Connecticut Senate challenger Ned Lamont, who may pull off an historic upset today, offered an excellent definition yesterday to a question that often stimulates discussion here at BMG: what is a progressive.
I am a liberal. But when I mean a liberal, I think a progressive, Mr. Lamont said. I think, if youre an entrepreneur in business, you see a problem, you want to address it head on; you want to solve it, I think, then youre a progressive in government.
Couldn’t have said it better myself: reality-based with a business-like nod to pragmatism and results; an entrepreneur’s willingness to take personal responsibilty for positions; and no particular loyalty to any existing concept unless it can prove its worth. That’s progress. Go Lamont!
I have asked before for a satisfactory definition of “progressive.” This is, I suppose, better than most, but it still seems empty to me.
<
p>
I gather that the point is that a “progressive in government” addresses problems with gusto, as would an entrepreneur in business.
<
p>
Questions regarding whether government is the appropriate vehicle to solve problem X would remin with non-progressives, like, I suppose, me.
<
p>
But this just begs the question: what problems?
<
p>
The problem of too many terrorists remaining up and about?
<
p>
The problem of too many gays getting married, or too many women getting abortions?
<
p>
The problem of too few evangelical Christians in the judicial branch?
<
p>
The problem of oppressive and onerous regulation of business?
<
p>
The problem of our conficatory tax system?
<
p>
<
p>
I still think that “progressive” began as a euphimism for “liberal” like “revenue” is euphimism for “taxes.” I think that the definition has changed, though. Now it seems to me to be used by the left wing of the party as a way to distinguish the us from the them in the leftist/centrist divide in the Democratic Party. The self-styled “progressive” seems to me to be the one most likely to vituperatively denounce a “DINO” in a blog-screed. Moderate, DLC types that appeal to me would gravitate to the word “pragmatic” in an effort to tone down the ideology.
What does progressive mean to PDM?
Progressive politics advances the idea that a primary function of government is to promote the well being of all citizens, not just that of one group at the expense of another. We believe that government should be an expression of the highest aspirations of people to make better lives for themselves, for their children, and for their communities. We believe therefore that government must play a vital role in improving health care, education, public safety and the environment; in furthering economic and social justice; and in supporting our country’s peaceful and constructive engagement with the world community. A cornerstone of the progressive approach to public policy is to promote fair and equitable treatment of all people regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or financial status.
Though the phrase “economic and social justice” will set of the PC-alert alarm bells for some.
<
p>
I suppose that part of the problem is that liberalism/progressivism is comprised of many issues,none of which necessarily relate to the other, and may be in rather intense conflict. Labor, environment, etc.
<
p>
Thanks for the information.
Who would disagree with any of this? It has no bite, hence insufficient clarity and structure … and insufficient realism. Justice sometimes requires, for example, that one group advance at the expense of another — the statement offers no way to manage this kind of internal inconsistency. Keeping Lamont’s focus on what works, and his entreprenurial willingness to experiment, is more likely to yield useful practical results.
<
p>
Hooray! This means a flat income tax! No food stamps! No more affirmative action hiring! The end of SBA minority loan programs! The end of the New Deal as we know it (finally!)
<
p>
Sounds like I’m a progressive, too.
progress is moving beyond where we are in the moment.
<
p>
progressivism is the ability and desire to look beyond the conveniences and desires of the moment.
<
p>
altruism sits at the core of this idea. such as the idea that there is a greater goal beyond in spending government (my) money to help bring up the disadvantaged and disenfranchised among us.
<
p>
or looking beyond the convenience of unchecked consumption of natural resources to see the greater goal beyond.
<
p>
thus seeking out the greater good. which may or may not jibe with the immediate desires of oneself or of the special interests.
<
p>
.
In 1948, Roosevelt’s former VP Henry Wallace broke from the mainstream democratic party to run as the candidate of the Progressive Party. Composed of Fellow Travellers, Socialists, and leftward former Democrats, Wallace’s progressives fought against the Marshall plan and Truman’s fellow liberal anti-communists. Today, many progressives follow in this path, proposing that the US should not engage in promoting social justice around the world by not completing the job in Iraq (even if the attack was not justified), a skepticism of Israel’s right to defend itself, and the willingness to engage in appeasement, rather than containment in foreign policy. Lamont certainly falls in this category as a politician all to eager to divest America from playing a positive proactive role with its military and instead leaving it to weak international institutions (ie: The UN) to handle it. This reflects the sentiment of progressives who opposed aid to Greece and the Marshall Plan who sought to route it through the UNSC, where it would have been vetoed by the Soviets.
Casting Lamont as an enemy of the Marshall Plan seems a bit extreme don’t you think?
Again, I was putting the progressive resurgence, including the Lamont Campaign, into a historical perspective. Since the end of the cold war, liberals and progressives have been fighting over whether we should have a principled or utilitarian foreign policy. Lieberman clearly stands with cold war liberals such as Truman, Kennedy, and Humphrey, while Lamont stands with Wallace and McGovern.
Henry Wallace was FDR’s vice president. In 1944, FDR dropped him from the ticket in favor of Harry Truman. In 1948, Wallace split from the Democratic Party to start the Progressive Party because he saw the US and the Democratic Party’s policy of containment as too hostile to the Soviet Union. He opposed foreign aid to Greece and Europe through the Marshall Plan, as he feared it would alienate the soviets. Wallace was a known fellow traveler and communist sympathizer who denied the cold war, just as some progressives deny that there exists a war on terrorism.
Do you think it is a war like World War II, a war like the Vietnam War, a war like the war on drugs, a war like the war on dirt (linked for easy reference), or some other kind of war? More to the point, what evidence do you have that Lamont specifically denies the existence of this war, however it is described.