this means asking the wall street oligarchs to act nicer instead of trying to make them share the country proportionally with other citizens. Progressives want to change the system itself.  The oligarchs shouldn't have more power than everyone else.

My blog  

---

by: Dameocrat @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 18:53:52 PM CDT

Amoralism (0.00 / 0)

This, for me, is one of the outcomes of John Emerson's comment above about liberals being perceived as tough minded. The problem with being tough minded is that it can easily slip into amoralism and whatever it takes to get power and retain power. It's too easy to lose your original values that animated your cause to begin with.

One could say Obama is being tough minded by trying to coddle Wall Street to steer them towards better behavior, as good liberals might do. Trying to balance interests instead of favoring one side or another. But my take is that he's doing what a good corporate Republican (Third Way Democrat) would do and it has nothing to do with being tough and much to do with his core values as a politician and a person. Obama doesn't much care about working people or small businesses. He cares much more for the glitz and the power of Wall Street and large corporations. So does Emmanuel, Geithner, Summers, and others on his team.

Of course, the irony is that even lightly scolding Wall Street has made them claim Obama is anti-business. He can't win which was predictable: the Republicans will eat his lunch and Big Business will dump him for Republicans.

---

by: TSlavin @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 21:06:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Plus there's Flo (0.00 / 0)

and the Gecko.

On the "branding" side. While "liberal" has been demeaned by the right wing echo machine for years.

The real issue is how the left, professional and otherwise, will take advantage of this situation?

"Rebrand" as "Democrats" by taking the party from inside, or maintain the "brand" by supplanting it from outside.

I favor the latter, but would settle for the former with a parallel effort to break the two party lock by substantive electoral and structural reform.

The clearest description I can come up with for my self-ascribed category is Constitutional Anarchist with a strong tendency toward Regulatory Redundancy. I firmly believe that the function of our federal government is consistent with this system, but power is far too concentrated and so the system is inefficient. Decentralizing any and all forms of power are where the "anarchy" comes into it. The internet web is a cultural mechanism by which this can, and to some extent has, been accomplished. But only in a relatively narrow range of assembled concentrations of power. The whole "15 minutes of fame" thing is intriguing as well. Part of the reason such TV shows as National Idol and news noise like the Jet Blue Flight Attendant catch popular attention reflects, I think, an innate desire of humans to dissemble social structures of hierarchy. Well, innate among some humans anyway.

I've watched certain elements within my culture systematically work to destroy and undermine the cultural infrastructure that stabilizes this nation for decades. I have also internalized many hours of televised court room drama and cop process plays, so I have always been stymied by motive. Means and opportunity - hell, that seems to be one of the main reasons that some humans seek great wealth and power. Those can be bought. But motive is personal, even if the product of a deranged mind.

Why would anyone plot the destruction of societal/cultural elements that stabilize nations and economies? And why corporations? Don't they depend upon the disposable income of the middle class to fill their coffers and satisfy their shareholders? Ain't that the whole point of the Sam's Club Republican? Maybe that's why Tim Pawlenty can't get no traction, no matter how many tricks he does for the Palin/Beck/Bachmann/Emmer crowd. It would be like drilling holes in the hull of an otherwise sound boat. Wouldn't it?

It has become apparent that some subset of humans have decided that they have constructed a kind of escape pod by which they can secure their future amidst the deluge of poverty and deprivation they seek to unleash upon the globe. Or is it just another movie?

Not sure if that's "progressive". But this is one of the very few communities that has reflected and reinforced these views, often in a challenging way. I tend to treat politics as a sport and a form of entertainment because I know that it is only one aspect of a culture. I'm also an irreverent SOB that doubts everything, including "reality" and every single thought that skitters across my brain pan.

I seek to influence the culture in as rationale a way as possible, so the US Congress is not really all that relevant, yet the amount of concentrated power they wield cannot be ignored. Ditto the White House. Some ancient politician referred to the whole thing as The Great Game. I can get behind that. On my terms, or course.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 22:39:22 PM CDT

Progressive vs the Right (0.00 / 0)

The Right has given up on Liberal and now attacks the Progressive.  I accept being a liberal fighting the Progressive cause.

I think that it's time to stop calling Republican Conservatives as they've truly been supplanted by the Tea Party and they all should be called Libertarians as they've all embraced that philosophy.  It appears that  Rand Paul is being projected as winner of his race and Grand Dad McConnell is going to have to embrace him.  

Conservative is meaningless and the Republicans are now the Party of Nothing.  For them it's now every Man Woman & Child for themselves and to hell with the Government.  Libertarians are really driving this crazy trail.  

Who's the Liberal now

 

---

by: leftyleft @ Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 23:39:50 PM CDT

Not that clear (0.00 / 0)

Beck poured religion on the Tea Party and that will not go down well with some of them. His religiosity should be accentuated as a wedge issue, IMHO.

Libertarians are often offended by religious diatribes, are they not?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 00:11:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

To be clear, teabagger conservatives are authoritarian libertarians (0.00 / 0)

They mix and match.

