Defining Progressivism

As promised, let's start looking at what exactly it is that Canadian progressives should be striving for. I'll start by noting a few current theories which seem to have some useful points to contribute, but which on their own look to fall short of a fully satisfactory explanation.

First off, Paul Rosenberg offers a rough definition that may find particular appeal as a Conservative government takes a wrecking ball to the most reliable source of information about Canadians:

I think that the primary difference between conservatives and progressives is that:

Conservatives believe in tribally-shared narrative myths that comfort them in perpetuating a world of inequality, while

Progressives believe in a universalist, critical-empirical approach to creating a world that works for everyone.

One can say that Rosenberg's definition makes for a useful inversion of the comedic trope that reality has a liberal (progressive) bias: can we get anywhere in making that true by definition by framing progressivism as the desire for policy based on empirical fact?

Not surprisingly, Rosenberg himself recognizes that this division doesn't tell the whole story. But I'd go a step further and note that it leaves the most important work undone: the question of how to define "a world that works for everyone" has to be the most important step in discussing progressive values. And indeed one of the greatest failures of the past few decades seems to me to have been progressives' willingness to accept conservative-friendly definitions of overall goals based on the availability of simple measuring sticks (e.g. prosperity defined in terms of total GDP) that's driven public policy in the wrong direction.

Which segues nicely into Alex Himelfarb's initial post on the nature of progressivism:

(M)y sense nonetheless is that the notion of “progressive” does have meaning, if only a belief that government’s role is not just to stop bad things from happening or to correct them when they do, but to help make good thinks happen, to promote human dignity, solidarity in diversity, and equality of opportunity, and to help ordinary people manage change in the face of broad global forces we don’t control. Progressives also give greater focus to government’s role in “correcting” the market, particularly with respect to the environment and poverty, and generally harnessing the market for people’s well-being, and are internationalists in the pursuit of Canada’s interests and committed to fulfilling our responsibilities as global citizens.

Unfortunately, Himelfarb is probably dead on target in trying to describe how progressivism is perceived. But there are two problems with the definition as a matter of setting out durable progressive ideals.

First off, there's the acceptance of global market trends as primary and all other matters - including democratic government - as being merely a means of tinkering around the margins to mitigate its worst excesses. That strikes me as conceding far too much in theory to the notion that citizens lack power to chart their own course, both individually and collectively. But perhaps more importantly (particularly to the extent it's intended as a response to what is rather than a definition of what might be), Himelfarb's definition also seems to present a rather weak defence of government, and a nonexistent defence of other forces needed as a matter of political realism to counterbalance the massive corporate power that actually does exist.

Second, there's the incrementalist nature of Himelfarb's definition which leaves out any particular end goals. If the nature of progressivism is to be slightly more concerned with the environment, poverty and other issues than the alternative, what exactly do we hope to accomplish on those points? (And I consider this more than just a theoretical exercise: in order to actually inspire public support, I'd argue that we need to be able to set out a long-term vision as to where we want to end up, not limit ourselves to fighting defensively on the current political landscape.)

A third effort at framing the political ideal (and last one I'll deal with in this post) is that of George Lakoff, contrasting a "strict father" conservative worldview with a "nurturing mother" progressive one. And there isn't much doubt that Lakoff's language looks to be a useful tool in linking progressive ends to familiar concepts.

But while Lakoff's framing is valuable in putting together talking points to discuss progressive policies, it looks to fall somewhat short in defining what those policies ought to be.

Again, part of that stems from the lack of specificity in Lakoff's framework. "Nurturing" is as much a means as an end, and like Rosenberg's focus on empiricism Lakoff's frame leaves open the question of what ends we're supposed to be pursuing. But there's also some conflict between Lakoff's and Rosenberg's respective priorities where the former would seem to lose out to the latter in a way that illustrates the limits of the "nurturing" model where the state is concerned.

For example, while I'd think it can safely be said that progressives don't agree with the gratuitous incarceration of criminals where the cost to society outweighs the benefit in doing so, I'd think it's equally fair to say that we want our levels of law enforcement and punishment to be based on evidence as to how to balance the costs and benefits of incarceration, not an overarching principle of attachment to the convicted individual as might be associated with an actual "nurturing mother". In effect, even if we see "nurturing" as a plus generally, the state can't be expected to develop and administer the level of attachment with each of its citizens that a mother would with her child - and that limitation needs to be considered when we decide how far to take the theme in defining ourselves as progressives.

So if it isn't enough to classify progressives as skeptical, nurturing incrementalists, what more do we need to add or take away from that picture to get to the right definition? Stay tuned...