So what's "Progressivism" anyway?

So what do we mean by progressivism? Is it the same as liberalism? I remember researching the industrialists from the start of the 20th century who built dams and aqueducts, who considered themselves "progressives" and compared themselves to the Romans who took pride in their own public works, Roman aqueducts, sewers, roads, and public baths. When I hear the word "liberal" I think of the word "liberty" and personal freedom. But when I hear people use the word "progressive" it seems like they're talking about government projects or programs, the peace-time equivalent of the military industrial complex. I'm not going to bother arguing against government programs here, but isn't there a crucial difference between liberalism and progressivism?

There is a difference, of course, and progressives do believe that government can and should play a productive in brining progress especially in those areas where either the market alone cannot bring the desired results, often because of market failures, or would bring them far more slowly than society in general wishes.

I think there`s a difference according to what part of the world you`re in.

In the UK, `progressive` would almost certainly refer to individuals involved in campaigning for change at a grass-roots level, or very sympathetic to such campaigns. It would be true that those people would tend to support government initiatives to (eg) regenerate deprived areas, but because distrust of politicians is much more widespread over here, I doubt many `progressives` would define themselves in those terms.

I never quite understand what Americans mean by `Liberal`.

We`re often told over here that our politics have become much more Americanised - i.e. the two parties advance broadly similar policies and elections are fought largely on issues of competence and/or personality rather than ideology. The result of that has been that the electorate, quite rightly in my view, have simply decided that politicians are indifferent to the problems of ordinary people and have switched off in huge numbers.

The impression I have is that your progs/libs are quite motivated by party loyalties in a way that is now rare amongst their UK equivalents.

#3: The terms do get overused and misused a bit. I can't make any trans-atlantic comparisons, but in the US "Liberal" usually means that someone is in favor of freedoms on social issues but against freedoms on economic issues. "Conservatives," on the other hand, are considered to be against freedoms on social issues. Conservatives are also partially in favor of economic freedoms, but mostly as "business freedoms" which on the political level translates into corporate protectionism.

Nowadays in the US "progressive" is a label used by anyone who wants to position themselves to the left of the center of the Democratic Party. In general it is used more for economic issues than for social issues, but there is no exclusivity. With the fall of socialist as a viable identification in public debate, progressive is about all we are left with.

The Progressives of your history books were social reformers of the period of the turn of the 20th century who were reacting to the social ills of industrialization (urban poverty, tenement housing, poor sanitation, child labor, lack of food safety, etc). Some were involved with organizing the oppressed but most were middle class professions who advanced technocratic solutions of professional investigation and regulation. Progressives were also strongly involved campaigns against corruption in local government. This had the side effect (or perhaps real intent) of disenfranchising the poor immigrant groups who supported and were served by the city political machines. A classic book on Progressive as technocrats more than social reformers is Robert Wiebe's The Search for Order. The socialist and communist parties stood as clear left alternatives to the Progressives in this period. They are sometimes called the Old Left.

Liberalism was classically associated with the free market principles of Adam Smith as opposed to the mercantilists. However, 20th century US liberalism is essentially the institutionalization of the Progressive reforms that took place during the New Deal and WWII. The period from WWII through the upheavals in the 1960s is often referred to as the Liberal Consensus. Its basic characteristics were support for at least formal political democracy and lightly managed (Keynesian) capitalism with some government role in regulation and social benefits. (Also containment of Communism abroad). Cultural issues were not of prime concern in this period.

The 1960s saw new left wing reaction to the Liberal Consensus, aptly dubbed "The New Left." I'm currently reading a good short history of this period, The Movements of the New Left by Van Gosse. In addition to pushing a stronger commitment to genuine democracy and economic equality, these movements raised all of the cultural/social issues which are now associated with liberals (civil rights and equality for blacks, latinos, asians etc, equality for women, free speech, homosexual rights, sexual liberty etc.)

Although considered radical at the time, many of these claims have now too been institutionalized and are part of mainstream liberalism. The 1980s and 1990s saw a right-wing attack on liberals on both the cultural and economic fronts. Further advances were generally prevented on cultural/social issues, but little gained was lost. On the economic front they had more success and today's liberals are probably less committed to using government to ensure economic justice than those of the Liberal Consensus 50 years ago.