---

by: John Emerson @ Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 05:30:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

As far as I know, "Liberal" is a very old term, (4.00 / 1)

dating to John Locke, and is not opposed to radicalism. In fact, the idea of natural right was a radical idea in the day, probably more radical than "progressive" has ever been. The later Victorian liberalism (Mill), which I think gives us a modern sense of the word, had its blind spots (e.g. colonialism), but it was still radical for the time. Perhaps "liberal" today has connotations of passivity, but it started as an ideology radically opposed to most existing forms of power.

I'm less familiar with the history of the term "progressive," but I suppose both terms can be used interchangeably.

---

by: jcr @ Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 03:49:26 AM CDT

I prefer "leftist" because the term lets in the traditions of (4.00 / 1)

Marxism and Anarchism, and is relatively defined. While liberalism and progressivism can veer to the right, a leftist politics never can--tautological, to be sure.

---

by: jcr @ Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 04:11:53 AM CDT

I prefer left-libertarian (0.00 / 0)

because that's what I am. FWIW are the Kos data adjusted for the fact that Kos is experiencing a steady decline in traffic?

---

by: bmull @ Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 04:36:04 AM CDT

Not adjusted (0.00 / 0)

As I only know of publicly available traffic data for the past 12 months I couldn't adjust for previous years.

However, even in declining traffic, "progressive" increased and "liberal" decreased which I think supports the trend I'm claiming.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 08:47:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Liberal/Progressive vs Neo-Liberal (0.00 / 0)

We know what a Neo-Liberal is: someone who accepts the sad reality that US democracy is dominated (not entirely controlled) by corporate interests and an infrastructure (think tanks, media, PR firms, conservative politicos) that supports corporate dominance over policy. Accepting that sad reality, a Neo-Liberal will work, like a community organizer, to get some breaks from the corporate oligarchy while not bucking them in any serious way on taxes, regulation,  and avoiding the issue of income inequality. A Neo-Liberal sees corporations as controlling jobs, and willing to shed jobs if bucked by progressive policies.

A traditional liberal has focused on policies that mitigate income inequality and also on civil rights.

The liberal arsenal against income inequality included support for unions (including unionizing more workers), the minimum wage, progressive taxes, accessible home ownership or affordable rentals, social security and Medicare, and inexpensive public higher education. ALL these liberal policy strategies have been compromised by Neo-Liberals. Progressives might add some worker empowerment such as exists in Germany. And some progressives want to see the country move in the direction of northern European Social Democracy/Social Capitalism. But so did New Deal Democrats.

As a conservative Social Democrat I have no great use for Marxism, Neo-Liberalism,  and class warfare (class conflict is very real, though). I consider myself progressive since I want to restore vigor to the traditional income-inequality arsenal of American liberalism.

Corporate self-interest in regard to government used to be more moderate and pragmatic, open to compromise, focused on economic benefits in the name of efficiency, need, and higher productivity that would would make more people prosperous. It is now also stridently ideological, aimed at rendering government impotent against corporate interests and justifying, on moral grounds, an ever increasing income inequality and justifying, on moral ground, shrinking prosperity. Corporate interests want to reduce FDR reforms by privatizing as much of the government as possible, and making Return on Investment, not the common good, the moral measurement of success in providing social benefits.

Looking at Obama, he is primarily a Neo-Liberal and a selective progressive in spurts, as in his health care legislation. His main concern in health care was efficiency and winning the cooperation of the corporations by giving them the means to increase their ROI while also providing greater health care coverage. Is this evil? No, just Neo-Liberal and some would say pragmatic. On the whole, however, he avoids the issue of income inequality and the diminishing incomes of much of the middle class and the dire economic conditions still suffered by most Afro-Americans.

Progressives need to find a core message rather than a scattershot list of grievances and policy initiatives. The right has their core message - we alone are patriots, we alone honor the constitution, liberals are the traitorous enemies of freedom - which is false, but not patently so to many Americans.

To me the best progressive core message would be "moving America toward a more just form of capitalism." This was, in fact, the message of traditional liberals before the No-Liberals took over the Democratic Party. Yes, that would mean social capitalism but the word social is best avoided. And yes, that form of capitalism is what distinguishes Social Democracy from socialism and communism. But in America the word social is best avoided.

I have deliberately ignored the civil rights aspect of liberalism because most Neo-Liberals as well as Liberals and even many Conservatives would support the strengthening and extension of civil rights. The Civil Right battle must be fought, but it is not what distinguishes a Liberal from a Neo-Liberal.

---

by: Citizen0 @ Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 09:24:44 AM CDT

I think (4.00 / 2)

You give conservatives too much credit, as while there are individual conservatives who support civil rights in some instances (thinking say of Ted Olson fighting for gay marriage equality), the movement as a whole has a long history of being on the wrong side of every civil rights question.  That they eventually are dragged to the light is usually just a question of finally tiring of being beaten for being wrong.  I'm hard pressed to find an instance of conservatives leading on a civil rights question.

