Sarah
2004-06-12 17:42:11 UTC
6-12-2004
So What is a "Progressive?" And Why is that Important?
Filed under:
a.. Vision
b.. Base Works
- JoeLibertelli @ 8:00 am
Are you a Progressive? A Teddy Roosevelt Progressive? A Eugene Debs
Progressive? A LaFollette Progressive? A Henry Wallace Progresive? A
McCarthy Era codeword-for-communist "Progressive"? A Bill Clinton/Democratic
Leadership Council/Progessive Policy Institute Progressive? A Take Back
America Progressive? A Progressive Republican?
I think that defining what we mean by "progressive" - and, in particular,
distinguishing it from "liberal," is an important step in communicating our
views with our neighbors and others with whom we hope to work. If we, as
Progressive activists, hope to gain people's respect and cooperation in our
efforts, we need to be clear and up front about our ideology - as well as
our specific organizational goals, strategies, tactics and decision-making
processes.
I would appreciate feedback on the following definition:
- Progressives call for a society based upon ecological balance and sanity,
one which seeks peace and security through the vigorous pursuit of justice
and an end to poverty and discrimination, and one which insists government
be transparent, participatory, and the result of true democracy.
- Progressive ideology is based on reality: environmental and public health
science, relevant social history, and a clear-eyed view of how public
policies affect both people and the environment - especially our most
vulnerable people and ecosystems.
- Progressives, unlike their Liberal cousins, believe the American and world
political and economic systems, despite their many strengths, are deeply
flawed and in need of nonviolent transformation, not mere reform.
- Progressives know that when one takes any issue sufficiently seriously -
homelessness, inner-city education, ocean ecology, sexism, energy policy,
workplace exploitation, prison overcrowding, AIDS or cancer research, the
war in Iraq, US policy on Israel, etc - both the interconnections with other
issues and the need for a real transformation become clear.
- Progressives can be distinguished from modern American "Liberals" (many of
whom now call themselves Progressives!) who either tend to see the problems
in isolation or are so daunted by the prospect of systemic change that they
act as if the problems are isolated - perhaps to maintain their sanity!
Progressives see a wide variety of problems as symptoms of a deep malaise.
They are active side by side with Liberals and even with Conservatives on
these individual problems, but are aware of, and maintain hope of ultimately
being effective on, the deeper, systemic ones as well.
- Liberals are reformers. Progressives are evolutionaries - nonviolent
radicals who seek to address underlying causes of problems at their roots
while striving to model their vision for a transformed and healthy society
through daily activism and healthy and joyous personal and interpersonal
life.
Comments (5) »
1. Here's the simplest distinction that springs to my mind:
When confronted with social or economic problems, the following groups offer
the following solutions:
Reaganites/neocons - throw money at the rich (taken from the middle and
lower)
classic conservatives - tighten the belts of all (even those who have no
belts)
liberals - throw money at the poor (taken from the rich)
progressives - throw people power at the problems and work together to solve
them
Is that a fair summary? To me "progressive" is a Rosie-the-Riveter "we can
do it!" mentality.
Comment by volneysimmons - 6-12-2004 @ 8:46 am
2. This is an overly simplistic comment, BUT:
Liberals point out the problems of the world.
Progressives point out the solutions.
Comment by Clarity - 6-12-2004 @ 9:42 am
3. I like the definition of a progressive as someone who sees the
interconnectedness of policies and issues (global thinkers) and the need for
fundamental, systemic change. I like the emphasis on the practicality of the
approaches, embracing "best practice" and sound solutions, rising above
special interests to honor the greater good. However, the definition of a
liberal given here did not resonate with me. I found it confusing - maybe
because I am new to activism. It sounds like an insider's thing that the
general public wouldn't get. It also sounded like an internal division or
conflict. I personally do not think we need to distinguish ourselves from
"liberals" as many people view that term in a very positive light, more
along the lines of the dictionary definition: favoring progress or reform;
free from prejudice, tolerant; characterized by generosity; ample or
abundant. I have always considered myself a liberal, but did not identify at
all with the definition proposed in the post. For me, the most important
distinction to make about Progressives is that we are not some "fringe" band
of radicals. We are mainstream, intelligent, inclusive, and everywhere! We
are united by our values: justice, community, peace, health, environment and
education.
Comment by Jodi - 6-12-2004 @ 9:50 am
4. I am concerned that the definition of "Liberal" is too defensive.
Liberals were demonized by the right because the right learned how to frame
the language and issues of politics in this country over the last
generation. What a liberal believes in as the best solution can change over
time, just like the ideology of the conservatives has changed from Goldwater
(e.g. balanced budgets, etc.) to Bush (e.g. deficits don't matter, etc.). I
say we dont't let the radical right define us and "steal" our labels. I say,
now that there seems to be a growth of some new backbone in some parts of
the liberal or progressive community, that we define our selves, and proudly
and vociferously stand up for ourselves.
If a progressive is one who wants to compromise with the far right so that
social security and medicare will end up privatized, and we will all be on
our own again, then I remain a liberal and proud of it.
Comment by Bruce Ballmer - 6-12-2004 @ 10:08 am
5. I agree with you, Bruce, and was coming back to say exactly the same
thing. You said it much better than I would have! Thanks.
Comment by Jodi - 6-12-2004 @ 10:14 am
Add you comments at:
http://blog.progressivevote.org/index.php?p=6#more-6
So What is a "Progressive?" And Why is that Important?
