The last Progressive Movement sprang up United States as a response to the completed transition of American society of being primarily rural and agricultural to being urban and industrial, and consequently, the fully matured relationship between corporate America and American government that persists to this day. It was the Progressive Movement that led to the direct election of Senators, a constitutional amendment allowing for federal income tax collection, labor laws, women's suffrage, and the first real, concerted fight against the increasing influence of corporate America. However, the Progressive Era ended with Warren Harding elected President in 1920, and the big business, wealthy conservative faction of the Republican Party firmly in command.
For the record, progressivism is not liberalism. Where liberalism focuses on the function of society as it relates to government, progressivism focuses on the function of government as it relates to society. Where liberalism is generally reactive political philosophy, progressivism is primarily proactive. However, considering the means of which a liberal or progressive agenda is achieved -- usually through expanded powers of government, it is not surprising "progressivism" is now an adjective that is used interchangeably with "liberalism", when in truth, it really should not. Nothing is wrong with liberalism and I won't even deny it as a term to describe my own political ideology -- granted, I cross classical liberalism and neoliberalism in act of centrism.
The next Progressive Movement should spring up sooner or later, preferably now, as a proactive response to two major fronts: the hyper partisan, ideological drunkenness that is now dominating American politics and the reality that the United States is transforming from a unilaterally dominant industrialized, blue-collar country to a technologically advanced nation dominated by a service and information economy, and trying to do so in the midst of globalization.
This new movement should be more realistic than the current American ideological currents of liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism. All three have delved deep into idealism with ambitions that are not only unrealistic, but contributes to the current dichotomy in American politics. Civil rights, human rights, and civil liberties should be a given; government regulation should be sensible; government should be efficient; legislators in their legislation should be solving problems with critical thinking in regards to the realities of today and not simply believing in calling problems as they are because they are a direct contradiction of championed ideological stances; advantages and privileges for certain groups and areas should be done away with; and more importantly government should be a complement to society, not a domineering presence over it. In short, it shouldn't be about a "Democratic thing", "Republican thing", "liberal thing", "conservative thing", "Christian thing", or "atheist thing", it should be about where we are in this country as human beings and society in general.
In truth (at least it should be truth), the primary goal of any government is to complement stable society that values the individual as much as it values our current, undeniable interdependence. Despite what you hear in terms of arguments to the contrary, it's possible. We choose to make it impossible by allowing our value structure to be corrupted -- for example, American conservatism moved from aggressively protecting civil rights and liberties to allowing for civil rights and liberties to be subjugated in the name of protectionist nationalism; American liberalism moved from pushing for a proactive government to pushing for a reactive government; and both ideologies will claim positions as if they're kids on the playground picking teams for a playground basketball game.
However, as a reaction to the current social transition, two distinct political movements erupted -- the populist, left-leaning Occupy movement and the populist, right-leaning Tea Party movement. One decried economic inequality as a rise against the purported oligarchical enemy of the rich, American wealthy class; the other decried massive government as a rise against the oligarchical enemy of big government that poaches on the everyday American. Some believe that they're both aiming against the same animal; it's partially true, but mainly it is about an ideological divide brought upon and built upon by two sides of the tunnel-visioned sociopolitical arena.
There's nothing wrong with idealism; there's good that can come out of it, however, ideologically strict idealism has created a severe, numbing paralysis in American politics and a divide in American society where one side vehemently denies the right for you to stand as an individual and another side that vehemently denies the realities of social interdependence. Yet, the real enduring quality of the Progressive Movement was action through common sense -- at least for the most part. While some of the things that the Progressive Movement has brought along still exists to this day in varying degrees, the most admirable thing about the Progressive Movement was its centrism, as it was as liberal as it was conservative as it was libertarian as it was socialist. Yes, this is an appeal for centrism to return, but not the Bill Clinton brand of appeasement centrism; but a centrism founded on one part common sense, one part realism, and one part idealism that's more proactive than reactive.
Bear in mind, and this is the most important thing: while I invoke the last Progressive Movement, I'm not saying there should be another one as if there should be a return of what happened during the Roosevelt-years. I'm saying there should be another Progressive Movement to address the issues of today similar to the one that formed that addressed the issues of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, it takes two things: one, moving forward and not living to recreate the purported glory days of yesterday; two, a much needed maturing of American political discourse.
No comments:
Post a Comment