More ‘Progressive’ Than Thou

I use communist, socialist, and capitalist as economic labels that place socialism between two extremes. For political labels, I prefer a left-to-right spectrum of progressive, liberal, moderate, conservative, and reactionary. I wouldn't label those on either the left or right as radical unless they advocate overthrowing the government or abridging civil rights.

"Progressive" does not have as bad a connotation as "regressive." I'm proud to call myself progressive, particularly when it comes to tax policy.

When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel. --Ayn Rand

Whether a yale professor or a political neophyte everyone seems stuck in thinking/vocabulary from the cold war era, when we need very much to move on to new, solutions based thinking. Despite that we are decades beyond the cold war the principle fight among left & right is about entitlements, a welfare state, the degree of government intervention. Both sides agree on the terms but of course disagree on what to do. I contend these are not the right concepts now or if they ever were. As I worked as a labor market analyst for many years, speaking to the unemployed and to business groups I focused on the creation of good paying jobs and no one disagreed with that focus. Neither Hillary or Bernie are talking about full employment, by that I mean not just a lower unemployment rate as currently calculated, but jobs for everyone, and not accomplished by "government make work" jobs. Progressives since the 1990's have tried to differentiate themselves by not achieving their goals primarily through a welfare state/simple redistribution of income approach. If you want to make a choice in this election I would say to hold Hillary's feet to the fire to deliver; Bernie's goals are admirable and moving but they are only a simple rehash of european democratic socialism, perhaps an improvement over what we have but structurally so old school they will never attract a broad based electorate obviously eager for some new directions, not a rehashed welfare state.

Who has the most traditionally liberal ideas? That's all I care about. We need liberal socialism to save us from the destructive conservative capitalism that has been ruining our country. Regulate those businesses and force the rich to share the wealth. That's all that will work.

The article does not discuss some real issues. Only how anybody can lay claim to the term "Progressive".
"Why does Wall Street love Hillary Clinton" Errol Louis CNN November 18, 2015 explains how the Clintons got rich currying favor with Wall Street Street and its implications. "William Cohan ("Money and Power How Goldman Sachs came to Rule the World": ..."big banks see Clinton as one of their own...."

McGovern was a progressive, running to the left of the Democratic field in 1972. So was Ralph Nader, also running to left of the democratic field, in 2000. Remind me again, how did that turn out, in either election year, for the Democratic Party" For America.

As a historian Beverly is remiss in not noting the history of "Progressive Politics" in Burlington and Vermont in general. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Progressive_Party

I have to echo Ben, who points out that the issues/details are important, not the label.

I don't vote by label or party, but by my "reading" of the candidates and their history of positions, actions and votes.

Focusing on the label distracts from selecting the best candidate and doesn't belong in the 'paper of record'. It's not news, so don't print it.

A rose by another name...

Progressive = Communist
Communist = Marxist
Marxist = Liberal
Liberal = Progressive
Democrat = progressive liberal Marxist

Hillary simply represents the "democratic" political elite half of our 1% status quo of reckless high velocity globalization that mysteriously only seems to benefit the global 1%, while at the same time adding 10's of millions to the desperate American underclass whose votes can then be cheaply bought with just enough crumbs of taxpayer funded social services handouts to keep them barely alive to work (for 1/3 of a living wage) and vote in the next election cycle. There you have Hillary's "Progressivism". An infinitely cynical and contemptuous self perpetuating cycle intended to deceive and subdue and put the majority of us lazy, ignorant, white, black and brown nativist uppity trash in our place which is far, far below God on earth beings like Hillary

"Reform" is in the eye of the beholder.
What is progressive to some is regressive to others.

This is so funny. Here Hillary is again trying to dupe the American people. She is so old. Doesn't anyone see how regressive progressivism is? I know, I know, it depends on what your definition of is is. It's simply based on socialism, which ruined the lives of people for hundreds of years and failed everywhere it's been tried.

"By the standards of the early 20th century, Clinton’s decision to adopt the label ‘‘progressive’’ could mean almost anything. Most likely, it means nothing at all."
Interesting, informative and seemingly descriptive rather than opinionated ... until the very last sentence: "Most likely means nothing at all." which seems to me a damning revelation of the author's true intention ... to cast doubt on HC's motives, integrity, etc. How did an editor let this final comment into the article?

Excellent explanation of why ideologies are suspect, tools of ideologues & demagogues to exploit group-think nationalistic, quasi-religious partisanship based in blind-faith following of cultishness.

Every ideology ends up flawed & disproved to various degrees. The one ideology we should each align with, is a healthy suspicion of ideologies & ideologues.

We should stick with personal, individual responsibility to principles, like peace, justice & the rule of law.