Filed under:
a.. Vision
b.. Base Works
- JoeLibertelli @ 8:00 am
Are you a Progressive? A Teddy Roosevelt Progressive? A Eugene Debs
Progressive? A LaFollette Progressive? A Henry Wallace Progresive? A
McCarthy Era codeword-for-communist "Progressive"? A Bill Clinton/Democratic
Leadership Council/Progessive Policy Institute Progressive? A Take Back
America Progressive? A Progressive Republican?
I think that defining what we mean by "progressive" - and, in particular,
distinguishing it from "liberal," is an important step in communicating our
views with our neighbors and others with whom we hope to work. If we, as
Progressive activists, hope to gain people's respect and cooperation in our
efforts, we need to be clear and up front about our ideology - as well as
our specific organizational goals, strategies, tactics and decision-making
processes.
I would appreciate feedback on the following definition:
- Progressives call for a society based upon ecological balance and sanity,
one which seeks peace and security through the vigorous pursuit of justice
and an end to poverty and discrimination, and one which insists government
be transparent, participatory, and the result of true democracy.
- Progressive ideology is based on reality: environmental and public health
science, relevant social history, and a clear-eyed view of how public
policies affect both people and the environment - especially our most
vulnerable people and ecosystems.
- Progressives, unlike their Liberal cousins, believe the American and world
political and economic systems, despite their many strengths, are deeply
flawed and in need of nonviolent transformation, not mere reform.
- Progressives know that when one takes any issue sufficiently seriously -
homelessness, inner-city education, ocean ecology, sexism, energy policy,
workplace exploitation, prison overcrowding, AIDS or cancer research, the
war in Iraq, US policy on Israel, etc - both the interconnections with other
issues and the need for a real transformation become clear.
- Progressives can be distinguished from modern American "Liberals" (many of
whom now call themselves Progressives!) who either tend to see the problems
in isolation or are so daunted by the prospect of systemic change that they
act as if the problems are isolated - perhaps to maintain their sanity!
Progressives see a wide variety of problems as symptoms of a deep malaise.
They are active side by side with Liberals and even with Conservatives on
these individual problems, but are aware of, and maintain hope of ultimately
being effective on, the deeper, systemic ones as well.
- Liberals are reformers. Progressives are evolutionaries - nonviolent
radicals who seek to address underlying causes of problems at their roots
while striving to model their vision for a transformed and healthy society
through daily activism and healthy and joyous personal and interpersonal
life.
Comments (5) »
1. Here's the simplest distinction that springs to my mind:
When confronted with social or economic problems, the following groups offer
the following solutions:
Reaganites/neocons - throw money at the rich (taken from the middle and
lower)
classic conservatives - tighten the belts of all (even those who have no
belts)
liberals - throw money at the poor (taken from the rich)
progressives - throw people power at the problems and work together to solve
them
Is that a fair summary? To me "progressive" is a Rosie-the-Riveter "we can
do it!" mentality.
Comment by volneysimmons - 6-12-2004 @ 8:46 am
2. This is an overly simplistic comment, BUT:
Liberals point out the problems of the world.
Progressives point out the solutions.
Comment by Clarity - 6-12-2004 @ 9:42 am
3. I like the definition of a progressive as someone who sees the
interconnectedness of policies and issues (global thinkers) and the need for
fundamental, systemic change. I like the emphasis on the practicality of the
approaches, embracing "best practice" and sound solutions, rising above
special interests to honor the greater good. However, the definition of a
liberal given here did not resonate with me. I found it confusing - maybe
because I am new to activism. It sounds like an insider's thing that the
general public wouldn't get. It also sounded like an internal division or
conflict. I personally do not think we need to distinguish ourselves from
"liberals" as many people view that term in a very positive light, more
along the lines of the dictionary definition: favoring progress or reform;
free from prejudice, tolerant; characterized by generosity; ample or
abundant. I have always considered myself a liberal, but did not identify at
all with the definition proposed in the post. For me, the most important
distinction to make about Progressives is that we are not some "fringe" band
of radicals. We are mainstream, intelligent, inclusive, and everywhere! We
are united by our values: justice, community, peace, health, environment and
education.
Comment by Jodi - 6-12-2004 @ 9:50 am
4. I am concerned that the definition of "Liberal" is too defensive.
Liberals were demonized by the right because the right learned how to frame
the language and issues of politics in this country over the last
generation. What a liberal believes in as the best solution can change over
time, just like the ideology of the conservatives has changed from Goldwater
(e.g. balanced budgets, etc.) to Bush (e.g. deficits don't matter, etc.). I
say we dont't let the radical right define us and "steal" our labels. I say,
now that there seems to be a growth of some new backbone in some parts of
the liberal or progressive community, that we define our selves, and proudly
and vociferously stand up for ourselves.
If a progressive is one who wants to compromise with the far right so that
social security and medicare will end up privatized, and we will all be on
our own again, then I remain a liberal and proud of it.
Comment by Bruce Ballmer - 6-12-2004 @ 10:08 am
5. I agree with you, Bruce, and was coming back to say exactly the same
thing. You said it much better than I would have! Thanks.
Comment by Jodi - 6-12-2004 @ 10:14 am
Add you comments at:
http://blog.progressivevote.org/index.php?p=6#more-6