Progressivism

There is a new buzzword in American politics, progressivism. Many liberals have adopted it to express their political philosophy instead of sticking with the doctrine of liberalism, which has gotten a bad reputation. Conservatives have been very clever at painting liberalism as the ideology of people who are morally deficient and spendthrifts. Progressivism is a good alternative because it emphasizes the progressive qualities liberals harbor without making them look like political outcasts. Politically, progressivism casts a wide net. It can and does cross party lines. Why, even conservatives can be progressive. Some people view it as a ‘third way’.

A recent questionnaire asked, “What is the most important value for progressives?” It listed six choices, freedom, access, community, integrity, accountability and equality. I chose equality. The majority chose equality. Accountability came in second. I think one thing that makes for a progressive person is a willingness to adopt new ideas, to think anew and be forward looking in politics and human governance. New and forward looking ideas reinvigorate governments and initiate the reforms necessary to keep them from growing stale and to keep them legitimate, vital and abreast of changing times. Progressives are more flexible than non-progressives and tend to be more inclusive, hence their favoring equality over inequality. I understand why accountability is also at the top of the list, because it helps make equality possible. Equality requires a fairness and an openness that accountability encourages and facilitates. Accountability, along with its partner transparency, affords the recourse if equality is denied. Essentially, then, progressivism is about being an open society. Without it the reverse is true.

Equality is far and away the quality progressive people value most. Perhaps that is because if one doesn’t believe in equality, like between the sexes or between the races, one is not progressive. One who denies equality for all could be accused of being retroactive and living in the past, in a time warp.

“If one is not progressive, one exists in a time warp.” I looked up the meaning of warp and a synonym of it is ‘distort’. A definition of distort is “to give false or misleading account”. This explains why accountability also is high on the list as a value for progressives, because they dislike distortions. Progressives recognize distortions as being manipulative and a looking backwards. For example, one distortion and a throwback in time is the thinking that women are not equal or as capable as men because their brains are different. On the contrary, women have proven themselves mentally equal, given the opportunity. In some cultures it is believed that women don’t need the vote because their husband’s vote is enough, and anyway, she might cancel his vote out by voting differently. That is unprogressive in two ways because it presumes that women don’t have minds of their own and that women should be married. Another culturally distorted, backward idea is that workingwomen take jobs away from men. That argument is silly. In fact, the inclusion of women, as well as minorities, makes for a richer and more dynamic workforce.

I think the main interest behind the questionnaire was to explore moral values. Conservatives, with success, have pained themselves as the defenders of moral values and liberals as being, well, too loose with them and allowing them to deteriorate. Politically, conservatives have run and won on this issue. In the past liberalism/progressivism was connected more with economic issues. It was about forging policies that would foster economic equality and thus the betterment of society. The New Deal was an economically progressive act. So too were the social policies introduced in the sixties, like affirmative action. Today, the economic progressivism debate seem to have taken a more moral slant and questions whether too much liberalism and progress has occurred there. In taking the identity ‘progressivism’, liberals are hoping to deflect some of the moral criticism leveled against them. Progressives say that they deliberately haven’t been loose with moral values, but instead have practiced a social flexibility so that minority groups, feminists and homosexuals can feel like they also belonged and have equal rights. However, many conservatives have felt threatened buy such progressive moves and have seen them as being corrosive to society in general.

In the past progress has generally been associated with economics. The idea grew out of 18th century idea of liberty and the right to own property. The progressive/enlightened view that followed was that the road to a legitimate and meaningful form of human governance was through economic emancipation. America was the first to adopt this progressive approach. It seemed like the logical common ground to unity individuals from all over the world with diverse backgrounds and interests. The argument wasn’t yet made but there was a sort of tacit understanding that if citizens were economically empowered and made to feel that they had an economic stake in the system they would make better citizens and be more apt to contribute to America. The more people that are enfranchised and made to feel equal in this way the more people there are who participate in the system. Being an economic participant also brings with it recognition and accountability from peers and government. Since the enactment of affirmative action in the U.S. more people have become economically active, received educations, entered the workforce and have become consumers. Such people are more responsible and self-reliant, less dependent on the state and are more likely to contribute to the system. Because of this kind of progress American society has become more stable and resilient. The alternative has caused race riots and social tension. America first became liberal and progressive in the field of economics. Later progress moved into politics. Today there are signs that conservatives are challenging the economic and political progress of the past as being too liberal.

It has been said that globalization would role back progressive programs initiated by developed countries in order for them to be and remain economically competitive with countries that weren't burdened with such programs. Well, the other day there was an economic event that went against that argument. Toyota, the second largest carmaker in the world, chose for its new North American plan Ontario instead of Alabama. Alabama made financial concessions to Toyota for it to locate there. However, Toyota decided to locate in Ontario because it had access to a publicly funded universal health care system. That access would save Toyota a lot of money in health care costs in comparison to Alabama, which had no such system. In some quarters universal health care coverage has been view as an economic negative because it is another government expenditure that takes money away from individuals for the benefit of the community. However, this progressive move Ontario choose to make decades ago has enhances its competitive position today.

Toyota picked Ontario for another progressive reason, an educated and skilled workforce. It is not so much that Ontario is progressive in this area but that Alabama showed itself not to be. Toyota discovered that for its purpose Alabama had an inadequately trained work force. Not only that, the state had voted against a tax increase that could have improved that situation and one of the poorest educational systems in America. This incident debunks the theory, that globalization is anti progressive and that it tears away at progressive and humane social policies. On the contrary, as this incident showed, globalization justifies them.

Some people don’t believe in progress. I am not sure what they believe in. Do they believe that progress is an illusion? Behind the idea of progress is the idea that humanity can and will be gradually perfected. Maybe that is why people don’t believe in it, because they don’t see that humanity is being improved or perfected. Perhaps they see what we call progress as just the unleashing of a set of new problems that need solving. But maybe progress is about something else, about not remaining static or stationary, about movement, taking initiatives and making additions. Isn’t the chipping away at inequalities and repression signs of progress? I think one reason it is difficult to detect social progress is because the world is constantly changing and expanding. That puts pressure on past social progressive developments, often eroding or nullifying them. Progress, like everything else, also suffers from atrophy and fatigue. Progress, to remain progress, often has to be reworked and refigured to fit with the new variables and circumstances the world is constantly unleashing. It is a work in progress. Progress is learning from history, which is always happening, and moving beyond it. I think we have done that on several occasions.