This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.
As a progressive, I'm often asked if there is a real difference between progressivism and liberalism, or if progressivism is merely a nicer-sounding term for the less popular L-word.
It's a fair question, considering that Democratic politicians regularly substitute "progressive" for "liberal" in news releases and speeches. Predictably, Republicans call their opponents' linguistic shift a craven branding maneuver, and frankly, they're right: Most Democrats make no distinction between the two words.
However, that doesn't mean the ideologies are synonymous. In fact, if the last decade of economic policy proves anything, it is that even as the word "progressive" is now ubiquitous, a perverted form of liberalism has almost completely snuffed out genuine progressivism.
Some background: Economic liberalism has typically focused on using the government's treasury as a means to ends, whether those ends are better healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid), stronger job growth (tax credits) or more robust export businesses (corporate subsidies). The idea is that taxpayer dollars can help individuals afford bare necessities and entice institutions to support the common good.
Economic progressivism, by contrast, has historically trumpeted the government fiat as the best instrument of social change -- think food safety, minimum wage and labor laws, and also post-Depression financial rules and enforcement agencies. Progressivism's central theory is that government, as the nation's supreme authority, can set parameters channeling capitalism's profit motive into societal priorities -- and preventing that profit motive from spinning out of control.
Looked at this way, liberalism and progressivism once operated in tandem. But regardless of which of the two economic ideologies you particularly favor (if either), three of the recent epoch's most far-reaching initiatives make clear the former now dominates both parties.
It started in 2003 with Republicans' Medicare drug benefit. Rather than go the progressive route -- imposing price controls, permitting government to negotiate lower bulk prices or letting wholesalers buy drugs at cheaper foreign prices -- the bill hinged on taxpayer money. Essentially, the government gave $1.2 trillion to the pharmaceutical industry in exchange for the industry providing medicines to seniors.
This became the bank bailout's model. Instead of first responding to the Wall Street crisis with progressive, New Deal-style regulations, Presidents Bush and Obama opted for liberal bribe theory: Specifically, they bet that giving banks trillions in loans, subsidies and guarantees would convince financial institutions to halt their riskiest behavior and start lending to small businesses again.
Now, it's healthcare.
The Democratic bill began as a hybrid. On the liberal side, it proposed growing Medicaid and trading subsidies to insurance companies for expanded coverage. On the progressive side, the original legislation included measures like premium regulation and a government-run insurer to compete with private firms. But save for a few fairly weak consumer protections, the final bill was stripped of most major progressive provisions. Ultimately, the celebrated "reform" is based primarily on a liberal wager that Medicaid plus subsidies will equal universal healthcare.
Which, for a short time, may be the case.
The trouble, though, is what the Washington Post reports: "The [subsidies'] buying power could erode over time in an era of rapid medical inflation."
There, of course, is the rub.
Liberalism sans progressivism -- i.e., public money sans regulation -- turns the Treasury into an unlimited gift card for whichever private interests are being sponsored.
In this era of corporate-tethered lawmakers, such public-to-private transfers often face less congressional opposition than progressivism's inherent confrontations. But the inevitable result is taxpayers being bilked, as subsidized industries freely raise prices and continue engaging in destructive behavior, knowing government and/or captive consumers will keep financing the binge.
So to answer the question -- is there a difference between liberalism and progressivism? Yes -- and without both, we end up paying a steep price.
Hillary Clinton waves to a crowd of commoners at the New York Stock Exchange. (AP)
Liberals are very agitated about Burger King’s decision to acquire Canadian coffee chain Tim Hortons in a move that will allow the company to “invert” its headquarters to Canada and pay a significantly lower tax rate.
Their first instinct was to accuse the “unpatriotic” burger chain of treason. However, conflicting emotions ensued once they learned that “good” billionaire Warren Buffett helped financed the deal.
It doesn’t really matter though, does it? Because Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee in 2016, andanyone who thinks she is going to coddle Corporate America any less than the Obama administration has over the years is kidding themselves.
Many liberals seem to have accepted this reality, and are embracing corporations in increasingly shameless fashion. The left-wing juiceboxers at Vox Dot Com, for example, are sponsored by tax-evading corporate villain General Electric, and have recently started running sponsored content from Goldman Sachs. Yes, you read that right.
It has been a sight to behold, and will only get worse once Hillary Clinton announces her presidential bid. Liberals have already rushed to defend her voracious greed, which is fueled by six-figure speaking gigs for Goldman Sachs executives and publicly funded universities.
Kind of a shame, isn’t it? To think that a bunch of hippies squatting in a park in 2011 (Occupy Wall Street) failed to have any substantive effect on the political culture of mainstream liberalism.
Ironically, Republicans are the ones who seemed to have assumed the more anti-corporation stance of late. The GOP has not only managed to block a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the face of heavy lobbying from big business, the party is also taking on the Export-Import Bank, which helps funnel taxpayer subsidies to giant companies such as Boeing. Maybe that explains why corporate PACs are favoring Democratic Senate candidates over Republicans by a ratio of three to one in 2014.
