# Political self-identification: "Progressive" vs. "Liberal" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 26, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-self-identification-progressive-vs-liberal/256943 "2004-07-26T16:28:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Genghis\_Bob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/45deac/32.png) [@Genghis\_Bob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Genghis_Bob)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-self-identification-progressive-vs-liberal/256943/1 "2004-07-26T16:28:39Z")
Help me place “Progressive” on the continuum of American politics. What are the differences between “Progressives” and “Liberals?” What philosophical or policy stances distinguish one from the other? And, in which areas are they similar, or at least in agreement? Once I get this one cleared up in my mind, I’m gonna be asking about this whole “Conservative”/“Neo-Con” thing, so be ready! ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2004, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-self-identification-progressive-vs-liberal/256943/2 "2004-07-26T21:13:41Z")
Well, that’s a bit of an impossible question, given the variety of political opinions, and the inherent vagueness of everday language. In the U.S. there’s no formal ‘Liberal’ organization that defines what the word means, nor is there a single formal ‘Progressive’ organization that sets out defined policies and stances. As far as general use goes, progressive and liberal are generally used to mean more or less the same thing. If I had to draw a distinction, I’d say progressive is generally more left wing than liberal (but not as left-wing as radical), but not everybody is drawing that fine distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Kilt-wearin\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kilt-wearin\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kilt-wearin_man)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2004, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-self-identification-progressive-vs-liberal/256943/3 "2004-07-26T21:18:28Z")
From what I’ve seen (as one who doesn’t identify himself as either and who is generally disgusted with politics in general, especially in this election year…), it seems that “progressive” is a lablel one uses on oneself, while “liberal” is what the other side calls you, often with a sneer. Both are to the left. I could be wrong on specific usage. I lean more to the right myself, when I bother to see where my opinions register on the scale. As for the “conservative” and “neo-con” label thing, beats me. I’ve been wondering that myself. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2004, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-self-identification-progressive-vs-liberal/256943/4 "2004-07-26T21:36:44Z")
The word “liberal” has been polluted by the Republican party for the last 20-some-odd years (must notably from Newt Gingrich’s list of political attack words), to the point where its primary use in American politics today is as a slur. To get away from the negative connotations of the word, then, “Progressive” is now being used as an alternative, though I suspect that will only last until it, too, gets sufficiently smeared. “Conservative” and “neo-con”, however, are another kettle o’ fish. While “conservative” remains the same as it has been for the last thirty years, the neo-conservative movement is a relatively recent growth, whose views can be cynically summarized as “The US is the world’s sole superpower, so we can do whatever we want and everyone else can get bent.” 😉 For a non-cynical interpretation of neo-conservatism, you can try [The Project For A New American Century.](http://www.newamericancentury.org/) You’ll note some very familiar names among its list of members… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2004, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-self-identification-progressive-vs-liberal/256943/5 "2004-07-26T22:34:31Z")
I started a GD thread not long ago on a related question: “What is the difference between a liberal and a leftist?” – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=262432](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=262432) In a current GD thread of mine – “What are the chances for a broad party of American leftists and progressives?” – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=267521](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=267521) – the following dialogue took place: > [@John Mace](#): > > I think I know what a leftist is, but what’s a progressive, and how does that differ from a leftist? Can anyone do that in 50 words or less? > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Not in \<50 words, but if you’ll be patient I’ll give it a shot. > > \ > > The way I define it, a “leftist” is, not necessarily a socialist, but somebody who is genuinely concerned with reversing the drastic and increasing wealth inequality in this country (greater than that in any other industrialized nation) and with breaking the disproportionate political power of the rich, the major corporations and the big-business interests. Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich and Jim Hightower meet that description, and I’ve never heard anybody call any of them a socialist. (I’ve heard Michael Moore called a socialist, but that was on Fox News, which is neither here nor there.) Kerry and Dean do not meet that description. > > The word “progressive” is generally used, nowadays, as a broader term that implicitly includes “leftists” as defined above, but also labor supporters, environmentalists, feminists, etc. Basically, everybody I listed in the OP, plus the Deaniac wing of the Democratic Party and everybody to its left. Anybody whose views are a bit too lefty to be described as merely “liberal.” > > So, in my view (envision a Venn diagram here): Kerry is a liberal but not a progressive or a leftist. Dean is a liberal and a progressive but not a leftist. Kucinich, Nader, and Hightower are progressives and leftists. None of them are socialists; all socialists are leftists, all are progressives, and most (not all) are liberals. That’s