What is Progressive?
| By Campus Progress - Jul 13th, 2005 at 9:30 am EDT |
Read Andrew Garib's article and then post your comments.
|
CampusProgress.org Terms of Use Have a feature article you'd like to submit to Campus Progress? Information here. |
|||||||||||||||||
!
Comments are closed for this post.
As the speakers so far have emphasized, our generation is finally combining all the progessive issues into one movement. Even now I feel like I'm a part of something bigger and greater that I had realized.
When I transfer to Orlando and a larger campus, I hope to be even more active than I have been thusfar.
-Joey Malefatto
Jerilyn Libby, Wellesly College
In the contemporary scene, The progressive movement is associated with such economic justice reforms as ending the domination of public policy and the entire political process by corporations and the wealthy class in America, labor rights to collectively bargain and provision of a living wage, tax policy reform which fairly distributes the tax burden between individual citizens and corporations, and fair distribution of government services and expenditures to the human needs of ordinary citizens first and commercial organizations as a second priority if choices are to be made. And domestic needs of citizens first above all other priorities which are set by legislative and executive public policy priorities. Solutions sought are most often systemic change or reform.
Populism- A parallel political movement in America which emphasizes the needs of working, low and moderate income people. In early American history this movement had its origins in rural America. In Texas, the populist movement addressed the rights of ranchers and land owners in west Texas vs. the aggressive “takings” of land in development of railroads, supported by government. In east Texas the populist movement had its roots in usury in bank lending practices with small farmers and landowners. In both cases both corporations and supporting government administrations were the object of criticism and citizen revolt. In the contemporary situation, Texas political office-holders such as Rep. Wright Patman, Sen. Ralph Yarbrough, Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower and Attorney General Jim Mattox self identified as Populists, as does candidate David Van Os.
Liberalism- In contrast to progressivism, liberalism, in the domestic application emphasizes social justice issues, often without addressing the core economic injustice underpinnings of worker, racial, gender and sexual discrimination. Solutions sought in the liberal paradigm more often are exemplified in legislation or legal remedies to restore or improve rights and equal access. In contract, progressivism typically seeks systemic change or reform, again with first emphasis on economic justice.
Aaron Hall, Amherst College
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!).
Andrew Fong, Harvard University
Geoff Aung, Columbia U.
Nathaniel Loewentheil, Yale
panel discussion: we need "progressive
patriotism."
As you noted Andrew, progressives have for too
long been repeatedly and unfairly bereaved of
the
notion of loving our country.
The term and the exemplification of
"progressive
patriotism" bridges this gap between what we
know progressive values to be true to and with
today's political realities. Above all, our values
seek
to build a stronger society through stronger
communities, pragmatic solutions, and a vision
of hope and enduring freedom. Indeed, it is
nation-building in the term's utmost sense.
An ending quote from Wittgenstein: that a
thread's
strength "does not reside in the fact that some
one fibre runs through its whole length, but in
the overlapping of many fibers."
Wayne Huang, Cornell University
willing to make big changes. in that way it's
a
kind of radicalism -- and although it's always
tiresome to go through this explanation,
"radical"
comes from the latin "rad" which means "to get
at
the root of." liberalism is content with the
status quo, allowing small social programs to
serve as band-aids for larger social malaise.
for instance: social security and related
programs
were the some of the first true "progressive"
policies enacted on the federal level. up to
that
point liberals had been content with
faith-based
charity, almshouses, orphanages, soup
kitchens,
etc. but the progressives in the 1930s, drawing
on
the socialist and communist movements in that
and
earlier decades, decided that people in a
community had a responsibility to support each
other over and above what the wealthiest
members'
philanthropy could support.
similarly, the fight for the eight-hour
workday,
the weekend and the right to collective
bargaining
that was undertaken by labor unions,
socialists
and anarchists at the end of the nineteenth
century pressured state and eventually the
federal
government to enact progressive law codifying
these rights.
what we are searching for, however, is a new
kind
of progressivism. we shouldn't be flip about
the
shortcomings of progressivism in the twentieth
century. woodrow wilson had a vision in the
league
of nations, but he was also an avowed racist.
teddy roosevelt broke up the big combines and
monopolies, but he also led an imperialist war
that had lasting effects for nearly a century.
these aren't just character flaws, either.
this
understanding of the world as something that
needed to be "saved," "civilized," "pacified,"
etc. was a defining element of progressivism,
from
william jennings bryan on up to john f.
kennedy.
