Progressives Fail because Progressivism is not Understood

[stevenleser]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Progressives-Fail-because-by-Steven-Leser-100719-974.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Steven Leser

Gallup has provided me a treasure of useful information this week. First was the empirical evidence that the Tea Parties and Republicans were one and the same. Most people had figured that out a long time ago, but it was nice to have it laid out empirically. Now, Gallup explains, unintentionally, why Progressives have a hard time getting Progressive values incorporated into legislation. Like with the Tea Party study, it validates something that to me was obvious. People do not understand what Progressivism is.


Gallup's study shows that 54% of Americans do not know whether the term "Progressive" describes their own views. If they cannot determine that, it means to me that they do not know what Progressivism is.


Even more curious is that 22% of the 12% of the population who self-identified as "Progressive" also self-identified as politically "Conservative". Something tells me that those people do not understand what the term "Progressive" means either so we can up the 54% to at least 66%. Two thirds of the American population do not know what "Progressive" means.


Many Progressives point to conspiracies or the elites or the powers that be or some combination when giving an explanation for why Progressives cannot get their agenda passed or even supported. This study better explains it. I have been saying for a long time that before Progressives attempt to get their ideas made into law, they have to first explain their ideas to the public and second, convince people that Progressive ideas are the right ones for the country. It makes sense, right? People are not going to support an agenda that they do not understand and has not been explained to them.


This opinion that I have had for a while is why I have placed myself in the "Pragmatic Progressive" category. Those of us in that category accept an incremental approach to Liberal and Progressive achievements in legislation because we know that there is not enough support for more comprehensive movement in that regard. We often clash with those who call themselves "Principled Progressives" who believe that we should go for broke on every piece of legislation and that failure on a go for broke approach is better than creeping incremental-ism.


Gallup's study, in my opinion, is game, set, match for Pragmatism, at least in the short term. It also means that Progressives have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a way to teach the country about Progressivism. I'm interested in hearing from fellow Progressives whether they agree or disagree with my assessment. I'm also curious as to whether the Principled Progressives believe that there is a way forward with go for broke legislation with only one in three Americans having any real understanding of Progressive values or their merits.


Link to the Gallup Study: http://www.gallup.com/poll/141218/Americans-Unsure-Progressive-Political-Label.aspx

[sandnsea]

1. Change Minds, Change Votes

We can't expect people like Blanche Lincoln or Mary Landrieu to vote for abortion rights or immigration reform or single payer health care, until THEIR constituents want those things and are willing to fight for them.

[Unvanguard]

2. We could start by ceasing to use the word "progressive."

When what we mean, depending on the context, is "leftist" or "liberal" or "social democrat" or something else that might have more meaning than that feel-good term.

[stevenleser]

4. I have no problem with Liberal, but some are afraid to call themselves that

I'm not a fan of the term leftist or social Democrat.

[Unvanguard]

7. I like and often use "leftist."

"Liberal" I use only reluctantly outside its more technical meaning in political philosophy contexts. Both are much superior to "progressive", which is amorphous except for a nice-sounding sense of "moving forward" that does not specify exactly what that would constitute.

[socialist_n_TN]

29. Why not? Leftist has a long and storied history

of being on the side of the PEOPLE rather than corporations. However the demonization of those words from Reagan on, has made some people shy away from them. That's why I've come to the conclusion that you do away with labels all together. Just espouse policies on the side of the people. If somebody else calls it "socialist" ask them who's side are THEY on, the people are the corporations.

[aquart]

6. Liberal, from the Sumerian "libis" meaning heart, core, anger, courage, family.

Works for me.

[Kahuna]

9. "Progressive" the way it's tossed around sounds very uppity...

Like...I'm better than you are. Even when the question is posed on DU, what does being progressive mean...mostly crickets. It's time to lose the term.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aquart]

5. I've been asking for a definition for years. Never get one.

[Kahuna]

10. Nobody knows what it means. It's just a lofty word people like to use. nt

[CTyankee]

26. AS someone who calls herself a progressive, I know what it means.

It is the opposite of regressive, going back. A progressive looks forward to a more egalitarian democracy, since our democracy has moved forward, on the whole, to being more tolerant and open, to recognizing the rights of people who were formerly excluded from those rights (black with the civil rights movement, women with the women's movement, gays, people with disabilities). Progressivism is thus more inclusive of all segments of society, not less. Progressivism enhances democracy. Progressives believe in a fairer tax code, hence the difference in progressive and regressive taxes.

