I just discovered from The Nation that I’m definitely not a progressive:
Simply put, those who believe that a primary responsibility of government is to try to make the world a more just place—to help those with less power against those with a lot—are progressives.
I never heard such an idea before. Even for my Marxist friends, this is too much out there, I believe. (Please correct me if I’m wrong, Marxist friends.)
How progressive is this idea, though? When I think of a government whose PRIMARY goal is to bring something as vague as justice to the entire world, I immediately think of Bush Jr.’s rhetoric of wanting to make the whole planet “more free” because that is what his religion mandates. Does the true progressive favor interventionism?
And again, if this is the government’s most important role, then I guess the idea is that all domestic problems are put on a back burner while our government chases around the world for an elusive vision of universal justice? How progressive is that, exactly?
As for progressivism being about the desire to “help those with less power against those with a lot,” once again, the idea is too vague for me even to know if I support it or not. How do we measure power? Power in which areas? How can we help somebody AGAINST somebody else? This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me on the simplest level of grammar.
I happen to have a very literal mind that relies heavily on the dictionary meanings of words, so for me “progressive” means,
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters.
I believe that the world changes every second and human beings are in a constant process of transformation, which is a fantastic thing. This is why social relations, the laws, the customs, the ways of life should also be open to change and transformation. Since this is what I believe, I can’t imagine a single most important role of the government that would be set in stone once and for all.
What bothers me a lot is the substitution of a genuinely progressive discourse with this wishy-washy feel-good rhetoric that is, ultimately, completely meaningless. I have no idea how one can hope to achieve anything politically if one defines one’s own political movement in these vague but pretty terms of justice, freedom, less power, more power, the family values, the haves and the have nots, etc. Ask anybody whether they want justice and, irrespective of their political persuasion, they will tell you they do. The problem is that people define justice in very different ways.
I also find it annoying that progressives are buying into this Libertarian idea that the central conflict of politics is the role of the government. It is getting to the point where I want to scream every time I hear the word government. This substitution of what we believe with what figures of authority are likely or willing to do is both childish and impotent. Before we proceed to elect the officials who will do our will, we should first define what our will actually is. The articulation of one’s political credo should begin with one’s own convictions and one’s own role, not with what the authorities should do. Otherwise, we get what we are seeing in the political discourse that dominates this country these days, namely, a conflict between “Daddy is too strong and scary” and “Daddy is too weak and cheats on Mommy.”
The definition of progressivism I quoted at the beginning of this post is created along the model of “My politics consist of wanting somebody else to do something I’m too lazy even to define with any specificity.” If progressivism is truly about “advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform,” then it makes sense for progressives to start with changing, improving or reforming ourselves.
Clarissa's Blog 
It would not be so bad if “the world” would not be in this definition.
LikeLike
It would be better but I still hate it. One’s political convictions are about what somebody else’s primary role should be? That can’t be right. So all of our activism is that we vote and then do nothing else at all?
LikeLike
Since progressists are in love with the government, this would not be shocking. (I don’t like personally)
“That can’t be right. So all of our activism is that we vote and then do nothing else at all?”
Absolutely, progressists are in love with the government and the mediocracy, so this is normal for them.
LikeLike
Yes.
THIS!
A thousand times over!
I’ve been saying this for some time but it seems to be falling on deaf ears. I can’t stand those self-righteous, holier than thou types who criticize others for not voting, and yet they themselves think that all they have to do is put a little ‘X’ on a piece of paper every four or five years…and their job is done. Democracy is about a lot more than just voting. And some people choose not to vote…but engage in the democratic process in other ways. So be it.
LikeLike
“to help those with less power against those with a lot—are progressives.”
I have no problem with this part, but this would mean that progressives are against the government. So Anarchism would be the only progressivism.
LikeLike
There are crowds of MRAs who think that men are powerless in comparison to women and need to be “helped.” According to this definition, the government should be helping them “against” women who victimize them collectively.
LikeLike
MRAs should fight against discrimination (positive or negative) based on sex. But they will not do that because they hate women.
LikeLike
” How can we help somebody AGAINST somebody else? ”
Abortion for example.
LikeLike
I believe that if there is one issue that the government should stay out of completely, that issue is abortion.
LikeLike
So, the government should stop to pay for it?
LikeLike
“Ask anybody whether they want justice and, irrespective of their political persuasion, they will tell you they do.”
Women-haters don’t want justice. Corporate nazis don’t want justice. Governments are against justice by definition. Religious faggots are against justice.
LikeLike
“Women-haters don’t want justice. Corporate nazis don’t want justice. Governments are against justice by definition. Religious faggots are against justice.”
– But they SAY and really BELIEVE they do. This is the problem: we all have very different definitions of vague concepts like justice and freedom. You think they don’t want justice and they think you don’t. How will we decide whose justice is more just and whose freedom is more free?
LikeLike
“How will we decide whose justice is more just and whose freedom is more free?”
That’s one of the reasons why we should not let justice only in the hands of the powerful.
LikeLike
But actually, be progressive=voting for Democrats.
LikeLike
“I also find it annoying that progressives are buying into this Libertarian idea that the central conflict of politics is the role of the government. It is getting to the point where I want to scream every time I hear the word government. This substitution of what we believe with what figures of authority are likely or willing to do is both childish and impotent. Before we proceed to elect the officials who will do our will, we should first define what our will actually is. The articulation of one’s political credo should begin with one’s own convictions and one’s own role, not with what the authorities should do. Otherwise, we get what we are seeing in the political discourse that dominates this country these days, namely, a conflict between “Daddy is too strong and scary” and “Daddy is too weak and cheats on Mommy.”
Ideally, I’m probably an anti-statist but not because I think government is inherently bad or evil. It’s more about the types of scumbags that get elected more than anything else. Other than that, I am also of the opinion that for pragmatic purposes, democracy is the best form of government there is right now, even if it does come with its own disadvantages. It is also very easy to straw man someone else’s views about government or the types of politicians that are elected. One blog that has become one of my favorite sites is probably the blog of Jonathan Catalan. It’s more of an economic site, but a lot of the time, he raises some very interesting points and not just about economics either.
http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=4080
This post above is one of my favorites.
LikeLike
Great post.
LikeLike
Maturity in anything is very rare today because people like something glittering. They think that to embrace the glittering — good-sounding thing — is a sign of their great judgment and personal prowess. So, they leave behind what is substantive and disguised in darker colors. They must have what shines, for they want to shine, too. And they want the shiny material to be cheap. Very cheap. And to seem expensive.
LikeLike
Progressive for me means giving humanity the benefit of the doubt. Conservative and liberal both believe the rules of nature work well, namely that humans are incapable of handling their own liberty and they need a “Grand Inquisitor” as portrayed by Dostoevsky. They need carrots and sticks, bread and circus and nothing more. Progressives on the other hand are aware of the ways of nature but believe to a certain degree that people can be responsible on their own, and can overcome their nature. They believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt: allowing some traditional rules, beliefs, and laws to be changed or even dropped.
LikeLike
This is a very interesting definition. I really like it.
LikeLike