Asymmetrical Information

It's interesting, I don't think the right wing would ever abandon the term conservative, and that term has certainly been dragged through the mud by it's role in 'neocon'. I'll have to ask Lakoff next time we have lunch (I kid) if people are drawn to the root 'progress' in progressive. Lame hypothesis, probably, but that's why I don't work in politics or marketing.

For one thing, the historical progressives had pretty wide streaks of racism and eugenetics running through their movement

To bolster that claim, here's a post of mine from last year, which also discusses the interesting "progressive" position on females being allowed to work. http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2006/11/progressives.html

To anyone who has read anything about the original progressives, the fact that some liberals today have switched to "progressive" seems rather bizarre. It's a move that depends on the historical ignorance of the audience, I suppose (or maybe of the speakers).

"But I'm not sure that it's actually a good idea"

Maybe not, but the rest of that paragraph is a pretty accurate description of the left, so maybe we should give them points for honesty.

Is part of the problem that a majority of "liberals" are no longer liberal? I.e. that they are characterised more by support for interventionism, than by support for live-and-let-live?

If national health care is any indication, I think US liberals can still be considered interventionist, if not exactly up to European specs.

Interventionist - Exactly how is it being applied in today's world? Ans: Merriam-Webster: the theory or practice of intervening; specifically : governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country.

Aaron, your posts are right on.

I always find it strange how people on the left attach such importance to labels, as if calling something by a different name actually changes its character. (Feminism is an especially rich source of this kind of thinking.) As for the word liberal, this term was adopted by the North American left in order to avoid being called what they really were, i.e. socialists. During the cold war "socialist" sounded too much like "communist", so when leftists were accused of socialist leanings they would deny it by saying "I'm not a socialist, I'm a liberal." This evasive euphemism worked for a while, but over time the hijacked word came to be seen as a synonym for "soft socialist" and therefore ceased to perform its function. As Canadian columnist Robert Fulford wrote a few years back, "Euphemisms wear out an need replacing", and so the term "Progressive" has been introduced as a substitute for "Liberal." However, it will eventually meet the same fate if there are no new ideas to back up the change in language.

Anyway, here are two old but worthwhile columns by Robert Fulford, on euphemisms:

http://www.robertfulford.com/Euphemisms.html
http://www.robertfulford.com/Euphemisms2.html

It's interesting. I am hardly a typical "liberal" or "progressive" although I suppose that all y'all would classify me that way. We American's have very short memories and I doubt that many people still associate the term "progressive" with the racist, sexist progressives of yore. I certaily didn't until just now.

"Liberal" on the other hand makes me think of all of those great projects which the government put in place in the 1950s, 60s and 70s; most of which didn't work. I associate it with tax and spend. I associate it negatively. I am a "proud liberal" except I don't believe in randomly throwing money at a problem and hoping it will go away. It doesn't work.

That's why I think there has been a change in the terminology.

BTW -- I think the term "Neocon" as begun to be the Conservative's "Liberal". I know that although I have voted, on rare occasion, Republican I will never, ever, vote for a Neocon as it is the opposite of all I hold dear (i.e. socially conservative and fiscally irresponsibly). Please note that none of the 150 Republican candidates (that number may be a bit higher than the actual candidate count) are associating themselves as neocons...with the possible exception of Rudy who, let's face it, was as liberal as they come on most social issues.

I would say that the difference between progressives and liberals is that progressives are populists (primarily economic populists). Populism has a gloss of electibility (desipte a mixed historical record), sufficient to undermine the principles of most liberals.

Somehow I don't think the Know-Nothing label will be rehabilitated any time soon, despite the seeming attractiveness of the Know Nothings' anti-immigrant, pro-worker, good-government platform to a big slice of the U.S. electorate.

this reminds me of the parallel track of how musical genres are packaged and marketed. in the pre-nirvana days when jane's addiction and faith no more (among many others, i know) were refocusing the potential of hard rock on one end and r.e.m. and midnight oil were defining college rock and mopey kids were drowing in the cure and the smiths, the term "progressive" as applied to musical taste meant very specifically "i as a musical consumer prefer to go beyond what is popular on mainstream radio and mtv; to discover and indulge musical acts and performers who are not otherwise commercially viable." which was a total pose, used by people who wanted to have a brand identity for their musical predilections that afforded them an exulted intellectual perch.

i would argue that the same types are grabbing for the term "progressive" for their political leanings for the same reason. it makes them feel and sound (to themselves at least) smarter and more cosmopolitan by comparison to those dullards who are simply "liberal" and probably still listen to classic rock too.

Falkoyn:Hey thanks! I'll probably end up muddying things, though, that's why I like to leave blogging to experts.

