Fellows
News
Resources
Organizations
Disclaimer: Content on the YP4 blog does not necessarily reflect the views of Young People For or People For the American Way Foundation. The views, ideas, statements or claims posted on this site by members of the public cannot in any way be attributed to either Young People For or People For The American Way Foundation.
the definition debate: what is a progressive?
Throughout history many banners have flown in the name of freedom, many different colors and styles spurred movements on to revolution and victory. From the Star Spangled Banner of the American Revolution to the red banners in the streets of China to the political banners of modern times. These streaming bits of cloth are more than physical symbols born by flag bearers. These banners are accompanied by boxes of thought and explicit doctrines of belief. We rally around banners, they lead us to freedom, they lead us to liberty, and they lead us to justice. But this what the banners of the past have lead us to today? We are now forced to rally behind one banner or another, we are forced to make a choice, we are forced to fight for freedom with conditions - yet freedom is unconditional.
Breaking over the horizon atop a mound of inequalities, injustices, and failed ideas rises a new banner, however this banner has no one flag bearer. It is a banner that waves and weaves between many people and multiple beliefs. This banner is a meshed quilt of the banners long since past and new lengths of fabric, innovately designed banners. This banner of sorts also bears a title: Progressive. However this title is unlike the titles from the banners of the past. This banner changes shape as it is held aloft to unite for a common cause.
The defining and constricting of this term, progressive, was a topic of great contention at the 4th Annual National Summit for Progressive Leaders of 2008 run by Young People For(YP4). I had many long discussion about what it means, the implications of the term, and the worries of a dogma growing within the progressive movement. To give a starting point:
From my "Hella Pone" workshop group representing Northern California, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin -
A progressive is: open minded, inclusive, compassionate, proactive and engaged in positive change, innovative, sustainable, optimistic, idealistic, for equality and justice, informed and conscious, evolving, and a leader challenging the status quo
The most important thing to remember is that the term progressive has a long historical and political connotation. Progressivism grew in the 1920s as a response to industrialization and traditional conservativism as well as to the more radical socialist and anarchist movements of the time. The American Progressive Party was born in the 1930s and advanced under Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Woodrow Wilson (?), and Franklin Roosevelt. Historically "progressives" advocated for worker's rights and social justice. Early progressives were proponents of anti-trust laws and the regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. The principles of Progressivism and the early Progressive Movement would lay the foundation for future progressive thought and politics. Even wikipedia notes that the precise criteria for what constitutes "progressivism" varies worldwide. Here are some of the common (historical) progressive tenets outlined:
Ballot initiatives where citizens approve proposed laws through a direct vote, initiatives where citizens could proposed laws for legislation, direct primary, direct election of US Senators, referendum where citizens could vote to rescind laws, and women's suffrage. Early progressives also called for a centralization of government to reduce the number of officials and eliminate overlapping authority. At the start of the Progressive Movement government corruption was near an all time high. They sought to promote professional administrators to deal with this issue. Trust-busting, socialism (government working for the public good), laissez-faire market belief, and regulation of large corporations represented the economic tenets. Environmentally progressives called for increases in national parks. On the social justice side, early progressives supported the development of professional social workers, the creation of settlement housing (basically a community center operated by professional social workers to increase the standard of living in inner cities), enacting child labor laws (to end children in the workplace), promoting organized labor and the prohibition (alcohol was a deterrent to achieving success for the cause).
For our purposes I think we are, in a way, giving the term a boost. Where progressive used to represent a political party or economic theory, it now represents a set of basic values that seem very simple for everyone to agree upon. Young People For lists the issues that fall under the progressive title as: civil rights, constitutional liberty, immigrant rights, independent judiciary, LGBT rights, marriage equality, access to higher education, religious freedom, environmental protection, voting rights, civic participation, women's rights, worker's rights, human rights, international issues, environmental justice, equal rights, I think John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress said it best, "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics, It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressives see it as an attitude towards the politics of today. It is a thought process that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, which attempts to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy of ideologies. There is an excellent article (click here) on what progressivism means today in WireTap magazine written by a young person.
For our purposes today I believe the term progressive is a way to develop a focused set of values while encompassing many issue bases. The progressive term allows people to live and work outside the boxes of society. You can be a republican, a democrat, liberal, economically conservative, socialist, black, white, red, blue - you are not forced to conform to a certain norm - you can fall under the progressive terminology if you share the same values and visions for our world. This is a dangerous area in any movement when we begin to confine our thought and set a type of dogma for ourselves to follow. If you are a republican you are no less progressive, if you are a socialist you are not too radically progressive, if you are not a vegetarian you are no less progressive, if you embody the full range of progressive thought that does not mean that you are not and cannot be a progressive. It is often difficult to allow for this openness of a term because we are stuck in an old way of thinking that limits our abilities to accept. We are trapped by our own postmodern love of labeling ourselves and creating the other.
