My Progressivism: More Thoughts on the Debate
April 6, 2009 6 Comments
I’ve refered to myself as a ‘progressive conservative’ for several years. In my mind, progressive simply means that you are seeking change or that you recognize that change can be a good thing. To paraphrase Disraeli, the choice is not between change or no change, because change is inevitable. The choice is between unchecked, untested and overly optimistic change i.e. reckless or a careful and restrained change that honors the best of American social, political and national traditions.
Though contemporary political jargon seems to disagree with me, I believe you can be a ‘progressive’ AND be a conservative. You just have to be willing to move forward instead of spending all your time glorifying Reagan and Goldwater. it’s interesting that some political observers who readily accept the concept of a “conservative Democrat” would balk at the suggestion that a Republican could champion causes such as worker rights, a livable wage or the antiwar movement.
Among the two parties there are plenty of shared goals…just different ideas on how to get there. The problem is that under our current structure, if you are a Democrat/liberal and you lean right on some issues, Republicans think you should just join them. The same is true if you are a Republican with some liberal opinions. By allowing the ‘Progressive’ label to exist on both sides of the aisle, we give both sides a seat at the table. Then the debate becomes one of approach instead of goals.
I’ve noticed that the main problem today is that all debates start from a place of distrust. A liberal could claim that they just want gay marriage on the grounds of equality but conservatives will distrust them because they think there is a hidden agenda of liberalizing all of our social norms. Perhaps that is true for some liberals, but not for most. When we approach debates with distrust of one another’s goals, a debate then becomes pointless. If we could agree to shared Progressive goals, then we could have a real debate based on trust that we are pursuing the same thing. It’s like parents who want the same thing for their children but disagree on the approach. When you head into that discussion with trust about the ultimate goals, it makes the entire conversation easier.
I’ve resigned myself to the notion that progressive conservatism will never be a wide-spread political label, but what I do hope is that we see an emergence of a strong non-partisan designation for people willing to move beyond the same old system.
Heh. Very fair and balanced portrayal of the options.
I don’t think it’s a choice between recklessness and being careful. I think – and this comes through in your characterization, as well – it’s about what stuff we’re allowed to change. (If you make a point of honoring “social, political, and national traditions,” or excuse me, just “the best” of them, whatever that is… what’s left to change? Couldn’t those traditions encompass just about everything the government is able to make/enforce legislation about?)
Obviously there are nuances to any statement, but those are essentially the roots of liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism is more of an intellectual, top-down approach while conservatism is more of an experienced-based, botom-up philosphy.
There are a lot of traditions that can be honored while still enacting change. And honoring often simply means not ignoring them. It means recognizing that new ideas do not always trump old ones.
I’m in a similar boat, Mike, both in terms of my Christianity and my politics. I have started to think of myself as a progressive traditionalist Christian, with liberal social views; pro small/limited government, but accepting of federalism; and simply a mixed bag all around. I suppose that’s a good thing. I like how you explain it. Change is inevitable, indeed.
I tend to view this trend as the future of politics. Strict labels are increasingly unable to capture the nuances of how people think and feel about a variety of issues in a diversifying world. It seems like those that stick to hard and fast ideological labels do so by sticking their heads in the sand on a certain class of issues and find the chimera of stability offered by their ideological identity sufficient to ignore any cognitive dissonance their intellectual beach going produces.
Which is not to say that people can’t have general centres of gravity and choose sides, but those sides are getting more and more muddied as the sharp edges that separate them become dulled.
Which, in turn, causes reactions amongst the more partisan among us…
I think I agree with what you’re getting at Scott. That’s why I think ideally we would start to label positions rather than individuals. It would be so much easier to say, “I’m pretty liberal on gay marriage,” or “I am fairly conservative on abortion.” I guess the need for political parties inevitably has us choosing sides.