Concepts already baked into legal codes through hard-won struggles for justice are a good place to start.

In this way we can easily eliminate unqualified candidates regardless ideological buzzwords used to color political perceptions.

Here's one such hard-won principle:
Personal refusal to support or fight in gratuitous wars of choice against far-flung nations of no military threat to our borders.

Based in that basic legal & moral principle, we can immediately rule out support for any politicians or lawmakers who now or in the past violate this basic, modern principle.

The choice then is much simpler: Hillary was the irredeemable hawk who authorized the vast militaristic faux-pas disaster, so Hillary never gets to be commander in chief or decides who lives & who gets hell-fired.

Bernie, on the other hand, made the correct choice, has the proper level of responsibility commensurate with the grim power of the presidency.

So, Hilary's out, Bernie's in. Simple! No need for a degree in old political ideologies.

In the 1990s when I went to my local Democratic events in NYC many people – including local elected officials – said things like “as a progressive liberal” and “as a “liberal and also a progressive” to distinguish themselves from the other kinds of liberal Democrats.

I always asked about the distinction. The responses always came down to something like: Liberal is about traditional economic justice issues (labor, poverty, consumers, taxes, etc.) and formal civil rights issues (desegregation, voting rights, affirmative action, etc.) Progressive is about the “new agenda” of reproductive freedom, addressing male privilege and white privilege, sex and gender issues around both feminism and LGBT rights, gun control, democracy, etc.

Today I am struck by how many of the exact same individuals now espouse definitions that are the reverse of what they said 20 years ago. Progressivism is now traditional New Deal issues of inequality, education, and opportunity. Support for choice, feminism, marriage equality, etc. are taken as a given.

This usage switch by my fellow NYC Democrats is coincident with a national change. Back then, pro-labor economic liberalism was a majority view in the Democratic Party and support for choice and social liberties not nearly so universal; today the opposite is true.

Perhaps we should understand the contemporary definition of “progressive” to be a person of the left discontented with the current direction or priorities of the left.

Any fellow Democrat who believes that an election year in which Trump is the likely alternative, is the one to try selling America on its first "socialist," Jewish, conscientious-objector President- so he can start another fight over "government" healthcare- has a stronger stomach for risk, and a wilder imagination than I.

You can say you're progressive, but it does not make it so. Hilary, I would say you're not progressive if you have a neocon foreign policy, receive huge donations from Wall Street, denigrate your opponents vision of nationalizing medical care. And let's not forget, Bill, who initiated NAFTA, dismantled Glass-Steagall. How did that help the working-class?

Bernie Sanders is a progressive, whatever that means exactly.

Hillary Clinton is an opportunist, which is more clearly defined.

Hilary is an elitist, triangulating as a progressive only to blunt Bernie.

A "progressive" is simply someone who believes in progress, in all its forms, using the tools of government to achieve it.

However that abstract notion is implemented in reality, it isn't achieved by taking extreme, populist or reactionary positions and vilifying one group or another, like both Trump and Saunders have done.

The author is clearly contemptuous of Hillary, and there's nothing wrong with that, but Hillary actually represents the best progressive in the race in that she's pragmatic and resolute and has the best chance of actually delivering progress for all Americans.

This is an interesting article. I like it. Is there another article that talks about how the word "conservative" came into modern usage ?

Progressivism is by definition about making progress (not talking about it). So it's a bit strange when people fall for candidates who have no chance of being elected and thus threaten to completely undo progress by handing victory to the other side.

I don't need to name names, but I fear what could happen this fall.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm a lay historian, and I believe that Progressivism originally meant, and continues to mean, a movement that supports progressive taxation, in other words progressively higher taxes on incomes as they increase through the classes. Thus, true Progressives fight social and income inequality, represent the working poor, and oppose laissez faire market policies. Seen this way, Bernie is clearly differentiated from Hillary. And Mrs. Clinton's claim to be Progressive is weak.

The Progressivism of the early 20th Century was in part a WASP ethnic pride movement reacting to the massive immigration of the era: e.g., the rise of Irish political machines in big cities. WASPs believed themselves, with some evidence, to possess a talent for self-government.

The current progressive movement is a post liberal ideology which is further to the left than current liberals,
who have become "middle of the road." Hilary is neither progressive nor liberal as she has too many ties to Wall Street and did not vote the progressive agenda when she voted for the Iraq war, and even more, when she voted to rescue too big to fail. Senator Sanders, on the other hand has a long history of voting progressively, and has a progressive agenda, such as single payer health care. One must not confuse modern progressivism with earlier uses of the word progressive, ant more than the new Republicans are the party of Lincoln.

Is Sanders another McGovern? With all that implies?