We stream to the progressive banner seeking a doctrine, an ideology, or a mantra to rule the day. But the banner needs to be People. As one of my good philosophy friends explained to me, and I paraphrase, at the end of the day we are all just fictional characters living in a world that we have created for ourselves. Our identities are all constructed from what we choose to think or what history has developed We label and fit ourselves into methods The banner is not Progressivism, but it is People. If we lose sight of that idea, then the rebirth of the progressive movement has already failed. People are our end goal and focus. We are not here to advance our self-interest or force our ideology. Within the progressive movement our focus is People not Progressivism and we cannot forget. The banner needs to remain people or we as the progressive movement will just become another title, another dogma of boxed thought - we need to remain open and innovative and changing, we need ensure that we do not become more than an applied method of thinking. The banner is not Progressive, the banner is People.
From Associated Progress, the essential progressive news network.
- Alex B. Hill's blog
- Login or register to post comments
One movement, one banner
With all due respect, Alex, I'd have to disagree.
The hard reality we have to start with is that we are still losing the war. Conservatism dominates much of the American mainstream. When people style themselves as "centrist," they are unconsciously endorsing right-wing assumptions. And the conservative message is so succinct, so honed, that even we can summarize it.
Progressives, conversely, are disorganized, fighting between themselves for the same resources, and advocating for their own narrow issue focuses rather than collaborating with other progressive and pooling their resources.
And we lack this organization precisely because there is no commonly accepted definition of "Progressive."
There is no such thing as a political philosophy that transcends ideology. If we want to make real change in our world (which I contend is non-imaginary), we have to fight under a banner that non-progressives can readily understand. This requires organization. And it requires power.
The American Left is so power-phobic, so militantly anti-authoritarian, that it blindly rejects all forms of organization. It sees its own flailing mass of limbs, and has the gall to call it "democracy."
I call it narcisistic chaos.
That banner of changing hands and multiple beliefs you just described isn't some radical trend that's sweeping the nation. It's a laughingstock. It's a motley of competing interest groups who can't agree on anything, who gather together for the sake of talking about changing things.
That's not Progressive, and it's certainly not a movement.
The fact is, we need the best of both worlds. Just as we must embrace pluralism and bottom-up decision-making, so must we accept the need for some measure of centrality and coordinated leadership.
The same applies for our message. We need a bedrock of well-defined central principles that everyone can understand, that even the layperson on the street can articulate. It's only then that you can branch out and tailor your own custom-made message concerning particular issues or values. Unity at the top, autonomy at the bottom.
I'm not denigrating the personal struggles of the wonderful men and women I've met through YP4. I'm simply lamenting the tremendous waste that's going on. We fight our individual battles against the world and against each other, we fail to build a lasting infrastructure with our peers, and we either make little change or simply give up. It doesn't have to be that way. We can birth a genuine movement. But it can only come through teamwork and discipline.
all is one
Anders, what you describe is not what I am talking about. The hard reality is important, but you can't lose the progressive idea just because a conservative is so easy to define. Honestly, are we here for politics or are we here to make real change for people. Our greatest strength is that we are not a cut and dry movement.
Progressives are disorganized. True statement - you said it yourself, but look now at the system and the politics of today. Your debate that politics is right-leaning and the center actually sitting on the right applies. The right-leaning politics of today do not want to see organized progressives. As such the right-leaning system has historically put down and disrupted progressive movements.
There is no such thing as a political philosophy that transcends ideology in our current state of affairs because we are trapped in our thinking. You have just made the case that much easier to state. We are set in thinking that there should be a box to step inside. I will strongly disagree that progressives reject all forms of organization - I am not even sure on what basis that argument can be made. Why can't it be productive to be wary of power and authority?
What you call a laughingstock is not what I described. I am not calling for a banner that changes hands, but a banner that rests in everyone's hands. It is a banner that rests in everyone's hands because the banner is People, not politics, not power, not authority, not ideology - People. When everyone has the access and ability to do what they want, when there is real equality and true democracy. What YP4 has worked to create and what we need to work on strengthening is a set of values that define Progressive. Equal rights for all, social justice, politics of the people, bottom up decision making, etc.
