Progressive Divisions

Today’s progressives are different from the people that lived during The Progressive Era but we share much in common with our forebears. Consider this description:

Progressives did not agree on a single agenda. They disagreed vehemently in their attitudes toward such subjects as immigration restriction and prohibition of alcohol. They were a diverse lot that included Republicans and Democrats, Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, and urban and rural reformers. Women’s organizations stood at the forefront of the social reforms and policy innovations during the Progressive era…

…For the most part, Progressives were urban and college-educated, including journalists, academics, teachers, doctors, and nurses, as well as many business people.

Uniting these various reform movements stemmed from a preoccupation with the elimination of corruption and waste and an emphasis on efficiency, science, and professional expertise as the best ways to solve social problems. A book published in 1913, Benjamin Parker De Witt’s The Progressive Movement, argued that three tendencies underlay progressive reforms: the desire to eliminate political corruption, the impulse to make government more efficient and effective, and a belief that government should “relieve social and economic distress.” Progressives wanted to apply the techniques of systematization, rationalization, and bureaucratic administrative control developed by business to problems posed by the city and industry.

Today’s progressives, like the old ones, do not share a single agenda. We are still made up of liberal Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, and skewed toward the female gender. We are still dominated by the urban, the college-educated, and the professional ranks. What’s changed is mainly related to larger demographic and living-style changes that have occurred over the last century. For example, we’re less urban now because we have suburbs and exurbs that house hordes of college-educated professionals. Yet, our movement is more inclusive of urban and immigrant organizations because of the decline of machine politics and the rise of sophisticated community organizations in our cities. Many of our new immigrant communities are neither Christian nor Jewish, and progressives are increasingly secular in orientation (including toleration and the embrace of the Gay Community). The Hispanic population has exploded and trends heavily Democratic. And blacks now enjoy full voting and citizenship rights and form the backbone of the progressive movement.

Another difference is that the modern progressive movement is almost totally devoid of support from members of the Republican Party. The modern progressive movement can best be understood ideologically as a mixture of center-left Democrats, left and far-left Democrats, and elements of Greens and non-aligned far-left independents (whose participation is heavily dependent on mini-cycles and message/personality). Insofar as the new progressive movement involves Republicans, they are no longer Republicans. They have been driven out over the modern GOP’s social conservatism, opposition to science-based policy/efficient government, lack of respect for civil liberties, corruption, and/or their foreign adventurism.

The modern progressive movement is more diverse in every way from the prior one. It has more geographic scope, involves a wider array of ethnicities, races, and religions, and brings together rather than separating the urban community. And, yet, very few elected politicians in Washington represent progressive values as they are daily expressed in everything from the Blogosphere to black/Hispanic radio, to college newspapers. Our lack of representation actually unites us and helps keep some of our internal divisions hidden…at least, most of the time.

For, while progressives are united in opposing corruption and supporting good government in the interest of relieving social and economic distress, we have many differences. I often separate progressives into two subcategories: Academic Progressives and Urban Progressives. The reason I do this is to highlight our differences. Most people do not actually belong in just one camp, but life-experience counts for a lot.

In the broadest terms, Academic Progressives differ from Urban Progressives in the urgency and focus of their approach. Academics like to devise long-term strategies for ameliorating social ills. Perhaps because they like to develop positive slippery-slopes, they are always on the watch-out for negative slippery slopes. Academics are hyper-vigilant about separation of church and state (e.g., on school choice and faith-based charities), while Urban Progressives are more willing to accept any help they can get regardless of potential long-term consequences.

Because Urban Progressives work in their communities and face first-hand the day-to-day problems of the poor and dispossessed, they tend to have lower expectations (less idealistic) and focus on pragmatic solutions that solve problems in the very short-term. Urban Progressives might organize protests and petitions to keep the recreation centers and libraries open. Academic Progressives are more likely to explore ways to improve the stability of the city budget so that we don’t face cyclical pressure to close public pools and libraries.

There can be surprises, too. Urban Progressives are concerned about police brutality, racial profiling, the war on drugs, and the availability of guns. But they’re more concerned about crime and the lack of police protection against thugs in their neighborhoods. As a general matter, Urban Progressives are tougher on crime than Academic Progressives. They are more likely to see the necessity of gun ownership, for example, because the police cannot (or will not) protect them from home intrusion. They are less likely to oppose Stop and Frisk laws than Academics who are concerned with the slippery slope impact on civil liberties.

All these things are relative and averages, but there are real differences between progressives. Even something as simple as the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips from pirates can split progressives. Someone told me today that I’m a right-winger because I applaud the job our Navy SEALS did and have no sympathy for the three pirates who were killed in the process. And I am constantly reminded that a small but significant percentage of the Academic Progressive Left actually does fit the negative stereotypes (Blame America First) and distrusts power to such a degree that they could never actually wield it.

But we have entered a new progressive era and we will be increasing our political power on the Left for some time. We won’t agree on everything, but we’ll agree on enough to maintain a coherent and stable left-leaning governing majority on the Congressional level. Progressives that understand power and respect and desire power will do well. Progressives that do not understand, respect, or desire power will remain, by necessity, outside critiquers who always
insist they hold the only true progressive values.

Author: BooMan

Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.