Progressivism: An explication
Some of our beloved readers have taken exception to my use of the term "progressive" in describing Mayor Pat Morris and his allies. Some have suggested that the real "progressives" are on the other side ...
These are fair questions, and we love to respond directly to our readers' concerns when possible ...
Below, get a brief glimpse into what is meant by the term and to whom it applies (hint: It most certainly applies to former president and New York governor Teddy Roosevelt, pictured below) ...
Progressivism, like many political concepts, is an organic, changing phrase that takes on different meanings in the minds of different readers.
Progressivism, and by extension those we call progressives, have a distinctly American history, culture, social fabric and list of historical accomplishments.
The word owes its origins to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when a largely educated, middle-class movement arose in response to the excesses and abuses of corporate, industrial power. The aim was to build a system of government better equipped to deal with the complex modern world.
In short: A pre-industrial democratic government was outmoded in the world of industrial tycoons, of Carnegies and Rockefellers, and ordinary people realized the need for more assertive government - and more services - to strike a new balance.
Note this picture of socialist journalist Lincoln Steffens (far right) with progressive congressman Robert La Follette and labor leader Andrew Furuseth, a collaboration that highlights progressivism's early intertwining with strains of communism and socialism:
Notable progressives included Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who built reputations for confronting corporate power and social ills. Taft also fits in here, as do the muckraking journalists and novelists of the day who sought to expose ills, outrage their readership, and effect change.
The underlying theme here is the belief that capable, strong and accountable government could improve the world in which all Americans live. That drove Roosevelt's push to nationalize and preserve wilderness areas, bust JP Morgan's railroad trust and, during his 1912 race, push for such radical concepts as universal worker's rights, unemployment benefits and health insurance.
Today, progressivism owes its threads to this history, but the stitches are less easily definable.
But at its core, progressivism remains a belief in a representative government's duty to act as the public's representative and work effectively toward the betterment of the community. It's sort of an anti-laissez faire model, a rejection of the idea that societal problems should be left to be solved by "individual responsibility."
When Ronald Reagan (pictured above during a famous campaign speech in late 1980), the conservatives' answer to the liberal Franklin D. Roosevelt, famously said in the early 1980s that government isn't the solution to the problem, "government is the problem!", he was articulating the idealogical counterweight to progressivism (some would also argue that he signaled the death knell of 20th century American liberals' reign and ushered in the current conservative era).
Reagan in front of the Statue of Liberty again, this time circa late 1980s)
When Mayor Pat Morris talks about using a holistic bundle of government-led services to drive down crime in a community, he is walking in the progressive footprints of his predecessors. When Wendy McCammack, for instance, suggests that endemic crime and blight must ultimately be curbed by better parenting (ie. within the private sphere of the home), she is taking a very un-progressive approach.
I'm not saying progressivism is good or bad. I'm merely trying to articulate what it is, and how it differs from other political philosophies, most notably the brand of hands-off, limited government (except for strong policing/defense) conservatism that is at least equally popular in San Bernardino in 2007.
That said, Morris and his allies can be (roughly) chategorized in a "progressive" camp. When the mayor pushes for major government intervention into neighborhoods, he is being progressive. When he intervenes in the progress of downtown development, when he tries to push for certain projects and usher in development he finds desirable, he is being progressive.
When he seeks to raise taxes (Measure Z) to strengthen the government and build its personnel and apparatuses so it can do more, not less, in an attempt to improve residents' everyday lives, he is being progressive.
I hope this has been clarifying.
7 Comments
Leave a comment
About SB Now Blog
Andrew Edwards. E-mail Andrew here.
thank you! and well said.
Mr. Rogers,
Excellent historical analysis.
Since President Reagan discredited the "Liberal" doctrine of big government in the 1980's, "liberals" tried to repackage and remarket themselves by appropriating the "progressive" political label. Today, "progressivism" stands for higher taxes, increased reliance on failed government social programs, more "tolerance" for criminal behavior and a weaker national defense.
Progressivism = Socialism
Progressivism = Socialism
I totally agree. What a well-done description of current local issues in a historical context!!
One thing I think you should have mentioned is the difference between "progressives" and "liberals" and how and why liberals love to refer to themselves as the former.
Morris may be progressive, but he is also EXTREMELY liberal. He's the perfect example of the 1970s, liberal judge!
Within the narrow framework of definition that you have set forth, Morris is a progressive, in that he believes the infusion of a holistic package of government services can improve social conditions and thus eventually reduice crime.
Moreover, history clearly has demonstrated that such an assumption is, in general, on the mark. Where Morris goes astray, in a practical sense, is in his assumption that such an approach can succeed as a pilot project within a single community, when a number of other variables, such as state and national policies, plus the policies of surrounding communities are variables that shape the nature of his experiment, but are factors that neither he nor his community can control.
But in a wider classic sense (beyond your definition), Morris is hardly a progressive. Generally speaking, progressives of the Theodore Roosevelt-Robert LaFollette stripe Believed that, if properly enlightened, informed citizens would coordinate rational responses to social problems through collaborative interaction. As Morris has plainly demonstrated, he is not interested in collaborative interation with anyone whom he cannot dominate. (Like a banana republic dictator, he cannot even recruit a chief of staff whom he can trust without looking beyond his own immediate kinship circle.) His "my way or the highway" style of rule is hardly progressive, and its self destructiveness is rapidly rendering him politically irrelevant.
Cool article.
When I think of Morris I think of a 1970's "Berkley" liberal Judge. LiBeRaL! An enabler for the abyss of society. Mr Morris can you say ACCOUNTABILTY.
I just wish he would deal with the crime in the city like he promised. We can rebuild the downtown area...but what business wants to come to the crime capital of the world to set up shop?...what family wants to buy a home in our city when children aren't safe to play in their own yards? It seems to me, that you have to deal with the crime before you can do all of these progressive, liberal, enabling projects. Don't even get me started on Measure Z.
Wendy hit the nail on the head when she said our problems as a society are directly related to the breakdown of the family unit. The Carnegie report durring the Clinton administration supports this claim. At some point there needs to be an accountability for ones self. Jack Kennedy said, "If you are gonna have kids, you got to raise them right." Yes, parenting should be a priority to all who have children but here in San Bernardino it doesn't seem to be the norm. Furthermore, we reward hoochie mama baby factories to find another baby daddy so she can get more assistance from the working class. The sad part is, that is all that is expected from generation to generation because we are afraid to say enough and promote conservative values. As long as liberal Morris is Mayor, San Bernardino will be considered the arm pit of the state.