Types of Progressives

I recently ran across a group called the Rockridge Institute. Rockridge bills itself as ‘Rethinking Progressive Politics’ so I thought it was important to wade through all the anti-conservative stuff on their website and see what they had to offer. There was one piece in particular that I found interesting, even if I have a lot of issues with their positions. In the interest of continuing our goal of exploring modern progressivism, I thought I would share a few exerpts. Rockridge contends that there are different types of progressives. I would tend to agree. Their labels even make a bit of sense to me. Here they are:

Socioeconomic progressives believe that the most important considerations involve money and class. The best solutions are therefore economic and social class solutions.

Identity Politics progressives are those who either belong to or identify with a particular oppressed group who desires their liberation and an end to oppression.

Environmentalists focus on the sustainability of the earth and the natural environment, the sacredness of nature, and protecting native peoples.

Civil libertarians: These progressives focus on the notion that human beings have a fundamental right to live their lives without harassment and harm being inflicted on them by arbitrary power. Issues of freedom, liberty, democracy (equal sharing of power), and individual rights are paramount.

Spiritual progressives focus on the nurturant aspects of religion and spirituality. Service, compassion, and community, connects spiritual progressives to other people and the world, and are central to their spiritual practice.

Anti-authoritarians: Civil libertarians and anti-authoritarians share a deep distrust of authority. Where civil libertarians specifically emphasize the interplay between the government and individual freedom, anti-authoritarians point to the larger problem of authority in general: how people and organizations with more power can threaten and harm those with less power. Authority figures here are broadly conceived: they can be large corporations, police departments, even parents.

I think Progressive Conservatives can accept these general categories. We just need to be vigilant against the ‘bleeding heart syndrome’ that comes with the ’urge to nurture’ among liberal progressives. That same urge is why we have hundreds of failing social programs in this country and a War on Poverty that we have been losing for 40 years. At The Big Stick we look to introduce some good ol’ conservative common sense to the good intentions of today’s progressives. We see this as a compromise that should better the world while not making it into a nanny state. We aren’t opposed to social programs, just the lousy ones.

I identify much more strongly with their closing statements, covering possible reasons for divisions among conservatives.

Progressives commonly focus on specific programs. This creates many roadblocks to unity since different types of progressives typically want different types of programs and become divided over policy details. And programs are not what the public really wants to hear about. Instead, they want to know why you support a program, and what do you believe in – what your values are. For progressives seeking unity, focusing on values will not only help you to connect to the public, but will help you connect to other progressives since values rise above policy details and programs, and inform policy directions that can unify many different progressive groups. In practice, the different modes of operation often seem to conflict since they naturally lead to different approaches to enact specific policies. For instance, different groups specialize in working with legislators, educating the public, conducting scientific studies or academic research, contesting corporate power or organizing the grassroots. These become common sources of division. But these can be looked at in a new perspective – each mode of operation represents a different complementary skill or approach that can forward the same values in a larger movement. For instance, an environmental organization might focus on educating the public, and testifying at congressional hearings about the need to protect forests from excessive logging. Another may take a militant approach to protect trees from loggers using direct civil disobedience. These groups are often in conflict about tactics and perhaps even goals in the short-term. But, taking a movement perspective, these approaches are just different methods in support of the same values: protecting forests and trees since our shared environment is a source of nurturance for us all and must be protected. By seeing connections based on shared values, these two groups could better coordinate their efforts to raise awareness about their work. Why, then, do progressives remain divided? Because by and large progressives are not consistently emphasizing their values. This is in stark contrast to the radical Right, who have for decades been organizing, fundraising, and campaigning based on an overarching moral vision. It is time for progressives to realize how much we all share, and to begin building organizations and policies that reflect what unites us rather than what divides us.

To be sure, we are divided. But I wonder which side of the Progressive Movement wants unity more. Is it the liberal progressive who is in the majority and often guilty of excessive idealism or the conservative progressive that is clearly in the minority and adopts a more pragmatic approach to their progressive goals in hopes of compromise?