Are there inherent contradictions in the Progressive Movement? I got this in an email this morning (sorry, I can’t reveal the source).
Many other folks who describe themselves as progressives hold an admixture of views that, if not related in any obvious way, often seem to go together. In modern usage, it’s “progressive” to be for gay marriage and against restrictions on divorce; for the troops and against the war; for multi-culturalism and against patriarchy, for bans on “hate” speech” and against encroachments on “free speech,” for tobacco smoking bans and against the criminalization of marijuana; for stem cell research and against the use of lab animals, for science that warns of the dangers of global warming, and against science that questions the dangers of nuclear power, for tolerance but intolerant of intolerance, etc.
I think I reside, ideologically, firmly on the the left-wing of the Democratic Party, but I don’t share some of these ‘contradictions’. For example, I have serious qualms about most Hate Crimes legislation, I oppose smoking bans, I am not much of an animal rights advocate, I am not anti-nuclear energy, and my ‘intolerance of intolerance’ doesn’t extend to supporting legislation that restricts free speech. I also see no contradiction in supporting gay marriage and opposing restrictions on divorce, as I see both as matters of personal liberty. Likewise, opposing the war and supporting the troops is not a contradiction in my mind because the troops will benefit more from an end to the occupation of Iraq than they will by political support for their mission. And I can respect a soldier’s adherence to their sense of duty even when I strongly oppose what they have been ordered to do (with obvious limits).
In some senses, I have quibbles with the above characterization of the Progressive Movement, but I recognize that many on the left do not share my more libertarian ideology. If I have a vision of what political leadership should do, it is to secure the liberty of our citizens. You don’t have liberty if you can’t get a job, if you can’t engage in commerce, if you have poor health, or if the government defines who you can love, who can adopt children, or otherwise restricts your choices. The more education you have, the more choices you have, and the more choices you have, the more liberty you have.
Proper leadership involves striking the correct balance between empowerment and getting out of the way. You have to protect people from environmental hazards at the same time that you preserve the widest possible scope for personal freedom.
This libertarian strain is strong among New Progressives, but it is mostly lacking in the old hard-line left that came of age in the 1950’s-1960’s.
Anyway, I mostly wrote this to get feedback, not to do some kind of treatise on what I believe. What do you think defines the New Progressive Movement from an ideological standpoint?