So that's how I see where we stand now. Its also why I rarely write in to the forums; everything I want to say seems to require an essay. Well, I hope it helped a little.

There's nothing wrong with essays. Check out the "Pro and Con" group. We would love to have your voice there.

Oh, it's not that there's something wrong with long messages, its just that I find I've spent an hour on one post and I really have other things to do.

Fascinating, nonetheless. Thanks for the info and book references.

Liberalism means freedom from orthodoxy (liber-free). Conservatism is based on orthodoxy and tradition. At their extreme conservatism is reactionary and liberalism is radical. During the 1980s Gorbachev was a liberal and Brezhnev a conservative. Gorby wanted to change or reform the U.S.S.R. while Brezhnev wished to keep Russia where it was in 1917 after the successful Bolshevik Revolution.

Conservatism is based on culture, ideology and religion. The Tea Partiers invoke the 1776 American Revolution and wish to go back to the perceived religious and economic values of that society. Conservatism shifts and changes just as liberalism does due to the changes of time. Conservatives were pro-Slavery and pro-Jim Crow at the time those issues were debated. After the collapse of capitalism in the 1930s the Left and various other allied movements like labor unions changed society by regulating market excesses. By the 1960s Social Security and Medicare were not radical ideas but accepted as consensus by both parties and both political wings. The Right and right wing ideologies stress ethnic and religious identity whereas the Left stresses new forces in society--like environmentalism, labor agitation, the rights of minorities, feminism and peace movements. All of these left wing movements have been antiestablishment. The extremely conservative nature of Sharia Islamic societies is evident in their willingness to use violence to persecute religious and ethnic minorities. Conservatism and liberalism are not about small or large government, elitism or populism but alignments of what is valued for a free society. Reaganism replaced the New Deal/Great Society consensus in the 1980s. After years of a staggering economy in the late 80s and 90s the Reaganite consensus of unlimited free markets was replaced by Clintonite economic reforms that raised taxes and reigned in spending to balance the budget. Bushism reversed that by returning to Reaganite deficit spending and tax cuts. The resulting economic collapse in 2008 and the failed Iraq War led to Obama. What Obama does and what his legacy is still up to debate.

To get an idea of extreme versus moderate ideology see The John Birch Society and the National Review and the Socialist Party and the Nation.
Revolutionary movements use violence and are characterized by extremism--hence the Right Wing Revolutionary movements of Fascism and Nazism and the Left Wing revolutionary movements of Marxism-Leninism. Economics can be used for either leftist or rightist movements. A labor strike denies resources to a any economy. Strikes, sabotage, and other forms of mutiny have been used by left/right movements against right/left movements. The Conservative regime of the Czars was constantly threatened with strike and bombs until it was overthrown by a military mutiny. The Left Wing regimes of Social Democracy and Communism were also afflicted by the economic power of strikes and mutinies (the anti-Chavez strikes in Venezuela and the Pinochet coup in Chile). Neither the libertarian free market economy nor the authoritarian command economy can by themselves deal with crises that show up in various forms like the various chauvinist/patriotic struggles and the various movements that attempt to address societal problems. The mixed market nations of Western Europe have been the most successful but even now they are threatened by conservative religious groups (Sharia Islam and the far Right nationalist groups of those countries that have grown up as a reaction to Muslim immigration) and the interconnectivity of the global free market collapse.

To address the idea that socialism is dead (eromsted's claim) is that authoritarian socialism and Marxism-Leninism is discredited is acceptable. But socialism is not dead. Throughout the history of civilization socialism has popped up in reaction to oligarchies from Ancient times (Spartacus and the various Peasant revolts in the Middle Ages) to the Present day. When a free market has resulted in an ossified plutocratic oligarchy there is either reform or revolution. The success of Obama's Change political message is a result of the failed Reagan-Bush era free market fundamentalism. He is certainly not a socialist but socialism itself has gotten more popular recently due to the corporate corruption and the bailouts of Wall Street financial institutions after 30 years of turbo-capitalism.