Third Way: The Problems Posed By Progressivism
Greg Nash/Stephen McCarthy/Bloomberg
In January of 2020, House Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez claimed that "In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party." The Congresswoman continued to critique the then-failing run of Biden because of his ‘middle of the road’ approach to policy. Now, Biden will be inaugurated as President in 26 days after winning the largest popular vote in history with 81 million ballots case in his favor. For his part, Biden said of AOC and the progressive ‘squad’ that they are "brilliant," but also cautioned that their ideology was not representative of the nation, or the Democratic party's constituents. Biden's electoral success and the success of Donald Trump, who won the second largest popular vote with 75 million votes, proves his point.
Last week, the Third Way columnist critiqued the ideology of the alt-right. While it is worthwhile to do the same for progressivism, a comparison of the two would be misguided. Unlike the alt-right, progressivism is an ideology that, at its best, offers incisive, intellectual critiques of US political failings. Most importantly, progressivism is not a domestic security risk and poses no real threat of violence. Progressive intellectuals deserve respect and can present digestible arguments, and, in some sense, their aims are well-intentioned. Indeed, there is value in having progressive voices in the political discourse that push the conversation further, ultimately to the benefit of the center-left. Progressivism, however, has major flaws which make it a poor political strategy at best and a genuine precursor to illiberalism at worst. The political paradigm faces problems from its political uncooperativeness, inciting rhetoric, and ill-defined ideological positions. Nearly all of these problems do not affect the center-left.
The ideological problems with progressivism emerge before one can even start thinking about progress at all. Defining "progressivism" is notoriously challenging, as many of its facets contradict each other. In general, progressives support decreasing social and economic inequality, specifically with regards to oppressed people. Their path towards defending the rights of people is through increased governmental authority and power. A deep distrust of corporate America is baked into almost all progressives, as well as antipathy towards capitalism and colonialism. Earlier in the 20th century, progressivism was rooted in liberalism, but a critique of liberalism (reduced from critiques of neoliberalism) is beginning to take hold of the fringe left.
Barring critiques of liberalism, the amorphous concept of modern-day progressivism is, in a way, similar to its historical namesake. The progressive era of the early 1900s was not strictly a ‘movement’ but instead a combination of varied ideas and figures, many of which had competing notions of what it meant to be progressive. President Theodore Roosevelt and President Woodrow Wilson, for instance, were two leading progressive figures from opposing parties who disagreed on progressive policies, such as handling trusts and foreign policy. Their debates bordered on becoming arguments over political philosophy, showing how progressivism was oriented around a discussion of ideas and approaches that all worked towards liberal values.
Yet, the two progressive movements share key intellectual differences which make the modern iteration of progressivism (call it new progressivism) far less effective. The first major distinction is between the fundamental aims of the old and new progressivism. Rooted firmly in liberalism, old progressivism was open and tolerant to contradicting ideas, making it flexible and appealing to a wide variety of people. Old progressives believed that systematic problems could be fixed through managerial tactics and an increased reliance on the scientific method. It advocated the increased positivism of politics and humanities and offered data as a way to persuade voters rationally. Identity, race, and religion were not prominent drivers of old progressivism. Instead, a belief in checking power and curbing social disorders through an environmental change in the Deweyan sense drove the movement.
New progressivism, on the other hand, sees progress itself as an unmitigated good, meaning it can define itself only in opposition to the political mainstream. New progressivism claims that history has marched towards the left, invoking a fallacious view of historical determinism to justify its own veer towards that side of the spectrum. This reactionary founding of progressivism means that the ideology can only exist in the political realm. By defining themselves as the forces of change, progressivism must redefine itself at a blistering pace, resulting in a myriad of contradictions. New progressives, for instance ardently oppose colonialism, yet their desire for increased federal regulation on cultural issues and hyper-centralization of government, subjugating those who oppose it under majority rule, is colonialist itself. Culturally, progressivism advocates tolerance and multiculturalism, yet a viewpoint that comes from a "place of power" or is considered "dangerous" is censored and its author is shamed into silence. This is derivative of the identity politics that the fringe of the Democratic Party is obsessed with, and which drives them dangerously close to the identitarian theories of Carl Schmitt, which pit identity against identity. When politics is based around immutable identities, compromise is betrayal, not a way to appease all.
The most frustrating aspect of new progressivism is the culture that is engendered by it. An ardent belief in the total rightness of progressivism, influenced by the conviction that history will prove them right, results in an underserved haughtiness that makes compromise and listening to others not just looked down upon by progressives, but immoral. This unwillingness to cooperate and disdain for other opinions makes progressivism demand, in the words of Transport Secretary Pete Buttigieg, an "inflexible, ideological revolution." Progressives take identity politics a step further, worshipping progressivism itself as an identity. This mires them in a "no true Scotsman" situation, since, if older progressives’ ideas become widely digestible, future progressives then need to move the goal post in order to even be progressive. Buttigieg also highlighted this march into ideological chasms, accusing Senator Elizabeth Warren, a firebrand progressive, of demanding "purity tests" that even she could not pass. As time passes, progressive culture becomes more exclusive and less achievable.
% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters who describe their political views as liberal
Perhaps the most serious flaw of progressivism is its approach to politics as a whole. As is seen in their unremitting cultural and ideological arrogance, the progressive approach sees compromise as irrational, immoral, and politically illegitimate. The ideology ignores the rights and beliefs of those who appreciate a slower pace, which represents the large majority of the country. This reveals the misunderstanding progressives have about who their base is. Despite laying a claim to diversity, progressives are mostly white. According to a survey by Pew Research Center, a pollster, 55% of white Democrats see themselves as liberal, while only 37% of Hispanics consider themselves liberal and a mere 29% of Black voters see themselves as left-leaning. On the other hand, 43% of Black people call themselves moderate and 25% call themselves conservative. It is undeniable that Black voters swept Biden to victory in the 2020 election, but it would be wrong to believe that their support of progressivism was the driving factor. Not only did Trump gain support among Black voters, but, according to an August 2020 poll by Gallup, 81% of Black Americans want the same or increased police presence in their community. Combined with losing ten seats and Florida by relatively wide margins due to fears of socialism, progressivism has proved to be a losing strategy.
Progressivism faces significant challenges in ideology, culture, and political viability. It is recalcitrant and uncooperative, making legislating next to near impossible. Progressives claim non-progressive Democrats or Conservatives are holding back their agenda, playing the victim. Despite blaming white racism as the reason why the Democrats lost the House, the losses are deeply connected to snappy slogans that scared voters and the inability of progressives to actually govern. As a representative, AOC has shown a refusal to do this, as, according to her GovTrack 2019 report card, she has introduced no bills with bipartisan support, supported no bills across the aisle, and has gotten barely any of her own bills off the ground. Progressivism is not a way of governance, but instead a way of pointing at an issue and finding someone to blame.
Of Course, It's Much More Complicated Than That
It would be no surprise to believe that, after such a polemical analysis of progressivism, modern politics has no room for the ideology of leftists. However, despite the persistent flaws of progressivism, it still brings value to the Democratic party, and the left would be at a disadvantage without it.
First of all, the progressive agenda gets things right that modern liberalism does not. It's an appeal to identities based on race and gender, while incorrectly focused, highlights the need for the center-left to create policies that help these groups while also aiding the wide swath of Americans in general who are suffering from wealth inequality. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker's "baby bond" plan does just this; it reduces the racial wealth gap while also appealing to low-income Americans of every stripe. While Booker's feeble mix of centrism and progressivism failed to win him the Democratic nomination (and let Buttigieg soar), it offers a way of making effective policy that does not inspire populism from those who feel left behind on either the left or right.
Progressives are also valuable because they push the conversation in new directions. In essence, they are an advocacy group for any issue they can get their hands on, shifting discussion in ways that ultimately better the negotiating ground for the center-left. Although Biden became more progressive as the election drew on, he will still govern as a moderate. Nonetheless, his movement to the left not only made him more fitting for the times; it also showed how progressive policy can survive even through compromise. It also revealed that this same progressive policy appeals to Americans, provided it comes packaged without the boisterous radicalism that defines progressive culture. Despite AOC's understanding of activists, the progressives really are the Democratic party's PR firm.
Finally, the tension between progressives and moderates in the Democratic party is not a bad thing, but indeed a great one. Debates around ideology and policy show that a party is healthy and keeps voters engaged. Infighting also forces politicians to be scrutinous of their own reasons for defending their stances and allows them to adjust based on their constituents needs and the party's aims. If the entire party was dominated by moderates, it would suffer from a lack of innovation and clear values. The same holds if it was suffered by criticism obstructing progressives. Instead, innovation and values are provided by the progressives while the moderates are able to actually enact policy. The two can cooperate in this way to bolster the party.
Progressives have a peculiar position in American politics. As a political agent, they can accomplish very little due to their anti-establishment stances, obdurate culture, and disdain for compromise. The illiberalism of the progressives, which is rooted in eliminating opposing voices or those from anywhere but the far-left should be taken seriously. Yet, the far-left is not anywhere near as threatening as the far-right. Instead, their presence in the political discourse, while frustrating at best, is actually immensely valuable. By pushing the discourse in new directions, advocating for issues, and keeping moderates sharp, they make the center-left an apt political machine, while also slightly dragging on its feet. This extra weight is worth it. Were progressives to work more with their moderate counterparts and learn to compromise, the left-wing could become a respectable political powerhouse. Until then, however, progressives will remain as a rather frustrating, yet valuable, addition to the Democratic party.
