Let it begin. Day One. I swear I’ll keep most of these short and to the essence, although this, as the first, will be one of the longer ones.
I know I should start these 100 days with a post on Labor, but I have to kick this off with a look at The Big Picture: What is a progressive?
The opposition to radical bastardized conservatism is, finally, clearly ascendant, and its leadership, including us, are calling ourselves Progressives. Forget for a moment that the number of Americans identifying themselves as Liberal, not progressive, is at a 35 year high. I suspect that’s because the general public still cannot define what Progressivism is. But I am worried, worried that the Progressive movement as it has existed since its reincarnation in 1968 is being diluted by the flood of people jumping onto the band wagon, and morphing into an amorphous catchall for anything that opposes George and Jeb Bush Republicanism. I could be wrong. Please, comment about this.
The modern Progressive movement developed in 1968 when McCarthy and Robert Kennedy split from the Liberal Democratic Establishment of LBJ and Hubert Humphrey and others who were perpetuating the Vietnam War. (Historical point: American Progressivism emerged in 1912 as an agrarian reaction to urbanization and industrialization in the Republican Party, which splintered into Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party. Robert La Follette carried the banner in 1924 and Henry Wallace in 1948, opposing Truman’s Cold War militarism. The FPC is an inheritor of this historical continuity).
So Progressivism split from Liberalism in 1968, and developed into additional issues. The two were distinctly different. Are they now? Tell me, what is the difference between a Liberal and a Progressive? And which are you? Are you a Progressive merely because Liberalism went out of fashion? Are you merely rebranding Liberalism?
In 1976 I canvassed hundreds upon hundreds of homes for Progressive Tom Hayden for the U.S. Senate in California against Liberal Democrat incumbent John Tunney in the Democratic primary who originally won because he was the son of a famous boxer. Great credentials, huh? I walked the Hispanic working class West side of Santa Barbara, CA. Hayden was the militant anti-Vietnam War protestor who was tried in the Chicago 7 trial of war protestors at the Democratic National Convention in 1968. Hayden won a surprising 40% in the primary. Tunney was then defeated by radical right winger Sam Hayakawa. We Progressives blamed Tunney for the loss because he was a Washington D.C. Limousine Liberal who had lost touch with middle and lower class working people.
One last story: from 1976-80 I wrote for a Progressive weekly newspaper in Santa Barbara. We called our paper a Progressive paper, not a liberal paper, because we saw ourselves somewhat to the left of Liberal.
Okay, I’ll start to wrap.
What was the difference between Tom Hayden and our paper, and John Tunney and a Liberal newspaper? And what is the difference today, in my mind?
Liberals tend to be wealthy, or well to do attorneys who cater to an exclusive clientele who can afford $250 an hour for their legal rights, and have lavish lifestyles, homes and haircuts and drink $100 bottles of wine. They don’t understand what it’s like to live paycheck to paycheck. Or the Liberal is a politician who identifies with the economic interests of these Liberals, advocates for them and is rewarded with the lavish campaign contributions that enable them to run advertising campaigns and win elections. The Clintons are the classic example of this style of Liberalism, and they have much company. Look toward YOUR elected officials. Progressives tend to be middle middle class, working class or lower income. They tend to grassroots politics, unionism, movement politics and the non-profits. Of course there are exceptions.
Liberals accomodate powerful economic interests. Progressives are more willing to challenge them on behalf of middle and lower income people.
Liberals tend to accomodate and compromise with “conservative” interests, be it national security, social issues or civil liberties. Progressives are more willing to challenge these.
Liberals want to tweak our democratic system. Progressives want a major overhaul.
Liberals worry about winning their elections on their tepid platforms and take controversies off the table. Progressives think that upholding the Rule of Law, our Constitution as we have known it for so long, and the separation of powers, is more important, by holding hearings on articles of impeachment of Bush and Cheney as co-defendants.
Liberals support U.S. invasions, though they may no longer initiate them. Progressives oppose ideological right wing wars, from the start.
Liberals have turned against the Invasion of Iraq because we’re losing the occupation. Progressives opposed the war from the start because it is wrong to invade other countries.
Liberals accomodate and compromise with militarism. Progressives want a rollback.
