« My favorite things Sicily | Main | Assorted links »
What is progressivism?
Arnold Kling asks this question, so I thought I'd try a stab at it, but trying to cast progressivism in the best possible light. Of course my answer is not exclusive to Arnold's, as we might both be right about the elephant. From an outsider's perspective, here is my take on what progressives believe or perhaps should believe:
1. There exists a better way and that is shown by the very successful polities of northwestern Europe and near-Europe. We know that way can work, even if it is sometimes hard to implement.
2. Progressive policies offer more scope for individualism and some kinds of freedom. Greater security gives people a greater chance to develop themselves as individuals in important spheres of life, not just money-making and risk protection and winning relative status games.
3. Determinism holds and tales of capitalist meritocracy are an illusion, to be kept only insofar as they are useful.
4. The needs of the neediest ought to be our top priority, as variations in the well-being of other individuals are usually small by comparison, at least in the United States.
5. U.S. policy is not generally controlled by egalitarian interests, So it is doing "God's work" to push for such an egalitarian emphasis at the margin. At the very least it will improve the quality of discourse, even if the U.S. never actually arrives in "progressive-land."
6. Limiting inequality will do more to check bad governance than will the quixotic libertarian attempt to limit the size of government.
7. Skepticism about the public sector is by no means altogether unwarranted, yet true redistributive programs are possible and they can work and be politically popular; we even have some here in the United States.
8. We should support free trade, more immigration, and more foreign aid, but the nation-state will remain the fundamental locus for redistribution. That means helping the poor at home more than abroad; a decision to do otherwise would destroy political equilibrium and make everyone worse off.
9. State and local governments are fundamentally to be mistrusted (recall segregation) and thus we should transfer more power to the federal government, which tends to be bluntly and grossly egalitarian, when it manages to be egalitarian at all. That is OK.
10. The United States has to struggle mightily to meet the progressive standards of western Europe and we should not equate the two regions in terms of their operation or capabilities. Yet there is an alternative strand in American history, if not always a dominant one, showing that progressive change is possible. Think Upton Sinclair and Martin Luther King and the organizers of early labor unions.
11. The evidence on economic growth is murky and so it is not clear that doing any of this carries much of a penalty in terms of future growth. In some regards it will enhance the especially beneficial sides of economic growth, even if it does not boost growth overall.
In due time I'll be writing more systematically about why those views are not, on the whole, my own. But not today!
It would be interesting to see a progressive try to sum up an intelligent version of libertarianism.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 7, 2009 at 06:40 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
It would be interesting to see a progressive try to sum up an intelligent version of libertarianism.
Yes please!
Posted by: C at Aug 7, 2009 7:19:53 AM
Very interesting undertaking. I think the treatment of the nation state in your point #8 understates the importance of transnational institutions to many (most?) American progressives; it's quite right to focus on enthusiasm for Europe, but there's also a commitment to build and strengthen structures like the UN, in part as a way to bring the US within a framework of international law which for practical purposes means the policies of the EU.
Posted by: Jeff Peterson at Aug 7, 2009 7:40:59 AM
Thank you for a contribution based purely on the arguments in a public debate which is often somewhat defined by personal slurs. It's appreciated.
Posted by: jaduncan at Aug 7, 2009 7:42:47 AM
I really like this post - trying to "sum up an intelligent version" of a POV you generally disagree with seems like it could be an effective "objectivity exercise", largely freeing the world of strawmen and slander. However, anything "intelligent" takes time and effort, and it's easier to just turn on AM radio and bask in the silliness.
Posted by: William at Aug 7, 2009 7:45:04 AM
I think your ideas are good and basically true, it does seem that you're answering a different question than Arnold.
He is trying to find (at least in his first two posts in this thread here and here) a fundamental core to the progressive (and libertarian and conservative) position(s). You are describing the (modern) results of the progressive position. I think that from the conclusions you bring, you might be able to backwards-wise arrive at a core, though.
Indeed, I'm wrote an direct answer to Arnold's question about cores...Casting progressivism in what I (libertarian) think is a fair and good light here. And I believe that it would comport well with your description here.
