Progressivism in One Sentence
| By ACDC - Jul 14th, 2005 at 10:00 pm EDT |
Andrew Garib offers an interesting article on what it means to be progressive, and I've been tossing it around in my head for a while. My initial thoughts are on comment blog / post:
Balances government intervention with civil liberties: In order for people to reach their full potential, it basically means doing all those things I mentioned in the earlier comment above: access to education, health care, economic resources, conservation of resources, etc. At the same time, it means protecting democratic freedoms because this is not about equality, welfare, or well-being per se, but rather supporting those insofar that helps people reach their full potential (i.e. do what they want). Constraining freedom limits potential. If I want to be an artist, not only do I need the patronage to survive, but also the creative freedom to paint as a I wish. Think Amartya Sen and Freedom as Development (the basic ideas, not the implications for foreign policy and aid).
Not liberalism: At least not in the old school libertarian sense. Simply put, liberals believe that individuals want to do things, whatever that may be, and society (and government) should not interfere. Progressives believe that society and government should help those inidividuals do what they want.
Alignment of individual and community interests: This was the main change from the initial comment to the single sentence. The dichotomy between the needs of the many and the needs of one is often a false one. It's the basic principle behind free market economics. If we trade with each other according to comparative advantage, each of us individually benefits and the entire system does as well.
Rejection of conservatism: What is conservatism? It means embracing old ideas and "heritage." It is a preference for things based upon classical economic principles and ancient religious (family) values. Progressivism is about potential, the ability to change things. It's less about dogma and more about helping people discovering their own truths--a focus on process rather than outcome.
Positive message: It's slogan friendly! It's not bashing anyone (on face) or criticizing some abstract conservative bogeyman. It's a message of hope and people being able to make their lives better.
No laundry list: I hate laundry lists. They're too specific, often focusing on specific policy and thereby invalidating itself when circumstances change. It's confusing and sometimes contradictory sentiments end up together, separated only by a comma. Worst of all, laundry lists have a tendency to expand. Saying that our values are health care, education, and the environment usually results in someone asking about privacy and choice. And the minimum wage. And community investment. And so on and so on. Often, laundry list terms end up overlapping. Different laundry lists can span the same ideas but are seen differently just because they use different words. Very annoying.
Of course, that's not to say we need laundry lists of some sort. As Ezra Klein noted at the convention, we need a list of policies to tell America "what we'll do once we're in power." Conservatives have a very effective mantra of lower taxes, family values, and strong defense, but those aren't values. They're a list of general policy ideas that doesn't span the full range of their policies (where does social security privatization fit in there?). A progressive laundry list would simply be our top three most popular campaign promises--but those usually aren't broad enough to be a statement of value or a definition of our movement.
Thoughts?
Progressives believe in maximizing human freedom and helping society (and its individual members) achieve their full potential. To that end, progressives believe that all of society's members must have access to education, health care, and economic necessities in order to fully contribute to democracy, the economy, and society as a whole. Power, wealth, and information must flow freely rather than be concentrated in the hands of a few so that all of its citizens have the means to contribute.But all of that just seemed a little too long winded, so I've gotten it down to a single sentence and I'm interested in feedback:
Alternatively, you could say that progressives believe in progress (i.e. change) and oppose anything that makes society rigid--that is, not changing (smash the power!).
Progressives believe that society should maximize its potential by helping its individual members maximize their potential.A few things to note:
Balances government intervention with civil liberties: In order for people to reach their full potential, it basically means doing all those things I mentioned in the earlier comment above: access to education, health care, economic resources, conservation of resources, etc. At the same time, it means protecting democratic freedoms because this is not about equality, welfare, or well-being per se, but rather supporting those insofar that helps people reach their full potential (i.e. do what they want). Constraining freedom limits potential. If I want to be an artist, not only do I need the patronage to survive, but also the creative freedom to paint as a I wish. Think Amartya Sen and Freedom as Development (the basic ideas, not the implications for foreign policy and aid).
Not liberalism: At least not in the old school libertarian sense. Simply put, liberals believe that individuals want to do things, whatever that may be, and society (and government) should not interfere. Progressives believe that society and government should help those inidividuals do what they want.
Alignment of individual and community interests: This was the main change from the initial comment to the single sentence. The dichotomy between the needs of the many and the needs of one is often a false one. It's the basic principle behind free market economics. If we trade with each other according to comparative advantage, each of us individually benefits and the entire system does as well.
Rejection of conservatism: What is conservatism? It means embracing old ideas and "heritage." It is a preference for things based upon classical economic principles and ancient religious (family) values. Progressivism is about potential, the ability to change things. It's less about dogma and more about helping people discovering their own truths--a focus on process rather than outcome.
Positive message: It's slogan friendly! It's not bashing anyone (on face) or criticizing some abstract conservative bogeyman. It's a message of hope and people being able to make their lives better.
No laundry list: I hate laundry lists. They're too specific, often focusing on specific policy and thereby invalidating itself when circumstances change. It's confusing and sometimes contradictory sentiments end up together, separated only by a comma. Worst of all, laundry lists have a tendency to expand. Saying that our values are health care, education, and the environment usually results in someone asking about privacy and choice. And the minimum wage. And community investment. And so on and so on. Often, laundry list terms end up overlapping. Different laundry lists can span the same ideas but are seen differently just because they use different words. Very annoying.
Of course, that's not to say we need laundry lists of some sort. As Ezra Klein noted at the convention, we need a list of policies to tell America "what we'll do once we're in power." Conservatives have a very effective mantra of lower taxes, family values, and strong defense, but those aren't values. They're a list of general policy ideas that doesn't span the full range of their policies (where does social security privatization fit in there?). A progressive laundry list would simply be our top three most popular campaign promises--but those usually aren't broad enough to be a statement of value or a definition of our movement.
Thoughts?
!
Comments are closed for this post.