« December Newsletter | Main | Communicating With the Public »

Progressive Etymology

Cross Posted On MyDD

Hello everyone--this is my first post here. I would like to open up a discussion on the history of ideological self-identification within the American left and center-left. Specifically, I would like to take a quick look at the history of the ideological moniker "progressive," in order to develop a better grasp of what we mean by the term, how it differs from liberalism, and how it connects our current political actions to a tradition of American leftism.

I'll start the discussion with how I understand the history of the term in an American political context:

  • 19th Century Roots. The term "progressive" first came into use in an American political context in the late 19th century. It was the ideological term many American leftists self-identified with, from women suffrage activists, to Teddy Roosevelt supporters, to backers of Robert LaFollette. At this time, "progressivism," was clearly distinct from "liberalism" in American political discourse. At the time, "liberalism" was a distinctly middle-class and American bourgeois view of a laissez-faire economic policies and (very) gradual movement toward universal suffrage. Progressivism was associated with the more forthright and hard-nosed suffrage and governmental accountability movements of the time, including the popular election of Senators, first wave feminism, and the implementation of ballot initiatives. Economically, it was vehemently anti-trust and pro-corporate regulation. In many ways, it is what we would now define as the differences between "neo-liberalism" and "progressivism."

  • The Flip. Until FDR, "progressive" was actually the most common term used to describe the mainstream of American leftism. In what can be considered an early example of triangulation, FDR instead chose to call himself a "liberal," thereby poaching some of Hoover's turf while also distancing himself from the left-wing label "progressive." FDR thus changed the meaning of both terms in American political discourse, as the "progressive" label was rendered fringe left-wing, and the "liberal" label was tied to the economic policies of the New Deal instead of the laissez-faire and corporatist policies. From what I understand, Hoover was so outraged over FDR calling himself a liberal during the 1932 campaign, that Hoover challenged FDR to a debate entirely over who was the true "liberal" in the race. It is also important to note that when former Vice President Henry Wallace broke from the Democratic Party in 1948, he took up the banner of the "progressive" party. After that debacle, people did not call themselves "progressive" for some time.

  • The 1990's revival. After nearly fifty years in the post-Wallace wilderness, the term "progressive" saw a revival in our political discourse in the 1990's primarily from two sources. First, "third way" triangulation types such as the DLC took to the term as a means to avoid being labeled as "liberal." Second, left-wing creative class types, at first primarily in the Bay Area, took to the term in order to disassociate themselves with the exiting "liberal" political infrastructure on both ideological and identity-based grounds. It must have been unpalatable for the wildly successful, and generally cutting edge, entrepreneurs of the Bay Area to self-associate with an ideological term that appeared to be old-fashioned and failing.

  • The New Big-Tent Term. Entering 2007, "progressive" appears to be the new and emerging "big-tent" term for the American center-left. The term is used just as comfortably by New Dem types as it is by the Democratic Party's left-wing. Whether or not this has drained it of any significant meaning is open to debate. Whether or not it still has any significant difference from the term "liberal" is also open to debate. It certainly appears to have morphed into something of an empty vessel term that an increasingly large segment, if not the majority, of the left and center-left political activist community feels comfortable self-identifying with. That is a good thing, because it allows us a sense of unity we lacked when many would call themselves moderate and many would call themselves liberal. However, it is difficult to tell what degree of resonance the term has outside of the universe of political activists. Pollsters like to use the same question for decades, and thus are not ready to start including the term "progressive" in ideological self-identification questions anytime soon.

Personally, I far prefer the term "progressive" to the term "liberal." Logically, "progressive" is more of a direct opposite of "conservative" (or "regressive") than is "liberal." I also don't identify with the ideological position the term "liberal" posits (basically, neo-liberalism) when used in an academic sense, and coming from academic background that means a lot to me. I also like the way it is able to unite Democratic activists, and how it ties in with many of the great American political actors of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

What detail can you add to this etymology? What mistakes did I make? I would like to get a better handle on how the term "progressive" is currently used, and has been used over time, within the context of American political discourse. Even if we cannot think of any other reason why this is important, if we are going to have a "progressive movement," it is probably a good idea to grasp what we mean by the term "progressive."


Comments (1)

Mary [TypeKey Profile Page]:

I've been somewhat ambivalent about using the term "progressive" because I've always understood my politics to be "liberal." However, this is a great post about how the terms have come to be and it looks like we've come full circle. Frankly, I like whatever term lets people know that our political goal is a shared goal of the greatest good for the greatest number of people (we're definitely not for the winner take all style of politics) and I also am much more comfortable with a terminology that expresses a pragmatic and less ideological approach to politics. I'm a firm believer that if one becomes too ideological, one loses the ability to find real solutions.

Very nice discussion, Chris.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

About

The Commonweal Institute is committed to advancing moderate and progressive principles through policy analysis, and strategic marketing and communication of ideas.

You can help!

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 3, 2007 12:19 PM.

The previous post in this blog was December Newsletter.

The next post in this blog is Communicating With the Public.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Terms of Use
© 2006 Commonweal Institute

Powered by Movable Type 3.33
Hosted by LivingDot