|
March 19, 2007
Progressivism is not a term with clear associations. In the late 19th/early 20th century Britain it describes a kind of Lib-Lab political orientation; in early 20th. century United States to refer to a somewhat managerialist philosophy of the state; in the mid/late 20th century by Communists to refer to movements and parties that while not socialist were nevertheless considered to be part of a broader coalition for change; and in the past few years in Australia to refer to what used to be called ‘The Third Way’.
Progressivism is popular in Australia and is often used in place of social liberal, which is conventionally seen as a decayed strand of liberalism. Liberalism has become associated with free markets + small government + personal freedom ----classical liberalism. A key problem is small government--a refusal to accept the reality of big government that does not involve central planning.
Today progressivism appears to mean having a commitment to social justice (fairness) at its heart. Broadly speaking, a socially just society is one where each has equal opportunity to fulfill his or her potential, in which the distribution of social and economic goods is fair and in which a fair distribution is understood to require high, though not necessarily complete equality.
Contemporary progressives see a flexible, open market economy supported by strong public services as the best means to achieving social justice, And, in common with the liberal tradition, modern progressivism aspires to a society that is also open – economically, intellectual and culturally – in which (aspirational) individuals and their families can progress on the basis of their aspirations and hard work, and are not held back by family background or circumstance. Open societies are confident, dynamic and liberal.
Is that a reasonable interpretation of progressivism? So is there such a beast as progressive liberalism with all that libertarian alliance with traditionalist conservatism (the CIS and IPA, which are broadly Hayekian institutions) around? I've never understood that alliance.
|
Most of the Auian blogosphere that calls itself the 'left' I would call progressive. I think I have called polemica progressive before rather than left.
I think the left/right descriptors are badly broken since market liberalism crushed the USSR. It also gives the appearance of their being a 50/50 split - which is untrue. Today it is more arguments within liberalism, which I consider the main doctrines being progressivism, republicanism, classic liberalism and libertarianism.
The competitors to those arguments in liberalism are conservatism, nationalism and big-staters which would probably be called socialists in years past.
I wish those in the Au blogosphere that self-identify as left would call themselves progressives instead. It would help isolate the non-liberal political movements as being in a minority as well.