No one is calling for unmeasured effects of our efforts or uncoordinated leadership. No one ignores the importance of teamwork and discipline. What I am talking about is the potential for our movement to become too dogmatic. As a progressive movement that is to be genuine and bring about real change it needs to remain as you said autonomous at the bottom and unified at the top. What we cannot have is an ideology that will ostracize and discriminate just because someone does not fit well enough. This is where the in-fighting is most evident. We cannot become an ideology, we cannot become a political philosophy, I will say it again - the banner is People - simple, straightforward, real.
- Challenge yourself everyday, if you don't then it is a wasted day.
All is all
And how do you suggest we make change for real people without engaging in politics? How can a political ideology be non-political?
In my experience, I've seen quite the opposite. I've seen turf wars; I've seen faction and strife between groups who should be struggling with, and not against, each other. And I've seen progressives' truly disgusting reflex action, which is to celebrate our disorganization. As if lashing out at authority is the answer to everything.
Think of a spectrum between two extremes: authority and autonomy. We want a perfect balance between the two - and yes, we've got to move a little bit more towards authority to reach that center.
We want a progressive infrastructure with a strong center that coordinates most resources towards our political and social efforts, with autonomous member components that advocate for the specific issues that they're most specialized to deal with.
Our message needs to be similarly federalist. We need an ideology that lays out a bedrock of concrete, clear-as-day principles that anyone and their mother can identify with, while allowing for individual takes on those same principles that can work in any political environment.
Ideology is a vehicle, Alex. It conveys the principles that we stand for - our commitment to the inherent dignity of the human spirit, the common morality that we all share, and our commitment to empowerment and justice - and it also normalizes our assumptions in the political dialogue (government can be used for good, all human beings are are created equal, etc.).
We can be as dedicated to social justice as we want. But without a message that the everyday American can understand, our dedication means jack shit. How can you hope to call a nation to action if you're rambling when you should be preaching?
There is only one
We can make real change for people outside of politics. I know this because I have done it. We can use politics as a potential tool, but it is a dangerous area. All politics is trapped in a stream of thought that drives people to do unthinkable things. I really believe that politics is personal and all that is personal is political. However, in the system that we now live we need an ideology that is more than just a political catch-phrase.
I agree that we need a strong base of values ("bedrock of concrete, clear-as-day principles). I am extremely wary to use the thought of creating an ideology because with history to back , ideologies have created more ill than good. Look where we are now. To be radical is to advocate for equal rights. Ideology may be a vehicle and it may be powerful within this current system, but we need something more. We need something that can exist on its own without being completely bogged down in politics. Do we really need to normalize what we do? (What is normal?) I understand that we need to create a message that everyone can understand and rally behind, and I feel that is not too difficult given our supposed progressive values. Government can be used for good when it is manipulated. "All human beings are created equal" meant nothing - for hundreds of years people were enslaved and called 3/5 of a person. Government as we know it is only good when people in power have the will to change it.
I apologize that rambling is the way my mind works, preaching is something that I will not do unless it is absolutely necessary. There is something much more powerful about a vocabulary embodied in action.
- Challenge yourself everyday, if you don't then it is a wasted day.
Politics and Ideology
I understand, Alex. And by no means did I mean to imply that you were the one rambling.
Perhaps we could communicate more effectively if we each defined what "politics" and "ideology" respectively mean to us.
Politics is far bigger than government. All being political means is having an opinion about society and human nature, expressing a vision for how things could be better, and working to advocate for those principles. It's that simple. The only reason "politics" is such a dirty word to most people is that we tend to only think of government - and the worst aspects of government at that (the cliched image of the fat, white balding Congressman who takes bribes and hires prostitutes).
Ideology is equally important because you can't persuade people without it. Ideology is your message. Ideology is much like a constitution: it's a manifesto of all our principles, our statement on the role of government, and our proposed policies based on those principles. Do you understand what I mean when I say we can't win without ideology? It's a clear way of communicating what it means to be progressive. Without it, we can't organize disparate progressive groups together into one mass movement. Without it, we can't persuade non-progressives to join our struggle.
And this is where normalization becomes so damned important. Our goal isn't simply to define ourselves or persuade people, ultimately. It's to redefine the mainstream in a progressive fashion. We want our values to become so widely accepted in the American subconscious that even the apolitical will accept our core tenants. That's why conservatism is dominant; most people accept right-wing assumptions (government is always the problem, people are inherently selfish, power comes with license) without even knowing it.
We can talk nice all we want, but at the end of the day this is very much a war. We're in a life-or-death struggle for relevance.
Question
This is an interesting discussion and I think both of you are making important points but I would like to pose one question to Anders.
Who defines what our values will be if progressives have more cohesion of movement, leadership, and message? I do agree with you somewhat that you need some centralization if you want to get the message out to the public like conservatives have. The problem with that is almost every progressive I have met is either a budding anarchist or a full on post-modernist who equates power and centralization to something "horrible".