This definition is very clear to me. I find it odd that DUers are asking what the word means...

[socialist_n_TN]

31. Sounds socialist to me.........

All the things that you mentioned have been hallmarks of socialist political philosophy since it's inception.

[CTyankee]

33. So what? You can make a great case for democratic socialism a la

European countries. If somebody wants to avoid the "socialist" tag (I personally don't mind it) then they can call themselves "progressive." Then you don't have to get all bogged down in that whole socialist argument, which is stupid I would agree, but why waste time on it?

[socialist_n_TN]

34. "So what?" My point exactly.............

:) Check out my user name. I also agree with not getting bogged down in the semantic argument. Just advocate for "socialist/progressive" POSITIONS and let the labels fall where they will. My answer when somebody calls me a "socialist" is that I'm on the side of the average guy, not the corporations. And I then ask, "Who's side are YOU on?"

[CTyankee]

37. No, I cannot agree with you on this. Among fellow progressives, it's just

fine for me to identify myself as a democratic socialist. But not with the average Jane Q. Voter. That is because the tea baggers have consistently linked socialist to communist and nazism (since it is "national socialism"). So in Jane's mind, she hears "socialist" and thinks of swastikas. It's stupid and moronic, I agree, but that is what the republicans really want to happen.

Bless your heart being a socialist in TN. That's got to be awfully hard. And I get upset with republicans here in New Haven (where they are scarce, but here nonetheless). I've been spoiled, but it's why I moved from my native Texas in the first place...:hi:

[socialist_n_TN]

39. I don't know if we disagree all that much...........

As I said, I just constantly and consistently come down on the side of the average worker in any political argument without putting a label on it. If somebody ELSE calls it "socialist", I STILL don't argue the term. I continue to argue the POSITION. "Call it what you will, I'm on the side of the AVERAGE American. Who's side are YOU on?"

And it has been worse RE: socialist in TN. I grew up a socialist in AL. :)

[CTyankee]

41. Your argument is very good by staying with the "average American" theme.

What will continue is the "divide and conquer" strategy the repubs have so successfully used. Turn white against black, non-hispanic against hispanic, and, most recently, non-union member against union member ("they get more than you do"). They know that if they can keep us arguing over the crumbs then we can't organize against them. The LAST thing they want to happen is to have their minions identify with others who are out of jobs and losing their houses. Remember how they blamed the financial meltdown in Sept. 07 on "those" people who bought houses they "couldn't afford"? Well, "those" people were poor, often black or another minority group. It was just disgusting...and we've got to get out there and reveal them for what they are...

[white_wolf]

49. I'm glad im not the only one.

I was afraid I was the only socialist in TN glad to know I am in good company.

[Kahuna]

44. That's what it means to you. Too bad many other so-called progressives..

have other ideas than yours.

[Javaman]

40. It's the same thing as Liberal, but with out the media hysteria. nt

[Trajan]

8. Progressives fail because they do not have a loud voice ...

and they cannot seem to make their own argument ...

I get so disgusted when I have to argue with righties, and kick their ever lovin asses, while my own party puts on aprons and bakes the opposition a cake ..

There has been NO voice for our side that has been able to craft a rational argument that can carry the day ....

These battles were fought and WON 75 years ago, ... and now the Democrats have forgotten what it's like to fight for what they believe in ...

Hell ... They don't even try anymore ... They just look all confused when they lose ...

[Enthusiast]

22. It doesn't help that

nearly the entire media is in the tank for "conservative" ideology. Whatever conservative ideology is at the moment. It appears to be low taxes on the wealthy and protect corporate interests and the (Bush) status quo at all costs.

[DCBob]

11. Heck, "progressive" means building more Walmarts to some people..

Yes, we do have a communication/comprehension problem in this country.

[Enthusiast]

12. K&R

This is a discussion that we need to have. Why would so many unrecommend this? Maybe they aren't progressive?