Kate: I think the label neocon is a good example of something that Republicans don't want to be pinned with. But I think the "conservative" part is still pretty safe, as a typical attack on the neocon program is that it isn't actually conservative. Liberals might be against conservative spending, but wouldn't necessarily attack someone labelled as "fiscally conservative", because in people's mindsets (or at least my impression of their mindsets) is that the reverse is "fiscally irresponsible". They would instead look at some other reason spending isn't taking place, attaching ulterior motives that are guised as mere frugality.

I think Sean M's progressive music is interesting, altough for a while bands were labelled as alternative, and that word only gets attached to lifestyles these days, and not politics. And, is there a possible subgroup of liberals/progressives/populists that would be best described as emo?

Progressive? Give me a break. These folks are, by an large, neo-reactionaries.

Nice article, Megan. My thoughts on why this throwdown could be good are posted here.

I vote that "liberals" or "progressives" be called what they really are: "socialists" through and through. The first term is misleading, since liberalism used to describe the belief in personal liberty, crucially including economic liberty, of great people like Adam Smith and Friedrich von Hakek.

The second is too vague. Who isn't for "progress?" but what one person calls progress another considers regress.

Only the last term accurately describes most Democrats today. Whatever the problem, their answer is always the same, higher taxes on the affluent to fund ever larger government programs. If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is.

I vote that "liberals" or "progressives" be called what they really are: "socialists" through and through. The first term is misleading, since liberalism used to describe the belief in personal liberty, crucially including economic liberty, of great people like Adam Smith and Friedrich von Hakek.

I usually use the term “leftist” because by and large they are neither “liberal” nor “progressive” in any meaningful sense of the term. As far as “socialist” goes, I tend to shy away from that label as it usually leads to a squabble about how they don’t REALLY want the government to “own” (as opposed to “control”) the means of production. Fabian socialism though as I understand was about achieving it incrementally in steps which is sort of what we’re seeing in areas like health care in particular where the aim seems to be to get as many people as possible hooked on a government program.

I think the term socialist carries with it very negative connotations for the majority of people in the US, hence no one really wants to use a word like that. It's a matter of what a group selects for itself, so it's not suprising that people are looking for the best picture of themselves, as opposed to the most accurate.

I've started reading Zimbardo's "The Lucifer Effect", based on the Stanford Prison Experiment that he ran. One of the students was very seriously talking about his role in the expected revolution that would come in the US. I can't imagine anyone (outside of crankdom, or course)using "revolutionary" in the US beyond a metaphorical sense in the current scene. Overall, it seems that we have moved away, as a country, from going very far on the socialist scale, despite the success of the tax-and-spend approach to government.

I always describe myself as a liberal, a progressive and a radical.
A bleeding heart classical liberal, to be sure: From Smith through Mill and Cobden to Campbell Bannerman ("the man who is governed best is the man who is governed least") they had the right end of the stick.
A radical? Sure, we need some radical changes around here. As Jane (pbuh, our hostess) has pointed out abolishing the corporate income tax is both a good idea and radical.
Progessive? I certainly believe in hte power of gocernment to do good. Largely by stopping doing whatever it is doing now (see above, War on Drugs, the public school system etc) but there are also positive things that can be done (a carbon tax for example?).
The only thing that slightly worries me about this self-identification is that I've never managed to agree about anything with anyone else who calls themselves a liberal, radical, progressive.

I have noticed that among the people I know who have made the switch there is an element of "my s**t doesn't stink" as well. It seems to be a way of holding themselves above other people and the need to actually, you know, discuss the issues. I know I have learned better than to question their beliefs. In fact, I have learned not to talk to them at all. I don't like being yelled at.

The most accurate description is accomplice to genocide. They celebrated Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, the various "liberation" movements in Africa, Allende, Chavez, the Shining Path, Fidel, Mugabe, Hamas, Hezbollah and the grand-daddy of them all. Molotov-Ribbentropp was the purest example of socialism/liberalism/progressivism.

Their policies are killing millions in Africa thanks to their ignorance of science and their animistic fear of chemisty. They mean to do unspeakable evils here in pursuit of their better way. They deserve nothing more than the respect they gave to the millions they killed in vietnam.

Kate: you betray deep ignorance in your use of neo-con. Before the (mainly self-hating) anti-semites of the Left started to use it as a curse word, neo-con described a specific group of people who had been communists or liberals and had seen the damage that their ideology was doing in the USSR and the Warsaw Pact and that it was inherently evil. Neo-cons were specifically socially liberal, moderately fiscally conservative and very hard-line anti-sommunists in foreign policy. Your creatively inventive slander has no relation to the original use nor to its typical use now. Some of W's advisors were from the neo-con school, but he has been very far removed from them except in foreign policy. Your cracks about fiscal policy are beneath discussion between serious people. Perhaps you should spend less time making papier-mache puppets for your next demo and more time actually interacting with ideas.