On the same note though Alex makes an important point about dogmatism. I would like to spin it a different way though. Like I asked, who will define what progressive is then, if we are to make it more specific then Alex's very broad and easy to fit into definition?
I am totally against the progressive movements current fascination with a mythical deep ecology, anti-science rhetoric (i.e. the unwillingness to read up on the current science on issues like biomedicine (stem cells, IVF, nuclear power, etc.), totally anti-capitalist bent (i.e. that ANY capitalism is bad), etc. etc. If these widely held tenants are enshrined as the base of progressive ideology then I guess people like me will be driven out of the movement (or at least leave under our own accord due to a values mismatch). Thankfully under the definition of YP4 and what Alex states then I am inherently a progressive. I want equal rights, justice, equality, and a better society that operates in a people-centric way. My version of how to get there is through science, technology, education, economics, etc. That doesn't mean I'm out of the progressive movement, it just means I come from a different place then the deep ecologist-anti-science-feminist who would espouse the values I stated earlier. In the end we are both working for a better world, but we have different ideas of how to get there.
The problem is this is where conflict happens.. but is that even avoidable? So to summarize my question/point I agree with you that if progressive ideology wants to make some change it needs to quit being so post-modernists and anarchist in its organization. At the same time it has to grapple with the huge diversity of belief in the movement, and I have no answer on how to do that. In the end it seems like Alex definition is the best we can do - to remain undogmatic, work on our own movements, and use the word progressive to mean people-centric change and positive betterment rather then a dogmatic, token anti-establishment "liberal" view that many on the right view progressive to be.
Beginnings
I'm with you on the "anti-establishment" nonsense. Knee-jerk anti-authoritarianism is as useless as it is disgusting.
But we can't just work on our separate projects while simply calling ourselves "people-oriented" progressives. That's what's happening already, and it's not a movement. It's a motley of infighting and inaction.
Organization means actively working together in a coordinated fashion, directed at the same objectives. For example, this would mean different progressive organizations (anything from the Change to Win coalition to the Intergenerational Alliance to Progressive Majority) would pool their monetary and information resources, pool their donor lists and training techniques, have their leadership meet and conference call regularly, support and train the same candidates for office, and work to advance the theory of progressivism itself in mainstream society (through greater media access, a proliferation of think tanks, getting our own into top-notch academic and private sector positions, etc.).
As for how to address conflict? Through unity itself. It's paradoxical, but organization is the only way that we can hope to mitigate infighting between different progressive constituencies. Only by defining the broader principles that bind us together (fairness, justice, our civic responsibility to one another) can we give ourselves the wiggle room to maneuver around our differences.
A good infrastructure makes dogmatism impossible because it keeps everyone focused on the larger picture at all times. A middle class, pro-capitalist NARAL organizer may be at odds with the working class union leader on economic particulars, but their recognition that they need each other to advance their larger concerns is what holds them together. It's the same recognition that brings economically protectionist nativists together with socially moderate capitalists in the Republican/conservative camp. It's only a matter of clearly articulating those commonalities, and building an infrastructure that reinforces similarities while giving people enough room to dissent and veer slightly off once in a while. Hence the importance of a succinct ideology.
It is not enough to just proclaim how much you love people. What is required is nothing short of a political philosophy. All an ideology really is is a philosophy that's written with the intent of being understandable and persuasive. Republicans can talk about "natural rights" or the "Closing of the American Mind," and all sorts of wonky conjecture...or they can just tell you that government is always the problem and that people need to assume more personal responsibility. The only difference is the level of succinctness and emotional appeal.
As for who composes that ideology? It's a good question, Ben. In my opinion, the "drafting" of it should be done by a small group, no more than 10. These people would represent all facets of progressivism, with people from labor, the feminist movement, conservationists, academics and teachers, race scholars, LGBTQ activists, veterans and students. A larger congregation would then meet to amend and "ratify" the statement, much like a constitution.
I think the overall organization of the progressive movement should be run in a similar fashion: an elected senior leadership that directs resources and keeps the group focused on the big picture, while the individual groups carry out the larger policy and continue to deal with their own specialized fields (labor still focuses on workers' issues, even if they have to turn out working class voters to support a progressive initiative that has nothing to do with labor, for example).
Think of the movement and the message as the embodiment of federalism. You have a federal center, and semi-autonomous component parts. You have general ideological principles, and individual interpretations of those principles. You have a movement that supports the same policy and candidates, and has members groups that specialize in different issues.
Unity at the top, autonomy at the bottom.