Pastoid

he definitions of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have been the
subjects of much debate in contemporary American politics. But it has
become increasingly clear that the term "progressive" is equally
ambiguous, and is associated with at least two relatively distinct
philosophical traditions. Although these two "progressivisms" share
common ground on many (probably most) issues, they are at loggerheads
on some others, as has perhaps become more apparent since the election
of President Obama.
 
 
 
The
first type of progressivism has its philosophical underpinnings in 18th
Century, Enlightement-era thought. It believes that politics is a
battle of ideas. It further believes that through the use of reason and
the exchange of ideas, human society will tend to improve itself
through scientific and technological innovation. Hence, it believes in progress,
and for this reason lays claim to the term “progressive”. Because of
its belief and optimism in the faculties of human reason, I refer to
this philosophy as rational progressivism.
 
Rational
progressivism tends to be trusting, within reason, of status quo
political and economic institutions -- generally including the
institution of capitalism. It tends to trust these institutions because
it believes they are a manifestation of progress made by previous
generations. However, unlike conservatism, it also sees these
institutions as continuing works in progress, subject to inefficiencies
because of distorted or poorly-designed incentives, poorly-informed or
misinformed participants, and competition from 'irrational' worldviews
like religion. It also recognizes that certain persons who stand to
benefit from preserving the status quo, particularly elected officials
but also corporations, may seek to block this progress to protect their
own interests. The project of rational progressivism, then, is to
propagate good ideas and to convert them, through a wide and aggressive
array of democratic means, into public policy.
 
The second type of progressivism is what I call radical progressivism.
It represents, indeed, a much more radical and comprehensive critique
of the status quo, which it tends to see as intrinsically corrupt. Its
philosophical tradition originates in 19th Century thought -- and
specifically, owes a great deal to the Marxist critique of capitalism
and the Marxist theory of social change. It also finds inspiration in
both the radical movement of the 1960s and the labor and social
movements of late 19th and early 20th centuries (from which it borrows
the label "progressive").
 
Radical progressivism is more clearly
distinguishable from "conventional" liberalism and would generally be
associated with the "far left" -- although on a handful of issues such
as free trade, it may find common cause with the "radical" right.
Radical progressivism embraces the tradition of populism and frequently
adopts a discourse of the virtuous commoner organizing against the
corrupt elite. It is much more willing to make normative claims than
rational progressivism, and tends to view conservatism as immoral and
contemporary American liberalism as amoral (at best). Its project is
not reform but transformation.
 
Rational
progressives sometimes regard radical progressives as impractical,
self-righteous, shrill, demagogic, naïve and/or anti-intellectual.
Radical progressives, in turn, regard rational progressives as impure,
corrupt (or corruptible), selfish, complacent, elitist, and too quick
to compromise.
 
It should come as no surprise that I regard
myself as a rational progressive. I believe in intellectual progress --
that we, as a species, are gradually becoming smarter. I believe that
there are objectively right answers to many political and economic
questions.
 
I believe that economic growth is both a reflection
of and a contributor toward societal progress, that economic growth has
facilitated a higher standard of living, and that this is empirically
indisputable. I also believe, however, that our society is now so
exceptionally wealthy -- even in the midst of a severe recession --
that it has little excuse not to provide for some basic level of
dignity for all its citizens.
 
I believe that answers to
questions like these do not always come from the establishment. But I
also believe that it is just as important to question one's own
assumptions as to question the assumption of others.
 
The truth
is, I don’t particularly care whether you call me a “progressive” or
not. In fact, I'm suspicious of people who line up on the same side of
the ideological divide on every single issue. The world is more
complicated than that, especially when one strives to see the world
through a scientific, empirical lens. While progressives, in my view,
clearly have the preponderance of good ideas, they do not have a
monopoly on them. Nor do conservatives have a monopoly on bad ideas, especially when radical progressives flirt with Marxist modes of discourse.
 
Let me be very clear about what I am saying.  I believe that our country needs a lot of work -- a lot
of work -- almost certainly more work than Barack Obama is going to be
able to accomplish in four or eight years. I believe that greater
awareness and greater participation on behalf of everyday citizens is
almost certainly a necessary condition to facilitate that work. To the
extent that blogs, political campaigns, church groups, labor unions,
and whatever other organization you can think of can coalesce that
participation and turn it into a "movement", I am all for the
"movement".
 
But if someone wants to marshal an army to fight a battle of wills while playing fast and loose with the truth and using some of the same demagogic precepts that the right wing does, I am not particularly interested in that. In fact, I think it is acutely dangerous.