Because of all of the above, Liberals are unsure of their principles since they are conflicted. They apologize when they have said no wrong. They frame their debate on conservative ground. They cannot defend themselves from right wing attack and so they cower in fear and seek to appease right wing politics with their vacilating policies and rhetoric. They cannot take the offensive. They are always waging defense.
My next 99 posts will all flow from today’s post.
Tell us. Are you a Progressive or a Liberal? Or are you a Moderate? Or am I all washed up?
Now let’s get to our picnic. Will you be sipping beer or $30 wine?
I’m going to start the discussion by saying that i disagree with your characterization of liberals and leave it at that, because I don’t want to derail the discussion over smaller issues. My primary question would be what do you hope to accomplish by making these distinctions? Is it because you think there’s the possibility of a progressive takeover of the liberal machine (which is, in my opinion, not the juggernaut you seem to say it is, unless you’re including the likes of the Clintons in it, which is stretching the definition in my opinion)? Or is it more of a desire to separate the pure progressives out from the liberal label? And if so, to what end?
Much as I hate it, I think the numbers show that neither progressives, nor liberals nor conservatives can win national or even state-wide elections on their own–they have to form coalitions of convenience. Your tone toward liberals seems to rule that out–or am I misreading you?
Progressivism, as in its base word progress, to me means change/changing, or to move forward. Liberalism means ideas/theories based on individual rights. These to ideals can be completely seperate, they can be similair the can work together. Im not sure where you are coming from with this post, other than I think you believe that the democratic party should be more Progressive (change more) than what they currently are, and I would personally agree with that. You may want there to be another party, more agressively left, once again I dont think that would be a bad thing. Clearly you are frustrated with how things currently are. The words themselves I believe are just that words, people may say there liberal and be far more left than the base and want more change. What I mean by that is how someone classifies themselves is not important, it is what they believe that is.
Even though its labor day I had to work all day, so no picnic
I had mountian dew and lemonade.
For myself, I am a left-leaning centrist. I really don’t care how others might characterize me. Call me a liberal, call me a progressive, just don’t call me late for dinner.
I think that Mark set up a false dichotomy between liberals and progressives.
There is no sharp line to separate liberals from progressives… Visualize the groups as a Venn diagram showing considerable overlap. It is this on common ground that we win elections and accomplish positive change.
It seems artificial to characterize liberals as elitist wine-sippers, while progressives are painted as beer-swilling working-folk. Stereotypes are poor heuristics on which to formulate one’s core beliefs.
Connotations are the emotional nuances loaded onto a symbol by the current culture. The denotations of the words liberal and progressive are near enough the same as to be synonymous. The liberal-elitist stereotype has been fostered by conservatives, who benefit greatly by the broad acceptance of this propaganda.
I think the discussion would be more rewarding if it were framed in terms of what it means to people when they chose to identify themselves by one or the other of these labels. Gather the individual data before the conclusions are presented.
We have to accept that these labels have changed in meaning from what we might wish them to be. It’s right for us to reclaim the positive connotations of these charged words, but it is also our duty to help shed the negative connotations promoted by those who wish to demonize us and belittle our philosophies.
Man, I don’t know. While I was in to the history stuff, this whole post is about labeling, and I’m not even sure you got that right. Bill and Hillary Clinton, the “classic example” of Liberalism (or a style of liberalism)? Um, what? Bill Clinton was the founding chair of the Democratic Leadership Council. Ask Markos Moulitsas (or anyone over there) if they think the DLC is “liberal.” Lots of luck. He is also the president that “gave” us welfare reform. His politically cynical attempt to “fix” welfare gave a boost to the middle class and bought him a little political capital (for all the good it did him) but it was all on the backs of the poor. High ranking people (that is, liberals) quit his administration for this.
I have to tell you, my sense of the progressive movement — if it is, indeed, a movement — is not that it has sprung from a label or a name, but that the movement itself has sprung from neccessity: a sh!tty war, a shady economy, failure to be a leader on global terrorism, failure to deliver health care to all Americans. The list, as you know, goes on. And on and on and on.
And while that list goes on, and while you give some great history for sure, I think what you’re witnessing started in 2000 when we watched the presidency handed to a man who didn’t win. Sayonara, Democracy. Ciao. And the movement only flourished after we got into Iraq.