"When I use a word, it means what I choose it to mean; neither more, nor less" - Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll.

Political labels are a convenient shorthand to describe a candidate, an ideology or a political era, nothing more. There's a problem if consensus breaks down on the meaning of a word, or when a word is hi-jacked with the intention to mislead. The classic examples are the perversion by both the Soviets and the Nazis of the word "socialist"; there was nothing socialist about either, and both saw socialists, as commonly understood, as enemies to be destroyed.

With Bernie and Hillary probably agreeing on 90% of their ideas, there's no point in arguing over who is the more progressive. It's more useful to focus on the margins where they differ and on how committed they are to the majority of ideas where they overlap.

This article brings important history into the picture. We learned in history classes about the painful realities that gave rise to the progressive movement. We understand why it emerged, but seldom if ever do we think about what happened to it. We are vaguely aware that tendencies towards monopoly have been been somewhat tamed, that laws have been passed to curb the kinds of outrages exposed by the Muckrakers, that government programs have significantly reduced social injustice. We no longer hear about millions of immigrants "huddled in urban tenements and yoked to the factory clock," prevented by extreme poverty "from acting as independent citizens." Sure, we know that our country is still plagued by social injustice. But the great progress that has been made since the early 1900s has blurred the sharp focus of the early progressives. Also, widespread awareness of the failures of many government programs has fueled pessimism about the very possibility of eliminating social injustice. In short, the powerful driving force of early progressivism has been largely dissipated.

Like pornography, "progressive" is a term that is difficult to define precisely. However, Bernie's supporters know it when they see it.

Interesting essay. If I intended to have a new building built, would I select the architect based entirely upon the label he or she adopted (traditional, modern, post-modern, classical, abstract, green, train-wreck, blob, etc.) or would I want to see a full list of ideas, perhaps with a few thumbnail sketches or, God forbid, an actual schematic design with plans and elevations? Some clients choose to pay each of several architects a fraction of a fee for a schematic design, and give the winner a full fee to work out the details. Why would they do such a thing?

Hillary Clinton's choice use of terms is exhausting to keep track of. She is a brilliant political animal, a chameleon who can become anything and be defined any way for the voter, given his / her demographics. For her to seize and re-define what it means to be a 'progressive' in 2016 really comes down to what Beverly Gage quotes of Glenn Beck as 'there is no difference between a progressive and a socialist'. Perhaps, Clinton does not dare to invoke the position of a 'socialist' because this idea / concept has horrible connotations for older voters who remember the Cold War, the Soviet Union and everything in between. After all, older voters appear to support her more than they do Bernie Sanders. We may never truly know Clinton's true political values. She is a chameleon.

I do not mind Hillary Clinton *calling* herself a Progressive, but if that is what she is, why does she seem to be in bed (figuratively) so heavily with our corps of investment bankers. Who do I mean by "our corps of investment bankers?" The very folks who essentially brought down the economy in 2008 (those who were left standing), and who are now so busy trying to lobby themselves back out of the rather mild regulations that were implemented following the 2008 crash and bailout. It is pretty shameless, Mrs. Clinton. I know that you and your husband have become remarkably wealthy since he left office. I do not begrudge you that, but please do not try to be a woman of the little people. You are one of the super elite, and I reckon you understand *their* needs much better than ours.

I have heard a lot about what you are going to give us, but not a lot about how you understand the world. That seems a bit odd for a former SECSTATE.

.
.
Thank you for this!

I would be very happy if I never heard any of the following words used in serious discussions about US politics (particularly by candidates or potential candidates), except for comparison purposes or to describe the perceptions of others:

- Liberal
- Conservative
- Right
- Left

Each has become meaningless for the most part. I realized that when Bob Dole described himself as a "mainstream conservative" in 1996 (Dole and his opponent, President Clinton, were jostling for the precise center ground, like two explorers racing for a precise spot containing one of the Earth's poles). I came to the same conclusion when I saw online comments describing Senator Dianne Feinstein as "liberal".

Naturally, there are public perceptions -- Sarah Palin may be perceived as "conservative" (I don't know if she is); I have no issue with describing the perceptions, although public perception is often wrong. And there are comparisons -- one Senator may be "to the right" or "to the left" of a colleague.

As much as I avoid the words I mentioned, none is as devoid of meaning as the phrase "traditional marriage". Jacob, in Jewish and Christian Bibles, practiced bigamy (he's just one example). What could be more "traditional" than a biblical patriarch?

We degrade public discourse and delay comprehension when we use meaningless terms in discussions of our governance. We can agree on definitions of terms or stop using them. Words do not mean what a speaker says they mean.