[NNN0LHI]

16. Someone canceled out my Rec too

Not surprising on an anonymous political website.

Don

[mmonk]

19. Mine too. Immediately as I hit recommend, it showed my vote to me,

but it stayed at zero. Message control I presume by those that use the term but are conservative.

[Enthusiast]

20. Apparently someone out

there does not want us to know there is a problem with citizens understanding what progressive means. Looks like someone is very frightened they might find out.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. I don't see it as defining the label-- it's defining who we are...

and we have done a lousy job of it.

Take a look at the other guys-- they have easy slogans and easy answers, most of which boil down to keep on doing what you're doing and everything will be OK. Not hard to get disciples with that argument.

We, on the other hand, can't often agree on our goals, much less how to get there. It must be confusing, if not downright disgusting, to someone on the fence trying to figure out just what we want.

[zipplewrath]

14. "pragmatic"

That's another word with poor definition. One of the conflicts right now between the pragmatics and the principled is that the principled often dispute that an incremental improvements are being made by these supposed pragmatic choices. The assertion is that pragmatics aren't concerned so much with actually making an improvement, as they are in winning votes and passing legislation. DADT was sold as the pragmatic choice, only to find that it actually made things worse in many ways. Same with HCR, it was a collection of changes that potentially didn't advance the cause, and in the long run will actually make it harder to achieve the ultimate goal of universal health CARE.

The real problem is that it calls for a certain amount of clairvoyance to know whether a choice is truly pragmatic, or whether it is just some rationalization so that we feel better. It's the old problem about the "law of unintended consequences". When you compromise the wrong with the right, the bad with the ideal, what you can easily end up with is all of the unintended consequences, and little of the ideal. The trick is knowing before the fact whether you are making incremental improvements, or if you're just kidding yourself.

People "understand" progressivism as much as they do conservatism. If there is something truly odd, it is that progressive ideas, and ideals, have succeeded for decades, if not generations, in this country and are responsible for virtually everything people want and like about America. Conservatism has rarely been truly tried, most of what it espouses is rarely used, and when it does, it fails miserably. Yet we go through long periods where conservatism is "popular" as a label, even if those who thusly get elected don't actually govern that way.

The only real problem that progressivism has, even amongst many folks who are otherwise favorably inclined, is that it can easily generate the concern that someone, somewhere is getting something they don't deserve, and that "good guys" don't get theirs. That people who work hard and follow the rules will somehow get short changed, and the lazy and careless will "get off easy". That's an easy image to generate and an easy fear to promulgate

[NNN0LHI]

15. Something tells me that those people do not understand what the term "Progressive" means

Truer words have never been spoken.

>>>Even more curious is that 22% of the 12% of the population who self-identified as "Progressive" also self-identified as politically "Conservative". Something tells me that those people do not understand what the term "Progressive" means either so we can up the 54% to at least 66%. Two thirds of the American population do not know what "Progressive" means.<<<

Don

[kenny blankenship]

17. It is not necessary to label a bill "Progressive" in order to propose it in Congress

Usually when legislators propose legislation, they label or name the bill with a title that describes more or less the opposite of what the bill really does. You could simply give progressive legislation a neutral title or name it after some person who would have benefited from the bill eg, the Lily Ledbetter Act. You don't have to call it, or yourself, "Progressive" before passing it. Thought you might like to know about that. You're Welcome.

[mmonk]

18. It has been redefined by those that aren't.

By those that claim it to escape the word liberal and by those that want to link it with things it is not.

[zipplewrath]

27. Not around here

I mean, yes I occassionally see someone who seems to be using the progressive label to avoid the liberal label. And there are some who occassionally confuse "progressive" with "progress". But generally I think the progressive label gets used appropriately. Most of the argument seems to be over just how progressive something or someone has to be before the label can be used. There is also some confusion because liberal goals and progressive goals have much in common, even if they come from different inspirations.

[mmonk]

28. It mainly comes from those that know that many who use the label

in D.C. have been attacking progressive milestones, programs, and legislation. It has been a word for cowardly politicians to hide behind dishonestly.

[Enthusiast]

21. Why would anyone unrecommend this thread?

Damn! Apparently there are a bunch of Republicans registered on DU. We need to get this thread ramped up. Someone is going to a lot of effort to suppress it.