Posted by: aretae at Aug 7, 2009 7:47:50 AM
Very little of what you wrote here describes progressivism. At best, this is just a summary of leftist Democratic principles, especially the weird emphasis on Northern Europe. The Progressives were a real party in the US, mostly drawn from the ranks of Republicans in the 1920s and 1930s. See, for instance, the work of Peter Levine, especially his _The New Progressive Era_. Also think of Louis Brandeis's _The Curse of Bigness_.
Specifically, #1, #9, #10, and #11 seem like anti-progressive tenets, and much of your focus on the least-advantaged and the purported benefits/harms of markets and capitalism seems overblown. Progressives are much more interested in local civic institutions, participatory democratic practice, and taking advantages of innovative regulatory mechanisms to preserve the relevance of citizen participation in the political process, not the distribution of resources, but of power. See, for instance, William James' use of insurance markets in "The Moral Equivalent of War." Hannah Arendt was a progressive in this sense.
I'm happy to offer a summing up of libertarianism, though of course there are variations among libertarians and to be fair to the whole movement I'd have to offer a version that was discomfiting to Randians and many Nozickians.
Posted by: Joshua Miller at Aug 7, 2009 7:50:04 AM
This is a good effort at understanding some of the views of progressives. What I'm not sure about is the emphasis on the size and power of government. I don't think there's an essential optimism about the efficiency of government. It's really just more that somehow we need to get some of the important resources from the rich to the poor (because we believe in a basic quality of life for all and some kind of stab at equality of opportunity) and we haven't come up with a better way than government acting as the intermediary. If there is a better way then I don't think most progressives would be against it.
Posted by: Finnsense at Aug 7, 2009 8:03:49 AM
No 2 is a very accurate description of what many Scands (including myself) believe is good about our systems. There can be more freedom - of the relevant kind - when basic security needs are met for everyone.
Posted by: Mikael at Aug 7, 2009 8:08:48 AM
Let me rephrase those, from an insider's perspective (sorry for the allcaps, but your comment section doesn't allow formatting):
1. There exists a better way, WE DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL WORK AND WE DON'T TAKE THE REALITY OF CERTAIN COUNTRIES AS EQUIVALENT TO OUR IDEALS.
2. Progressive policies offer more scope for individualism and ALL kinds of freedom. Greater security gives people a greater chance to develop themselves as individuals in important spheres of life, not just money-making and risk protection and winning relative status games.
3. Determinism IS BONKERS YET tales of capitalist meritocracy are an illusion TO BE TURNED INTO REALITY. EGALITARIAN IDEALS AREN'T BY DEINITION INCOMPATIBLE WITH MERITOCRACY.
4. The needs of the neediest ought to be our top priority, EVEN IF variations in the well-being of other individuals are NOT small by comparison.
5. U.S. policy is not generally controlled by egalitarian interests. To push for such an egalitarian emphasis at the margin HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "GOD'S WORK". At the very least it will improve the quality of discourse, even if the U.S. never actually arrives in "progressive-land."
6. Limiting inequality IS NOT, BY DEFINITION, INCOMPATIBLE WITH AN attempt to limit the size of government. JUST AS CONSERVATIVE POLCIIES DO NOT, BY DEFINITION, PRODUCE A LIMITED GOVERNMENT (GO BACK IN MEMORY A FEW YEARS/MONTHS).
7. Skepticism about the public sector is by no means altogether unwarranted, yet true redistributive programs are possible and they can work and be politically popular; we even have some here in the United States.
8. We should support free trade, more immigration, and more foreign aid, but the nation-state will remain the fundamental locus for redistribution. That means helping the poor at home more than abroad; a decision to do otherwise would destroy political equilibrium and make everyone worse off. AND WOULD BE PATERNALISTIC.
9. State and local governments are FUNDAMENTAL FOR TRUE DEMOCRACY BUT SHOULD BE CONSTRAINED BY THE power OF the federal government TO ENFORCE CIVIL LIBERTIES AND REDISTRIBUTION.
10. The United States has to struggle mightily to meet the progressive standards of western Europe and we should not equate the two regions in terms of their operation or capabilities. Yet there is an alternative strand in American history, if not always a dominant one, showing that progressive change is possible. Think Upton Sinclair and Martin Luther King and the organizers of early labor unions.
