I’m not trying to debate political views – note the forum – I’m just wondering about the actual meaning of the word “progressive”. I’ve heard some liberal organizations, true majority action for example, use this term to refer to themselves or their agenda. But dictionary.com just gives me this:
plus a bunch of other definitions that don’t seem to apply. It seems from this definition that anyone who is advocating anything other than the status quo, whether liberal or conservative, could claim to be progressive.
So which is it? A new word for liberal (possibly in response to the fact that “liberal” seems to have negative connotations for many people)? Or just a word that means “people who think things should be better”?
Given the extreme subjectivity of the various labels, I’m not sure anyone is going to be able to give you a concrete answer. I’ll agree it seems to me that some people are starting to favor “progressive” as a means of escaping the vilification of “liberal” started in the 1980s. But since all of this is about semantics anyway, you can pretty much say the words are equal or not depending on how you feel at the time. My opinion, anyway.
It seems to me this is in keeping with traditional liberal thought which holds that the liberal way of thinking is more “evolved.” For example, people who previously held a conservative point of view on a certain subject but who have changed to a more liberal one are said to have “grown.” I think the word “progressive” has now come to mean pretty much the same thing. It’s a way of trying to portray conservative beliefs as being hidebound and backwards, and liberal beliefs as evolved and superior.
…While at the same time, a person can over time acquire increased knowledge and wisdom, and in “growing” wiser, “grow” more conservative in some views. Many have done this very thing, evolving and forsaking the foolhardiness of youth for more sensible and, in their opinion, superior views which speak to the common good (just as the liberals’ views, in their opinion, speak to the common good). This is certainly progressive growth in a real sense of the word too. So it seems that those who offered that the meaning of the term “progressive” is relative were on the mark.
Even the terms liberal and conservative seem to be misnomers. For example, the folks most passionate about conservation, conserving our natural resources, are often liberals. And those most passionate about preserving a more laissez-faire style of government, individual liberty, liberating people from tyranny, are often conservatives. These labels are losing their usefulness IMO.
Perhaps a little clarification is needed here in regard to my post. The question asked in the OP appears to be in relation to whether or not the word “progressive” is becoming a synonym for “liberal.”
Certain words become adopted to mean certain things, even though a literal definition would indicate otherwise. “Homophobe” is a frequently discussed case in point. These days, one does not have to be even remotely “phobic” in order to be called a homophobe. Instead, the term is used simply to describe anyone who opposes homosexuals and/or homosexuality.
While it is certainly true that “progression” can occur within any type of thinking, “progressive” in the case that the OP is referring to is, I believe, almost always applied to liberals and/or the liberal agenda.
Considering that people like Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton etc etc are regarded as liberals these days, progressive has come to mean people to the left of them, but not say Marxist of anarchist radicals.
There has been a rightward drift in American politics on the national stage, with the Democratic Party largely abandoning many of the old lefties (actually not really even all-that-lefty; there was a time when Truman advocated universal healthcare and Nixon started the EPA - imagine such a thing now!). I think that you see people like Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich using the label to differentiate themselves from Kerry, Clinton, Lieberman etc., which makes sense since they actually disagree with the DLC on more fundamentals than the neo-cons and neo-libs do between each other.
Even progressives aren’t “advanced” enough for some folks. Back when I was a regular reader of The Nation, columnist Alexander Cockburn found self-described progressives overly cautious, too conservative, and insufficiently dedicated to the advancement of left-wing causes. He used to refer to them dismissively as “the pwogwessives.”
Starving Artist: The question specifically said, “I’m not trying to debate political views – note the forum.” The way I read your posts, you’re spoiling for a fight.
Well, I’m sorry, cricetus, but I’m well aware of the forum and I don’t believe it’s accurate in the least to feel I’m spoiling for a fight. In fact, I’ve been trying to phrase things in such a way as to try to appear as neutral and factual as possible.
The OP, in effect, asked if the word “progressive” was becoming a synonym for liberal, and I have been trying to answer in the affirmative without making it into an argument. This is why I felt clarification was in order when I made my second post as hyjyljyj seemed to be trying to say I was in error as “progressive” could apply to either side. I replied as I did to indicate that while yes, the term “could” be applied to either side, in actual practice these days it is increasingly coming into use as a synonym for “liberal.”