[MineralMan]

23. I'm not sure that there is a good definition for "Progressive."

It's used to describe many, many thing...even down to the desire that Democrats lose elections in 2010. When Progressivism leads to Republican control of Congress, then I have to question its usefulness.

I'm a Liberal Democrat. That is plenty specific for me.

[babylonsister]

24. Nice job, Steve. Rec'd. nt

[ismnotwasm]

25. Well loosely,

(Based on Something I read Somewhere)I think Progressive means willing and positive change; Conservative as traditional and static. But when I try to define 'positive change' and place it up against 'traditional' for instance, it Immediately creates not only a definition problem, but a polarizing one with a judgment value. So while I could parse it out, I think you're right, we have a definition and clear cut goals problem.

[ThomThom]

30. People can be at different places on the liberal to conservative

spectrum depending on what the issue is under discussion. Some people can be progressive on gay rights and drug laws and also be conservative on financial matters. I personally am very progressive on social issues but think going back to a time when real conservative positions were the guild in money matters. I think all these new financial vehicles are very bad for finance and are not conservative. Hedge funds, default swaps and all this day trading should be outlawed in favor of more conservative long term investment.
But I really don't think people know what a conservative or progressive point of view would be. The rhetoric is so intense and a lot of people are confused about where their own positions fall on the spectrum..

[socialist_n_TN]

32. I don't have too much of an argument with the

majority of this post, but there is one thing that I WILL mention. I used to call myself ideologically socialist, politically pragmatic. As an example, I was for Kerry in the runup to '04 because I thought he would be more "electable" than Dean although Dean held positions closer to my ideological core. The electability issue was "pragmatic".

Here's the problem in '10 as I see it. The "pragmatics" don't even want REAL leftist positions in the discussion. I don't CARE if there's not a snowball's chance in Hell of the leftist position being enacted, it should at LEAST be discussed. Hard left POSITIONS would probably be pretty popular, but you'll never know if they're not even MENTIONED. IOW, I can live with pragmatic incrementalism if leftist views are at least out there being discussed.

To sum it up, a compromise between the political center, the right, and the FAR right will always be the "right" position. I wonder what the compromise position between the left, the center, and the right would be? We don't really know because we haven't seen that compromise effected yet BECAUSE NO LEFTIST POSITIONS HAVE BEEN EVEN TALKED ABOUT.

[Romulox]

35. "Progressive" is a phoney-baloney, triangulated word.

In practice, it tends to mean "center-right", especially among people who consistently remind us of their status as "progressives" (I am NOT referring to the OP here!)

Frequently, you'll read/hear stuff like: "As a progressive, I would support..." <insert regressive tax to pay for endless war, or something similar.> I am almost convinced that there is a concerted effort amongst the Rahm-ites to appropriate the term.

[reformist2]

36. No it's not. It's a perfectly good word.

It also has a 100+ year pedigree in the history books. It's a word worth defending against these know-nothing types like Beck.

[Romulox]

38. Right, and "liberal" means something like "libertarian" in historical context.

In USA, 2010, "liberal" means "left", "progressive" means "triangulated centrist."

Obama is a "progressive" for example. He is NOT a "liberal". :hi:

[stevenleser]

42. Short and long answer of how I define Progressivism

Short answer is as Wiki defines it:
The basic principles of progressivism are:

Social safety net - Those that work hard and play by the rules should receive a decent standard of living, as well as freedom, security, and opportunity.
Democracy - Minimize concentrations of political, corporate, and media power so that individuals have a stronger voice in their government. Publicly finance elections to reduce the influence of wealth in the political process. Improve public education, especially in civics and history so that more citizens can take part in the political process. Bring corporations under stakeholder control, not just stockholder control.

Role for government - Government provides public services that the private sector cannot or is not doing effectively, or ethically. Government should promote and, if possible, provide greater democracy, more freedom, a better environment, broader prosperity, better health, greater fulfillment in life, less violence, and the building and maintaining of public infrastructure.

Ethical business sector - In the course of making money by providing products and services, businesses should not adversely affect the public good, as defined by the above values.