Listen, nobody has less tolerance for the effete liberal wine snobs than me (what we were thinking nominating one of the most liberal members of the Senate, a globetrotting, parawindsailsurfing, snooty Bonesman from Massachusetts is beyond me). That being said, I think if you measure up the GOP presidential candidates and the candidates on the Democratic side, we have a wealth of creativity and ideas, spanning a spectrum that should make everyone — liberals, progressives, moderates, whatever — happy. They have a bunch of empty suits echoing a dormant (or dead) party line.
I’m a Democrat!
Personally, I use the words “liberal” and “progressive” interchangeably. I’m both. I think people in general tend to think of liberals as people who (generally) follow in the economic tradition of FDR and the social ideals of MLK Jr. I chose Progressive for the title of this organization (with the help of others) because I thought it suggested something broader to the general public than liberal. The word progressive implies anyone who is interested in progress, whether they be liberal, moderate or the occasional sane conservative. I don’t care what someone’s party or ideology is if they plan on helping us achieve progress — not as defined by the Bush’s of the world — but by rational standards.
Oh, as for the drink, it was hot and humid, so I drank free bottled water…
So only right wing Presidents have started Wars here in the United States? Please check your facts.
Hey! I said Liberals “may no longer” initiate them. Gore wouldn’t have gone in, though I consider him more a Progressive than a Liberal. And Hillary, or Bill, wouldn’t have gone in either. Liberals did learn the lesson of Vietnam, while the rightwingers are just repeating it, as it their murderous want.
Check your reading comprehension.
There ya go, water! Of course my beer vs. $100 wine was a bit tongue in cheek, but my point is that, as a general rule, and as socially conscious and compassionate as they can be, people who can afford to drink $100 bottles of wine have a different world view from the low income person who is struggling to pay the utility bill standing in line for a pay day loan while they worry about being laid off. I really do think they are more willing to accomodate the lobbying of wealthy organized business interests than they are the economically struggling, with exceptions of course. Edwards might be one of them, but I still don’t fully trust him.
Alan, you do really need to work on the reading comprehension. Here’s the quote: “Liberals support U.S. invasions, though they may no longer initiate them. Progressives oppose ideological right wing wars, from the start.”
See, he didn’t say rightwingers are the only people who start wars. He said when rightwingers start ideological wars, progressives oppose them. 100% different.
>There ya go, water! Of course my beer vs. $100 wine was a bit tongue in cheek, but my point is that, as a general rule, and as socially conscious and compassionate as they can be, people who can afford to drink $100 bottles of wine have a different world view from the low income person who is struggling to pay the utility bill standing in line for a pay day loan while they worry about being laid off.
I knew it was tongue-in-cheek, that’s why I did the water response. Generally, I t hink you are right on this. I would, though, certainly drink $100 bottles of wine if I could afford to, but I doubt it would have much impact on the way I look at the world. Maybe the difference isn’t just being able to afford the $100 wine, maybe it’s between people who were born able to afford that wine vs. those who weren’t.
Didn’t Hillary and a bunch of liberals vote to go to war???? Bill went to war or did you forget that! Ever heard of Bosnia. Stop the liberal Progressive B.S. aren’t Democrats in control of Congress now???
Hey, how come my name doesn’t show up on my comments? I just typed it in.
Yes, the liberals voted for the war, and the progressives opposed it (Kucinich, Feingold, Obama from the outside). But a liberal wouldn’t have invaded if they were president. This was a sick neo con invention.
I thought Bosnia was a humanitarian mission to stop genocidal ethnic cleansing.
The Democrats are in control of the House, but they have only 50 votes in the Senate (plus warmonger Lieberman), and yes, they’re not cutting off the funding. There aren’t enough Progressives in the House to cut off funding. There are four kinds of Democrats: Progressives, Liberals, Moderates and Blue Dog conservatives.
Hey, how come my name doesn’t show up on my comments? I just typed it in.
Are you logged on to the FPC blog on the computer you are using, or are you just entering name and email address into the comment form? If it is the former, your name should be showing… If the latter, wordpress may be suppressing it, since the blog wouldn’t want anonymous people posting comments using a blog author’s name.
If comments you make while you are logged in as a site author aren’t displaying your name, then I’ll have to look into the problem a bit more…
Wait, I see it now! The text is almost invisible, but your name is there…
This has to be something in the css for displaying comments. It’s always something…
I’ll see if I can ferret out the bug, sometime this weekend.