how I understand and use these terms, anyway; I’m open to hearing about other views. > > But the word “progressive” was not always used that way. In the early 20th Century the capital-P Progressives (so call, I suppose, because they supported a progressive income tax) were a primarily middle-class and upper-class “good government” movement (Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party was a Progressive group). Their conception of “good government” mean a technocratic and professionalized approach that purported to transcend ideology, faction and class interests – a Progressive slogan was, “There is no Democratic or Republican way to pave a street.” The city-manager form of government, and nonpartisan elections for municipal offices, are Progressive legacies. Progressives also had a puritanical disdain for the dealmaking, backscratching and logrolling of conventional legislative politics (which, admittedly, in their time mostly meant highly corrupt urban machine politics). “Direct democracy” reforms such as the ballot initiative, referendum, and recall election are also Progressive legacies. (At this point I can hear some Californian Dopers shouting, "Yeah, thanks, Progressives! Thanks a **lot!"** ) Then in 1948 Henry Wallace ran for president as the candidate of a new and more left-leaning Progressive Party, and I guess the word’s been used that way ever since. The old Progressive movement being long defunct, nobody seems to mind left-liberals appropriating the name; and we do support a progressive income tax, just for starters. > > From the Encarta: > > > [@](#): > > > > INTRODUCTION > > > > Progressive Party (United States), name of three distinct political parties in United States history. > > > > II THE BULL MOOSE PARTY > > > > The first Progressive Party, known colloquially as the Bull Moose Party, was founded after a bitter fight for the Republican presidential nomination among the incumbent president William H. Taft, the Wisconsin senator Robert M. La Follette (leader of the Republican Party’s progressive “insurgents”), and the former president Theodore Roosevelt. At the Republican convention in June 1912, most La Follette supporters switched to Roosevelt, but the nomination went to Taft. Roosevelt, incensed at Taft’s conservative bent, then formed the Progressive Party. Many liberal Republicans bolted to the new party, which in August 1912 nominated Roosevelt for president and the California governor Hiram W. Johnson for vice president. Condemning Taft as unduly responsive to big business, the Progressives advocated primary elections, prohibition of child labor, woman suffrage, national social insurance, and restrictions on the use of injunctions in labor disputes. Although the Progressives greatly outpolled the Republicans in the election, the net result was a victory for the Democratic candidate, Woodrow Wilson. Most Progressives soon rejoined the Republican Party, and the Progressive Party died out in 1917. > > > > III LEAGUE FOR PROGRESSIVE POLITICAL ACTION > > > > In 1924 a liberal coalition, frustrated by conservative domination of both major parties, formed the League for Progressive Political Action, popularly called the Progressive Party. Nominating Senator La Follette for president and Montana Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler for vice president, the party, which also drew support from the Socialists, advocated government ownership of public utilities and labor reforms such as the right to collective bargaining. Although he was overwhelmingly defeated by the Republican candidate, the incumbent president Calvin Coolidge, La Follette polled more than 4.8 million votes, about 16.5 percent of the total ballots cast, and 13 electoral votes. > > > > IV THE ELECTION OF 1948 > > > > A third Progressive Party was formed in 1948 by dissident Democrats, most of whom had been prominent in developing the New Deal program of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. With the former vice president Henry A. Wallace and the former undersecretary of agriculture Rexford G. Tugwell among their leaders, the Progressives nominated Wallace for president and Idaho Democratic senator Glen H. Taylor for vice president. Charging that both major parties advocated policies that would lead to economic crisis at home and war with the USSR abroad, the party favored high-level international conferences to lessen tension with the USSR. At home they advocated full constitutional rights for all minority and political groups, federal curbs on monopolies, anti-inflation measures such as price and rent controls, and repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act. When the U.S. Communist Party supported the Progressives, the Democrats and Republicans attacked them as Communist-dominated. The Progressives maintained their right to support from any group backing them. Defeated by the Democrats under the incumbent president Harry S. Truman, the Progressives received more than 1 million popular votes, but after 1948 they no longer played a role in national politics. > > > > © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. > > Mucn more than 50 words, but I hope it clears things up for you, to the extent that is possible when we’re discussing political ideologies. > > BTW: Although the old Progressive movement as such is dead, the Progressive (in the old sense of the term) tradition still appears to survive. One reason the Reform Party didn’t survive (apart from Ross Perot’s control-freak megalomania, and his refusal to let the party evolve into anything beyond a vehicle for his own candidacies) was that it was a coalition party of incoherent ideology – a coalition of modern Progressives, like John Anderson, and nativist-populist paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan. The one group’s most important issue was fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget; the other was mainly concerned with immigration. After Reform broke up, Anderson helped found a new and more purely Progressive group, the Independence Party ([http://www.mnip.org/](http://www.mnip.org/)), which elected Jesse Ventura as governor of Minnesota but has as yet built little presence in any other state.