Progressive Living
What is Progressivism?
Whose Interests Does Progressivism Represent?
Progressivism is a political
movement that represents the interests of ordinary people in their roles
as taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents. To coin a
phrase, progressivism champions government "of the people, by the
people, for the people."Given this mission, one might expect all democracies to be made up predominantly of one or another Progressive parties. Unfortunately, this isn't the case.
Why Aren't All Democracies Progressive?
Economic elites emerge in every society and invariably seek to promote their own interests, all too often against those of taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents.
By definition, economic elites enjoy greater wealth, and therefore
influence, than the ordinary citizen, and they typically attempt to
exploit these advantages politically, using them as leverage to obtain
still greater wealth and influence.
And since the desire for wealth and power is rarely satisfied, there
tend to be recurring cycles of concentrated political and economic
power, together with the corruption that always attends these. One such
cycle of corruption was seen in the United States around the turn of the
20th century, culminating in the economic crash of 1929. At the turn of the 21st century, the US is in the midst of another.
Where Does Progressivism Fall on the Political Spectrum?
Progressives are typically portrayed in the corporate
mass media as being "far left," a characterization which is misleading.
It should never be forgotten that virtually the whole of the mass media
are owned by the ultrawealthy, and objective studies have shown, for
example, that corporate representatives outnumber labor representives in
the mass media by enormous margins (on the order of 27 to 1).
Thus, the impression that Progressives are "far left" arises largely because the elitist mass media
simplistically, and falsely, portrays American politics as being a
one-dimensional split between "liberals" and "conservatives." In fact,
American politics are far more complex, and can't be properly understood
unless we add (at least) one more dimension: elitism vs. populism. When
we do add this additional dimension, it becomes clearer that many
self-styled "conservatives" are in fact ultrawealthy economic elitists
who have little in common with cultural conservatives or
cultural liberals, and that their distance from the political center is
much greater by far than the distance of Progressives, whose views, when
accurately represented, are far more mainstream than those of virtually
any elitist. (See the linked diagram for the true political spectrum.)
Indeed, polls have shown that many of the most important Progressive
goals are endorsed by large majorities of the American populace on both
the left and the right (as high as 95%).
This misportrayal of
Progressivism has been intentionally cultivated because US economic
elites typically seek to exploit highly emotional "wedge" issues on
which cultural conservatives and cultural liberals differ most, so as to
elicit the political and economic support of cultural conservatives.
For this reason, it has become customary for pseudoconservative elitist
politicians to pose as strong backers of American values. Yet sadly,
when this type of individual is elected, cultural liberals and cultural
conservatives both lose out, and the most fundamental American values are undermined.
For example,
pseudoconservative elitist George Bush portrayed himself as a champion
of education. However, a general rule of thumb is that real political
priorities, as opposed to political posturing, can be judged by what a
president spends money on; and this president did nothing to increase
funding for education. Instead, he cut taxes (primarily among the
wealthy) that might have funded such increases, shifted remaining
spending to "defense," which benefitted conservative investors and
underwrote aggressive foreign policy adventures for the sake of large
corporations, and sent out his wife, and posed for photo opportunities
himself, so as to present himself as the champion he falsely claimed to
be. To choose another example, he talked a great deal about imaginary
jobs while millions of real American jobs were exported
to other countries, all to benefit his wealthy friends. He also talked
about the value and importance of hard work, even as he sought to strip
millions of Americans of overtime pay.
Few Americans would have
endorsed Bush's actual policies on these issues, and a great many
others, if they had been better informed concerning them, while few
Americans would find much to object to in the typical platform of
Progressive candidates.
Summary
In general Progressivism
stands most truly at the opposite pole from economic elitism, and has
enjoyed its greatest support and successes precisely when the injustice,
exploitation, arrogance, and greed of economic elites become
intolerable — to both liberals and conservatives alike.
Further Reading Concerning Progressivism
Our primary resource concerning Progressivism may be found here. For further details concerning Progressivism, we recommend The World of Hope: Progressives and the Struggle for an Ethical Public Life, by David B. Danbom. This study emphasizes the connection between Progressivism, core American values,
and the difficulties confronting attempts to bring those values to bear
on politics in the face of recalcitrant and corrupting business and
financial sectors.
(See also: class conflict, democracy, populism, plutocracy, oligarchy, globalization and the links below.)
"What an impressive crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."
George W. Bush speaking to the audience at an $800 a plate fundraiser.
|
|
 |