what we're searching for -- or at least, what
i
hope we're searching for -- is a kind of
progressivism that seeks to empower people
rather
than simply doling out charity. (it's important
to
note that the progenitors of corporate welfare
and
social darwinism can be traced directly to the
current "centrist" beliefs in faith-based
philanthropy and self-regulating business.)
at times, of course, it will be necessary to
enact
laws and protect rights: preserving
environmental
laws, shoring up affirmative action, opposing
the
same-sex marriage ban, finally passing an
equal
rights amendment including the right to an
abortion, etc.
most of what we should be spending our time
focusing on, however, is creating programs and
--
more importantly -- communities that
seek
to empower those who are systematically
disempowered in our society. we need to
endorse,
for instance:
- volunteer health clinics
- community arts programs
- sustainable farms and agriculture
- job-training programs
- after-school tutoring
- women's self-defense classes
- reliable sex education
- conflict resolution/alternative to violence
programs (avp)
- workers' collectives
- community-based community development
projects
i come from the rocky mountain west, where
libertarianism is a strong force. today it
mostly
shows up manifested in republican-party
affiliation, but it wasn't always that way.
progressivism was born in the west -- wyoming
was
the first place in the united states to allow
women to vote, in 1869. the example of
"bleeding
kansas" you already know. and the western-state
system of easily-established citizen
initiatives,
referendums and resolutions -- the kind that
got
gray davis kicked out of office -- were
traditionally used for progressive ends, such
as
medical marijuana and euthanasia statutes in
oregon.
there are times when government, insofar as it
is
our current community of people, needs to be
able
to protect basic rights through law and basic
life
through funding. but by and large people are
willing to take care of each other, if given
the
chance. programs like the ones i outlined
above
have been started all over the united states
(not
to mention the world) to great success. if
progressives began collectively working toward
developing these sorts of things -- with or
without federal funding -- i think that we
could
increase the quality of life, especially in
disempowered communities, quite regardless of
whether the state is "red" or "blue."
that's where i'd like to see progressivism head.
The only area where I would differ is near the ending of his piece where he ties Progressive values to being "American." Without knowing the Andrew's age and being of an "older" generation myself (Gen-X here: born between '63-'71), it's very problematic and potentially dangerous to tie human values as distinctly "American." An Asian, African or European progressive would assuredly agree that progessive values are not uniquely "American." The era of "nation-state"-as-"value-anchor" is long outdated and is substantially the proximate cause of considerable violence in the world today. Progress means tossing that impractical system and opting for a better one.
For me the values base that is most progressive, and illuminates a better system, is the Green or ecological values base. Obviously I disagree with a previous poster who claimed that progressive is not affiliated to a particular political party. It's not outside the continuum of course but the Green Party worldwide embodies and promotes progressivism as Andrew's piece describes. But the real point is that, rather than anchoring values to a national grouping or nationalistic system, a pragmatic progressive values-system needs to "go to ground," that is, be based on the Earth and its natural boundaries, limits and possibilities. Ecologics must replace and/or dominate economics as the values base for progressives. Just look at the Green Party platform or their "10 Key Values" to get a bigger picture of what ecological wisdom implies for progressivism as a values-base.
Nice piece, Andrew. It's a comfort to know so many of the next generation are wide awake and moving forward.
I agree that ecological concerns should be universal. But I think you misunderstand me when I say that American progressivism is informed by uniquely American values. Looking back, I realize I could have been more clear about this issue. Here's my clarification:
American progressivism is and should be informed by American values - whatever they may be. Americans are a people who have a right to decide their own moral priorities, just like South Africans or Indians or an Indonesians will decide the values that inform their progressivism. There's direct relevance to public policy here. That's point one: Progressivism recognizes the dynamic nature of ethical values and priorities for different peoples around the world. (NB: This does not mean moral relativism reigns supreme. Feel free to contact me later to talk to you about that.)
The second point is that progressivism is "uniquely" American because it is driven by both pragmatism and fairness. That particular combination of values, I think, is a very American ideal. That doesn't mean it's solely American. Doubtless other peoples can and will share in the desire for practicality and fairness.
Finally, I think that nationalistic concerns are very important. The preservation and expression of national cultures, languages and ethical systems is a good thing - often it is a positive that states coincide with nations. That doesn't mean that wars based on nationalism are a good thing, or that multiculturalism is a bad thing. The issues are far more complicated to simply label nationalism as a universal ill.
Thanks again for your insightful thoughts. You can reach me at asg29@cornell.edu if you'd like to discuss this further.
Ps.: I'm Generation ... Z? AA? I'm 21 :)