How else should a person phrase it so that it doesn’t appear one is spoiling for a fight?
Or, are we only to present impotent 50/50 analyses on such questions lest we betray a particular political leaning…in which a case discussion on this board would quickly come to a halt. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and someone asks me if I think it’s a duck, I’m gonna say yes, it’s a duck, and explain why I think so. But that doesn’t mean I’m looking to argue with someone about it.
I hope this clears up any confusion as to my motives.
Artist: I am sorry if I misread the following comment. I do not think this is a benign and apolitical explanation of the word.
I think the word “progressive” has now come to mean pretty much the same thing. It’s a way of trying to portray conservative beliefs as being hidebound and backwards, and liberal beliefs as evolved and superior.
One never had to be afraid of homosexuals to gain the label of “homophobic”. The word’s only been around for 50 years or so and it’s meant pretty much the same thing from the beginning, encompassing aversion and disliking as well as fear. You’re basing your interpretation on a faulty understanding of the Latin / Greek root, which has led to many modern words with connotations of aversion, horror or dislike rather than mere fear. See other words with a similar etymology eg “xenophobia” (you’re not afraid of foriegners, you have an aversion to them) or “hydrophobia” (you’re not afraid of water, you merely have an aversion to it). The OED gives good information on this type of thing - there should be a copy at your local library.
I also think you are letting political concerns cloud your mind in the case of the word “progressive”. It seems to me to be the natural counterpart to the word “conservative”, far more accurate in its opposition than the word “liberal”. “Progressives” tend to be interested in social change, the adoption of what they see as modernised values at the expense of the old, “conservatives” tend to be interested in social stability or a return to older values. Does this strike you as a fair statement?
My understanding is simply that, because the Republican Party has largely succeeded in turning “liberal” into a smear word (thanks in part to Newt Gingrich’s list of inflammatory political terms), some left-leaning/Democrat/liberal folks have switched to using the term “progressive” as a synonym instead.
I did not intend it to be a benign and apolitical explanation, but neither was I trying to be incendiary. My comments have been based on my observation of how I’ve seen the word come into usage lately. But, as I said in my response to you, are we to now make sure we phrase everything in such a way as to ignore what may actually be the case in favor of the benign and apolotical?
But benign or not, you interpreted my comments to mean I was spoiling for a fight, which was not the case. You are certainly free to post your own observations or analysis of the word’s usage yourself if you disagree. It doesn’t mean we have to fight about it.
Thanks for the replies. Just to clarify, I’m not interested in why the word “progressive” means what it means. I don’t think it will be possible to get a factual answer to that question, as any discussion of people’s motivations in choosing that term is obviously speculative. (And if you’re speculating that the motive of people using this word is to manipulate public opinion – which some will feel isn’t exactly honest – then that’s probably going to land this in Great Debate territory pretty soon whether you mean it to or not.)
I just heard the word, and thought “Oh, so does progressive mean liberal now?” It seems pretty clear that some people are using it that way. I’m just wondering if the word is now widely understood to mean liberal, or not. Hopefully there’s a factual answer to that question.
In other words, if someone asked me “How would you characterize your political views?” and I said “I’m a progressive”, would they understand this to mean that I’m pretty far to the left? (Not that I would say that, even though I am fairly far to the left. I kind of like the phrase “bleeding heart.” :))
tim314, it does appear I’ve led the discussion astray from what you intended, inadvertently though it may have been. I apologize.
As to whether your telling someone you were a “progressive” would result in them thinking you far left in your politics, I would say no. I do think you’d be regarded as a liberal, but not necessarily “pretty far” to the left.
I hope this is more along the line of what you were looking for.
If you said to me that you were a progressive, I’d assume that you took the liberal or left-wing position on most social issues and thought of government as a useful tool of achieving such a social policy.
Thanks, and don’t worry about it. I actually opened that can of worms myself with an ill-advised parenthetical comment in my original post, namely
I probably should have stuck to asking “Does it mean liberal, extreme liberal, anyone who wants change, something else? Is this meaning widely understood?” I take it from your response that you take the term to be widely understood to mean a liberal of any degree.