Who is more socialist? BernBabyBern, Killary Minton, Uncle Joe, Fidel or Mao the Invincible? WHAT, this is or was the free United States of America. With a political system for thoughtful discussion, debate, disagreement, hate and love, but ultimate grudging acceptance. Now there is a president who dictates through executive order deriding a Congress for doing what it was designed to do: stop any King George III/Obama-like action. But the president complains about and becomes a dictatorship bypassing the Constitution designed to stop him. Hmmmmmm. Ladies and gentlemen that is NOT PROGRESSIVE, IT IS REGRESSING. So fight out who gets to be the socialist dictator.

Http://www.periodictablet.com

Politically and by inclination the Clintons are most emphatically NOT progressives.

They are what used to be termed Rockefeller Republicans: moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies supporting New Deal programs and a social safety net, albeit run more efficiently than did Democrats. They were strong supporters of big business and Wall Street. They favored balanced budgets and did not oppose raising taxes in order to achieve a balanced budget.

Locally, Rockefeller Republicans were strong advocates and supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects.

In foreign policy Rockefeller Republicans supported "internationalist" and "realist" policies, supported the UN, and promoted American business interests abroad.

The last Rockefeller Republican was Dwight Eisenhower. In 1964 Goldwater Conservatives gained control of the Republican Party.

The rest, as is said, is history...

I don't care what label people give to Mrs. Clinton. To me, "reasonable" is good enough since she's a FAR more reasonable choice than ANY of the Republican candidates.

This is a very interesting piece, but I'm sure the author did not intend to suggest that lynch mobs were in any way part of the progressive movement. It was a big tent, but it wasn't that big. It should also be noted that many of those New Deal "liberals" had in fact once been "progressives," as a quick glance at their early careers will demonstrate. And any number of "progressive" reforms came straight from the much derided "populist" movement of the previous century. As for a candidate in today's presidential race calling herself a progressive, I'm pretty sure people have a general idea what that means, and I am pretty sure they understand it doesn't mean immigration restriction, racism, eugenics, Prohibition, and tax cuts for the very, very wealthy.

An uncomfortable article.
Lots of selective history, but I'm not convinced that the author even now understands what "progressive" is or who they are. Perhaps it was the statement that "progressivism's dark side" created the Jim Crow Laws.
Goodness! That was news to me!

Here's how I would define a "Progressive".
Progressive's believe that every human being is born with all rights intact.
Then, depending on where they are born or what era they are born in, the process begins of stripping certain ones of those natural-born rights.
That stripping is based on arbitrary nonsense: sex, race, wealth, birth order, etc., usually dictated by religious dictates, though other times dictated by secular laws.

These "laws", whether religious or secular, are pure happenstance, a matter of luck (both good luck or bad luck) of where or when someone is born, and their only purpose is to keep some hierarchy in place. Think "caste". Think "women". Think "slavery". Supreme Court Justice, Scalia, is a great defender of what he calls "natural law", but sadly, for him, there is no law that has ever been created, either religious or secular, that has been "universal" in every society throughout all of history.
Poor Scalia.

A "progressive" accepts that fact. They understand that "natural law" is simply the effort of those who rule, or, wish to rule, and that it is mere opinion - based on prejudice or power or cruelty or indifference.

No.
I don't think you got it.
Try again.

Since I got involved in politics in the 1980s (and probably long before), being a Progressive was a euphemism for being an Independent Socialist (that is, not a member of a socialist or communist party). In the Democratic Socialists of America's heyday (a non-party socialist organization whose membership are generally Democrats), they described themselves as a Progressive. In fact, they still do. The Progressive Caucus was founded by a Socialist, Bernie Sanders! So, when I describe myself as a Progressive, I'm really saying that I'm an Indepenent Socialist. It is just that before Sander's, few of us had the guys to say so because of the potential repercussions professionally.

Progressive and Independent Socialist (whatever flavor) obviously describes Bernie Sanders, but not Hillary Clinton. Clinton is a neo-liberal who likely knows much of the history of the term Progressive, but uses it now as effective marketing. Like many marketing claims, it is a distortion.

Who cares what any of them call themselves: what are their records, what are their plans? Period. The rest is marketing.

This piece should have a different headline. I think something like: POLITICAL LABELS - CHECK THE USE BY DATE.

I like the comment by Hillary Clinton in the next to last paragraph. She would wrap the progressive around a package of status quo, feel-good policies that "reassure" Democrats without actually supporting any change that might upset the Washington establishment and the 1%.

" Clinton’s decision to adopt the label ‘‘progressive’’ could mean almost anything. Most likely, it means nothing at all."

Unlike Sanders use of the term, which actually means something. A very good example what distinguishes Clinton and Sanders.