11. The evidence on economic growth MAY BE murky BUT THE INTUITIVE STARTING POINT IS THE FOLLOWING: WHEREAS EXTREMELY EGALITARIAN POLICIES DO UNDERMINE GROWTH THROUGH DISINCENTIVES FOR WEALTH CREATION, MODERATE EGALITARIAN POLICIES NOT ONLY CREATE AUTOMATIC STABILIZERS DURING PERIODS OF ECONOMIC DECLINE, BUT ALSO BOOST ECONOMIC GROWTH THROUGH ENHANCED EDUCATION.
Posted by: Filip at Aug 7, 2009 8:14:44 AM
I think the distinction between what progressives do believe and should believe should be noted.
I think fairly few progressives actually believe 3,5,6, and 9 are relatively uncommon beliefs for progressives to have.
I think with regard to 9 I believe that many state and local policies are more about making the state relatively more or less attractive to undesirable and desirable residents than which policies are actually best. Stiff criminal penalties carry high costs with regard to incarceration costs but if you can just get the criminals to move to a state with more lenient criminal penalties you will not incur the cost. Having state sponsored homeless shelters might be a moral good but providing this service may attract people who actually need it.
Posted by: Michael Foody at Aug 7, 2009 8:35:01 AM
Libertarianism:
(1)Doctrinaire faith that government is the only important threat to liberty.
(2)Ideology trumps science, fact and logic.
(3)Taxes are the greatest evil, except for;
(4)Collective ownership or control of anything.
(5)Subject to the above limitations, individual liberty is desireable.
(6)A tendency to attribute entirely bogus notions (e.g., 1,3, 9, and 10 of your list) to opponents.
Posted by: capitalistimperialistpig at Aug 7, 2009 8:41:24 AM
Tyler,
You have listed 11 ideas that progressives SHOULD believe. Now can you give some names of progressives that believe all 11 ideas, or 10, or 9, or at least 6? Please include the relevant references where they have developed their ideas.
Posted by: E. Barandiaran at Aug 7, 2009 9:02:08 AM
I'm a progressive, but I don't feel envious of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and the young Henry Ford. They accomplished great things, and they deserve their wealth. I don't think many progressives disagree. But I definitely feel that the CEO's of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler are overpaid relative to their Japanese counterparts, and the same is true to even a greater degree of the heads of many of our financial institutions. To my mind, Gramsci was right about the ability of the power elite to define the conventional wisdom. To me there is no valid economic reason for the present degree of American inequality.
When it comes to libertarians, I agree with points 1, 3, and 4 of the 8:41:24 post. I would also add a striking inability of libertarians to imagine themselves in the shoes of the other fellow, to which I attribute the kind of thinking that leads one to call people too poor to pay income tax as "lucky duckies".
Posted by: Stan at Aug 7, 2009 9:11:38 AM
capitalistimperialistpig,
I don't think you read the instructions. It said sum up an intelligent version. All you did was pee on an otherwise civil thread.
Posted by: Travis at Aug 7, 2009 9:20:09 AM
Thanks 'pig, good effort. You especially nail #6.
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 7, 2009 9:22:29 AM
I think at its core, progressivism privileges equality of outcome over the benefits of the unfettered market.
Posted by: JRW at Aug 7, 2009 9:23:28 AM
Progressivism is a fantasy, like Marxism it was promulgated by "deep thinkers"
who lacked the ability to see how their ideology would be appropriated by
those afflicted with powerlust
Libertarianism:
(1)Doctrinaire faith that government, especially insular administrators
is the way to secure order, prosperity and progress.
(2)Ideology trumps science, fact and logic.
(3)Taxes are the greatest good,
(4)Collective or administrative control of everything.
(5)Individual liberty is undesireable, and contrary to the collective good.
(6)A tendency to attribute malevolence or ignorance to the opponents of
your schemes, even if you are malevolent or ignorantfabricated: hence Frau Pelosi's
comments about "swastikas" when in fact, she's the facist.
Posted by: Phil at Aug 7, 2009 9:24:34 AM
Not so much equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity.