I hope that the American left opts for the progressive label, so that American libertarians can reclaim the liberal label and reduce transatlantic linguistic confusion.

T. W.:"Fabian socialism though as I understand was about achieving it incrementally in steps which is sort of what we’re seeing in areas like health care in particular where the aim seems to be to get as many people as possible hooked on a government program."

That's exactly right. As Milton Friedman put it, instead of galloping socialism we now have creeping socialism. I would like these noble "progressives" to tell me at what point they think the government would have gotten too big. Right now government spending at all levels is about a third of the economy, and that is likely to grow as Medicare and Social Security become larger. Indeed, that figure understates the true extent of government interference because it doesn't count the indirect control of regulation.

So what is enough government? 40% of GDP? 50% of GDP?... I maintain that anyone who wants the goverment to control half of the economy is a socialist.

Must not bait the troll...
Must not bait the troll...
Must not bait the troll...

Sigh. Can't help it.

Hey:

I was attempting to express the point that whereas you seem to equate "liberal" with communist and genocide, so too have many people (including myself) equated the term "neocon" with terrible corruption (mostly intelletual) and fiscal irresponsibilty. This was hardly an attack (as opposed to comparing my political beliefs with those of Pol Pot or imply that I am a "self-hating anti-semite" for not believing the same thing that you do). It is simply a statement of fact. Me and my "ilk" have begun to view the term “neoconservative”, much as you view the term “liberal”, as something evil with which we do not wish to be associated.

I am a happy capitalist. Were the term "neoconservative" used by people today who believe in the things you describe them as believing I would be a happy neo-conservative. But they don't. It is the term we use for a group of thuggish and selfish politicians and they have usurped the term. I have not. Please direct your ire at them and not me.

The evolution from 'liberal' to 'progressive' due to the combination of the right-wing propaganda 'poisoning' the term liberal, as well as the attachment of the term 'liberal' to progressive social ideas that are distasteful to many Americans who are ok with 'liberal' economic ideas, but can't stand it if the gay guys down the street can get married.

The term progressive is chosen to contrast the forward-looking "progressive" policies that have improved American society (abolition of slavery, public schooling, progressive taxation, social security, social safety nets, civil rights, etc.) with the 'regressive' or reactionary conservative viewpoint on each of those issues at the time.

"Progessive" sounds better than liberal, and it implies that those opposed to 'progressives' are backward thinking. The term 'Liberal' has not been a useful marketing term as long as I can remember.

Does this mean that classical liberals can have "liberal" back?

Must not bait the troll...
Must not bait the troll...
Must not bait the troll...

Bait? Judging by all the screaming, I think he already found the bear trap. Now you just have to decide what to do with him ;-)

If we're going to argue about labels, I suggest dropping the word "libertarian". A majority of the people posting on this site, and I include Jane Galt, have no problem in discarding habeas corpus and no interest in maintaining our Sixth Amendment rights. In their view the president is our lord protector, our modern day Cromwell; he can have you arrested and held indefinitely without justifying the arrest before a judge or magistrate and without providing the detainee with access to a lawyer. And then there's torture, about which libertarians, or at least the ones posting on this site, couldn't care less. Before you start making stirring remarks about liberty, try looking in the mirror.

Oh anony-mouse, can't I just throw him back?

According to my copy of "Fauna of Fora" (2006 revised ed.), catch-and-release is permitted.

Kate wrote: "I am a happy capitalist. Were the term 'neoconservative' used by people today who believe in the things you describe them as believing I would be a happy neo-conservative. But they don't. It is the term we use for a group of thuggish and selfish politicians and they have usurped the term. I have not."

This is an intersting point. I don't agree that Bill Kristol, for example, is "thuggish" but I do find some tenets of neoconservatism alarming. First is the almost messianic desire to spread democracy around the world, by force if necessary. As George Will has pointed out, there is nothing at all conservative about the sort of utopian visions the neocons put at the center of their foreign policy.

Second is their strange lack of concern about indebtedness. I recall reading something like this in irving Kristol's writings: "We never believed in small government. We wanted tax cuts and a strong government, and if that results in deficits, so be it." This nonchalance concerning debt is quite objectionable. Since the saving rate is an important determinant of future productivity and productivity determines the standard of living, piling up government debt is not good policy. And, again, there is nothing conservative about it.