Even Olson's activism on marriage is after a long period of liberal activism on the subject where we persuaded a majority of the US population to support it.  

The problem as I see it is that humans having rights intrinsic to their being human is not a concept conservativism supports.  Individual conservatives who do are deviating from the core of their ideology to do so.  That's fine, most of us are not 100% consistent in our ideology, but if you're looking for conservatives as a group to ever be out front in the fight for some vital civil or human right, I think you will be waiting a long time.  The possible exception here would be guns, but to avoid a long digression, I'll say guns are problematic as a "civil right" and leave it at that.  Even granting it without debate, batting .001 isn't something to celebrate.

Other than that, I liked what you wrote, and "moving toward a more just form of capitalism" isn't a bad start for a banner or slogan to unite most of the left (except those wholly opposed to capitalism and who don't believe any reform of it could improve it).

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 09:55:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Conservative poor record on Civil Rights (4.00 / 1)

I agree that Conservatives would never initiate anything to do with Civil Rights. That requires liberals and progressives. But they eventually do not oppose civil rights the way they dig in on economic issues.

I am also aware that there are some moderate Republicans left. You know, liberal Republicans who could influence their Party before it became dominated by the Dixiecrats and ideological corporate interests. People who believed they were the party of Lincoln and sometime acted on it. I am also aware that Woodrow Wilson gave the green light to let Jim Crow and lynching to become officially sanctioned in many states without fear of federal intervention. And that even the liberals in the Democratic Party honored this agreement. I grew up where Afro-Americans from Harlem had to join our Bronx Democratic Club (which welcomed them) because the Manhattan Club barred them. I am also aware that a total Racist, Sen. McAdoo of Texas, was almost nominated in place of FDR. The Bronx Club held out for Roosevelt and won other big city Club delegates to support him.

---

by: Citizen0 @ Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 12:33:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not Exactly (4.00 / 1)

I have deliberately ignored the civil rights aspect of liberalism because most Neo-Liberals as well as Liberals and even many Conservatives would support the strengthening and extension of civil rights. The Civil Right battle must be fought, but it is not what distinguishes a Liberal from a Neo-Liberal.

There are profound differences in how different traditions define the issues of civil rights.  This is readily apparent from the kind of analysis I've presented--in terms of a social dominance framework, with contested narratives in the realm of "legitimating myths", of which the currently dominant one is that of "colorblind racism".

Which, of course, is part of why this analysis--which is backed up by tons of empirical research--remains largely excluded from our political discourse.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 13:32:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm a Waldman progressive (4.00 / 1)

The words "liberal" and "progressive" don't have fixed meanings; De Groot's article and the subsequent comments make that quite clear. No matter what you decide to call yourself, those words will be understood differently by some people, and will shift their common meanings after some time. We cannot count on a single word to reliably summarize our identities.

But perhaps we can use a phrase, or a sentence, that conveys our core philosophy. I agree with Lakoff that empathy is the core of what I believe in and what I want to believe in, but I think that too few people understand what that means. (And though I think Lakoff is one of the greatest thinkers of our age, he only brings us uncut diamonds, not finished jewelry -- his presentations are difficult for most people, and are easily misunderstood.)

In 2006, Paul Waldman defined a progressive as someone who believes "we're all in this together." He gave that summary in contrast to conservatives, who he described as believing "you're on your own" or "every man for himself" (though the cons describe it as "personal responsibility" and a denial of our dependence on the commons).  Waldman explained how this definition can be used, in this article (link) and this lecture (link), both highly recommended. So, I'm proud to be a Waldman progressive.

---

by: LeftyMathProf @ Mon Sep 06, 2010 at 09:42:49 AM CDT

That's a great definition! nt (0.00 / 0)

---

by: respectisthehub @ Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 01:34:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

david sirota (0.00 / 0)

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.

To put it in more concrete terms - a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). A more "progressive" solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry's profiteering and market manipulation tactics. A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor; A progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America (much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D; money).

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 02:10:36 AM CDT

I'm uncomfortable with the term "Progressive" (0.00 / 0)

Largely due their apparent racism from roughly a century ago.

Example source (my actual ones are offline history texts - most recently Lowen's Sundown Towns): Ironic as it may now seem, political "purification" in the progressive South came to mean the elimination of blacks from the electoral process, for total abrogation of the fifteenth amendment (3).

---

by: Xanaqui @ Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 10:20:16 AM CDT

I use the term "liberal" mostly (4.00 / 1)

despite it not being a very accurate term, simply because I want to take it back from conservatives.

Meekly retreating from a term in favor of a "safer" one seems pointless to me.  Conservatives will simply demonize "progressive" (as they're already doing) until in 30 years' time, it'll become as radioactive as "liberal" is today.  What will progressives call themselves then?

Regardless of your feelings on how good the term is or what it means, it's better for the left to reclaim and own the word "liberal" than not.  It doesn't hurt for the left to own more terms.

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 18:17:19 PM CDT