- comment
James Atticus Bowden - body
- Once again,what is the difference between a Liberal and a Progressive?
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Liberals are those who still stem from the old classical liberal theme. Government still does the same things, it's just a different question of who pays for them.
Progressives are an entirely different political philosophy altogether, much more European-style socialist in perspective.
Of course, the progressives are still trying to define themselves to some degree. But these are my very basic topine comparisons of the two.
- comment Conaway B. Haskins III
- body
- Liberals realize the a republican democracy and market capitalist system are fundamentally better than any other creation to date, but that balance is necessary to prevent the system from cannibalizing itself. They mostly disagree with conservatives on the methods and mechanisms of getting to that "more perfect Union" or "market equilibrium," but they don't question the entire system. Yesterday's liberal Democrats (JFK, FDR, etc) are today's maligned centrists (Lieberman, DLC, Blue Dogs, etc.).
Progressives are really time and place - movement - oriented. They respond to the issues of the day, and compose radical solutions that border on cultural revolutions.
This is an awkward (but somewhat apt) example, a liberal could support gay civil unions/marriage on the basis that it is an act of fundamental individual liberty. A progressive may advocate for a wholesale culture shift toward redefining marriage.
It's why the liberal ACLU can defend the Klan and work with former GOP Rep. Bob Barr - they're defenders of certain timeless principles.
It's similar to the libertarian vs. conservative debate on the Right.
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- Good analysis Conaway, one I would largely agree with from a perspective.
I've made the argument elsewhere that conservatives and liberals ultimately stem from the same classical liberal philosophy (that of Locke, Jefferson, Bacon, and ultimately stretching back to Grotius, More, and Aquinas).
Progressives are much more European in their viewpoint (or worse, Rawls and Rorty), whereas libertarians (pure libertarians) draw from Mill, Nozick, and other modern existentialist thinkers.
Conservativism -- the American version anyhow -- is a Hobbesian approach to the threat of communism. How does a classical liberal society compete against the monolith? America offered two answers, 1955 we offered conservativism (Kirk et al.) and during the 1960's, liberalism as we see it today.
How do they differ? In the way they answer the question of cohesion. Conservatives argued that a just society could make government more cohesive based on positivist ideals, while liberals saw the solution not in culture per se, but government making the society more robust. Socialism lite, in a crude sense.
Both are ultimately responses to socialism and the threat of the Soviet Union. Progressives and libertarians are radically different ways of approaching governance (though libertarians ultimately have a leg-up, as they are closer to the old classical liberalism our great-grandparents might have known). Libertarians aren't new, progressives today unfortunately are, and I would wholeheartedly agree that they are radical.
The liberal/progressive split in the Democratic Party is certainly parallel to the libertarian/conservative split in the GOP. It is my personal opinion that the closeness of political philosophy (i.e. liberals and conservatives being different branches of the same tree) that allows for decorum to mark American politics, whereas in Europe parliamentary politics creates much more friction. Wiemar Germany comes to mind.
I fear we will go back to the times when the parties are so radicalized that discourse becomes fruitless. It hasn't happened yet, but it could... which is why I have a vested interest in rooting for my erstwhile liberal friends when they take on progressives (Miller vs. Webb for instance).
- comment Charles
- body
- In the Zogby Internet polling, they lump Progressives with "very liberal". For what it's worth, I like Conaway's explanation better, although it doesn't quite sit right with me.
But I can't figure out why, or make it better, so for now, hat's off to you, C.H.
5 Comments:
Progressives are an entirely different political philosophy altogether, much more European-style socialist in perspective.
Of course, the progressives are still trying to define themselves to some degree. But these are my very basic topine comparisons of the two.
Progressives are really time and place - movement - oriented. They respond to the issues of the day, and compose radical solutions that border on cultural revolutions.
This is an awkward (but somewhat apt) example, a liberal could support gay civil unions/marriage on the basis that it is an act of fundamental individual liberty. A progressive may advocate for a wholesale culture shift toward redefining marriage.
It's why the liberal ACLU can defend the Klan and work with former GOP Rep. Bob Barr - they're defenders of certain timeless principles.
It's similar to the libertarian vs. conservative debate on the Right.
I've made the argument elsewhere that conservatives and liberals ultimately stem from the same classical liberal philosophy (that of Locke, Jefferson, Bacon, and ultimately stretching back to Grotius, More, and Aquinas).
Progressives are much more European in their viewpoint (or worse, Rawls and Rorty), whereas libertarians (pure libertarians) draw from Mill, Nozick, and other modern existentialist thinkers.
Conservativism -- the American version anyhow -- is a Hobbesian approach to the threat of communism. How does a classical liberal society compete against the monolith? America offered two answers, 1955 we offered conservativism (Kirk et al.) and during the 1960's, liberalism as we see it today.
How do they differ? In the way they answer the question of cohesion. Conservatives argued that a just society could make government more cohesive based on positivist ideals, while liberals saw the solution not in culture per se, but government making the society more robust. Socialism lite, in a crude sense.
Both are ultimately responses to socialism and the threat of the Soviet Union. Progressives and libertarians are radically different ways of approaching governance (though libertarians ultimately have a leg-up, as they are closer to the old classical liberalism our great-grandparents might have known). Libertarians aren't new, progressives today unfortunately are, and I would wholeheartedly agree that they are radical.
The liberal/progressive split in the Democratic Party is certainly parallel to the libertarian/conservative split in the GOP. It is my personal opinion that the closeness of political philosophy (i.e. liberals and conservatives being different branches of the same tree) that allows for decorum to mark American politics, whereas in Europe parliamentary politics creates much more friction. Wiemar Germany comes to mind.
I fear we will go back to the times when the parties are so radicalized that discourse becomes fruitless. It hasn't happened yet, but it could... which is why I have a vested interest in rooting for my erstwhile liberal friends when they take on progressives (Miller vs. Webb for instance).
But I can't figure out why, or make it better, so for now, hat's off to you, C.H.
Post a Comment
Home