Foreign policy - The same values governing domestic policy should apply to foreign policy whenever possible.
---------------------------------------

Long answer is contained, among other things, in this long diary of mine here http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=1992

[Gidney N Cloyd]

47. I think that nails the traditional & historic definition-- the one they taught us in school

...back when they still taught us such things-- I don't know if kids today can still open their 'soc' texts and find a chapter titled "The Progressive Era."

I've even occasionally heard conservatives refer to one of their harebrained ideas as being progressive-- they clearly don't know the historic meaning of the word. They just think it's any movement toward a goal. Including their fascist, inhumane goals.

It's a wonderful word that automatically gives us some high ground in sociological arguments and we really need to protect it.

[SunsetDreams]

43. K&R

will finish reading

[bobburgster]

45. I like your Pragmatic Progressive category.

I believe I'll add that to my growing list of identifying terms that go before and after my name. ;)

Seriously though, I do agree with the pragmatism of an an incremental approach. As much as people scream for change, too much too fast (plus opposition misinformation) scares the hell out of the majority of Americans. We need to keep good democratic leaders in power....keep the presidency for more then 8 years.....so we can improve, and add to, the laws that benefit all of us.

[LWolf]

46. I'm not a progressive, because that term is ambiguous.

It's meaning changes depending on who is using it. As this article demonstrates. Of course, to claim that one's own definition is the only correct meaning is kind of like staking out a religion or a denomination, lol.

Some use it to mean "liberal." Some to mean "extremely liberal." Some to mean "centrist," as in DLC/Progressive Policy Institute.

In reality, at it's core, "progressive" means to make progress. To move an agenda forward.

It doesn't have to be a liberal, or a Democratic, or a democratic, agenda. It just has to be an agenda for change that someone or a group works to make progress on.

Hence the ambiguity.

That ambiguity is why I'm not impressed by people labeling themselves, or others, "progressive." It's not a trustworthy credential. We don't all have the same agenda.

So I'm not a progressive. Until I come up with a better title, I'm a leftist. That's not completely accurate either, but it's without the ambiguity that "progressive" entails.

[quiet.american]

48. I get Pragmatic Progressive but it mirrors "Compassionate Conservative" too closely for comfort.

:)

Although I also consider myself to be a Pragmatic Progressive.

I'm in agreement with your premise; it is dismaying, yet not surprising, that the country doesn't know what progressivism/liberalism is. For that I blame the continually broadcast distortions of the usual crowd: Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and the national right-wing echo chamber of hate in general, which starts from the floor of the House and Senate (Foxx, Gohmert, Bunning, Barton, Bachmann, Boehner, McConnell, Sessions, King et al.) and spreads through the nation like a virulent disease.

Then, I blame Democrats. With Democrats being the Democratic leadership having a seeming congenital aversion to actually absorbing the counsel of George Lakoff (Don't Think of an Elephant) and learning not only how to frame debates with the GOP, but how to frame the goals/objectives of The Democratic Party -- although, I will say I do like the latest "Moving forward. Not back" - Democratic meme. It's refreshingly "un-wonk."

Going for broke on every piece of legislation is what I call the "leaping-a-tall-building-in-a-single-bound" wish list. I cannot subscribe to the idea that if the legislation doesn't go far enough, it's better to sit on one's hands and do nothing -- or worse yet, vote with the Republicans.

One thing that progressives seem to have in common is a compulsion to disempower ourselves and those representing us. Every time some piece of legislation comes up, we hear much public pre-aplogizing from our own -- "well, of course, it's far from perfect..."-- "of course, it's not as strong as it could be..." "Nobody's saying it's perfect...." -- during the HCR debate, I forget who said it, but someone said "For goodness sakes, Dems -- stop apologizing for the bill! Stand up for it, point out that you're the only ones doing anything about this mess, and tell the Republicans to get the hell out of the way!" -- or something like that.

That's an arch difference between us and Republicans. Democrats create and pass legislation that helps and empowers people, and are timid about it and apologize for it. Republicans sell shite sandwiches like they're porterhouse steaks and shamelessly boast about it.

As Obama said in quoting Lincoln, "I am not bound to be right, but I am bound to be true." I truly believe the current Democratic leadership operates from this point of view. They need to stop apologizing for it.