Posted by: Nick at Aug 7, 2009 9:29:23 AM
Very good post Tyler. I think it is always helpfult to try to paint someone you disagree with in the most charitable light. Most people Libertarians, Conservatives, and Progressives are well meaning and have something to add to the coversation.
By the way I am glad Liberals decided to switch to Progressive. I know they did it because they viewed Liberal as a tainted or bad word, but Progressive much better describes their views and doesn't distort the classical meaning of Liberal.
"capitalistimperialistpig,
I don't think you read the instructions. It said sum up an intelligent version. All you did was pee on an otherwise civil thread."
And Stan chimes in to add his scent to the spot.
Posted by: eccdogg at Aug 7, 2009 9:31:08 AM
Wait guys, that WAS the intelligent progressive version. Zing!
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 7, 2009 9:33:04 AM
Progressivism can work (depending on how you define "work", I suppose) in small homogeneous nations that have more or less reached a progressive consensus. I don't think it can work at all in the U.S. and I'm not sure it works all that well even in homogeneous countries. If your definition of "work" is that those progressive states plod along without deteriorating into economic and political basket cases then I guess I agree.
I also really have to quibble with this sentiment, "Greater security gives people a greater chance to develop themselves as individuals in important spheres of life, not just money-making and risk protection and winning relative status games."
Up to a point, greater security promotes individual development. Too much security promotes laziness and hedonism, which seems to be what a lot the European countries you cite have descended into. It just seems to me that the progressive welfare state is far more soul-crushing than the U.S. system. I much prefer fending for myself than being taken care of and dictated to by nanny state bureaucrats.
Posted by: Paul at Aug 7, 2009 9:33:30 AM
Intelligence and ideology are mutually exclusive.
Posted by: pho at Aug 7, 2009 9:36:33 AM
@Nick
If equality of opportunity were the goal, affirmative action as it exists today would be opposed by progressives. I don't believe that to be the reality.
Posted by: Sean Cooksey at Aug 7, 2009 9:37:12 AM
Sean-
Why's that? The whole impetus for affirmative action is that whites have more and better opportunities than minorities, simply by virtue of their being white.
Posted by: Another Nick at Aug 7, 2009 9:44:30 AM
Tyler,
Looking for progressives that have honestly attempted to provide new ideas or at least a modern restatement of old ideas, and after reading the appreciation of Jerry Cohen on Crooked Timber (yesterday you linked to it), I found that Cohen's latest book --"Why Not Socialism?-- will be released on August 23. On Amazon's web page for this book I read the following:
Review
Why Not Socialism? very elegantly advances philosophical arguments that Cohen has famously developed over the past twenty years, and it does so in a manner that is completely accessible to nonphilosophers. The book brilliantly captures the essence of the socialist ethical complaint against market society. Why Not Socialism? is a very timely book.
(Hillel Steiner, University of Manchester )
Product Description
Is socialism desirable? Is it even possible? In this concise book, one of the world's leading political philosophers presents with clarity and wit a compelling moral case for socialism and argues that the obstacles in its way are exaggerated.
There are times, G. A. Cohen notes, when we all behave like socialists. On a camping trip, for example, campers wouldn't dream of charging each other to use a soccer ball or for fish that they happened to catch. Campers do not give merely to get, but relate to each other in a spirit of equality and community. Would such socialist norms be desirable across society as a whole? Why not? Whole societies may differ from camping trips, but it is still attractive when people treat each other with the equal regard that such trips exhibit.
But, however desirable it may be, many claim that socialism is impossible. Cohen writes that the biggest obstacle to socialism isn't, as often argued, intractable human selfishness--it's rather the lack of obvious means to harness the human generosity that is there. Lacking those means, we rely on the market. But there are many ways of confining the sway of the market: there are desirable changes that can move us toward a socialist society in which, to quote Albert Einstein, humanity has "overcome and advanced beyond the predatory stage of human development."
End of quotation.
I'd appreciate it greatly if you can answer these two questions. First, to what extent Cohen's ideas are relevant to what you think progressives should believe? Second, do you think that progressives can still sell their work because of their pointed criticism of market economies or because the alternative they propose makes people think that perfection is around the corner?
Posted by: E. Barandiaran at Aug 7, 2009 9:47:18 AM