Ironically, these positions were always left wing positions. The Utopian foreign policy sounds much more like Woodrow Wilson than, say, Calvin Coolidge. And the indifference to debt reminds one of attitude of old Keynesians like JK Galbraith.

So, my conclusion is that the neocons are intellectualy interesting, but practically dangerous. Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest have had stimulating effect on the quality of American discourse. Unfortunately, some of the policies they have pursued have been quite harmful.

Do you really think that all but a handful of the people who use the term 'progressive' know any of the history you refer to? I would guess it's less than 1%. But if it helps your cause to pretend that everyone who calls themselves 'progressive' are secretly eugenics-loving supremecists of some sort, I guess there is nothing we can do to stop you.

Interesting comments on these terms. Here is a perspective. I am old enough to remember the days of the civil rights movement in the late 50's. Those white people, north or south, who supported civil rights were never called liberal. Indeed, the liberals counseled us to be patient, to be sensible, they would concede our goals were fine but we had to go slower. The Vietnam war was pushed onto the American people by liberal Democrats. Indeed, those liberals who supported that war left the Democratic party when the Antiwar left gained some measure of control and rebranded themselves as neocons.

I have been on the left of the Democratic Party during that whole period and I never identified myself as a liberal -- that term just had too much baggage. So when the right wing noise machine began its campaign against liberals, there was nothing there for me to defend.

The eugenisists that called themselves progressives 120 were Republicans, didn't you know.

wallster's comment nicely illustrates another TAS post:

This is thanks to optimism, which is the philosophical root of every progressive reading of history: all things advance and develop toward something (that something conveniently resembles the desired end-state that the believers in this progressive theory of history already want to bring about, so that history becomes at once justification for action and excuse for crimes).

wallster said: The term progressive is chosen to contrast the forward-looking "progressive" policies that have improved American society (abolition of slavery, public schooling, progressive taxation, social security, social safety nets, civil rights, etc.) with the 'regressive' or reactionary conservative viewpoint on each of those issues at the time.

The progressive picks out the ends from history that he deems good and categorizes them all as "progressive," even though those ends are greatly separated in time and were supported by different people (or different coalitions) for different reasons. Those who opposed them are deemed "conservative" or "regressive," even though they too were different people at different times for different reasons. The modern progressive is now the inheritor of all the past progressives and, by definition, good ideas that happened. The modern conservative represents all past regressives, and, by definition, bad ideas that didn't happen. He can then extrapolate that to current ideological disagreements. So I guess the progressive sees himself as always being on the right side of history, while from another point of view, he says he was on the winning side in selected events where he was on the winning side. I would be much more interested to know what "progressives" think is the end state. What are we progressing toward? Lots of things are called progressive victories, but why?

Kate's definition of "Neocon" is just weird, but is also probably how it's applied these days. It's changed from "Former Leftist who became anti-Communist" to "conservative who prefers interventionist foreign policy" to, at best, "conservatives I really don't like" and, at worst, well, some people (nobody here that I've seen) call Feith and Perle and Wolfowitz "neocons" but not Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld.

No point to this other than that the labels "progressive" and "neocon" are now totally useless, and that I need to know your views on both the ends and the means to pigeonhole you properly.

The neocon is a dangerous creature, almost as dangerous as the socialist. By using a contraction of 'conservative' as part of their moniker, they disguised themselves, although it could have been somewhat by chance.

Interventionist foreign policy, big business friendly at the expense of the American people, didn't meet a taxpayer's dollar they didn't want to spend, as well as being downright dishonest.

Today's rash of "former Leftists" who don't do communism, have placed the USA in a very unenviable place. They play on the American pride of country by using the siren's lure of democracy spread, while they try to tamp it down back home with increased wiretapping, sifting through personal financial informaiton, and desire to keep their real intentions from the people to merge the economic functions of the US, Mexico and Canada together, for the benefit of big business, make them a pathetic group, if they weren't so powerful.

Unfortunately, the group who wants to take over (the Obamas, Hillary's, Edward's and Gore's, are a worse ticket to ride for the US. At this point, a merger of the Lieberman-Tancredo-Hunter wings of the parties would be much better for the US.

I won't call a big government intereventionist a progressive simply because he prefers the label: such a political orientation, in my view, is in no way progress. It is a regress to the age old dream of tyranny.

The label is no description: it's false advertising.

I won't call a big government interventionist a progressive simply because he prefers the label: such a political orientation, in my view, is in no way progress. It is a regress to the age old dream of tyranny.

The label is no description: it's false advertising.

On the other hand, their wish to eschew the term *liberal* may represent an attempt at honesty, as they aren't liberal.

Brett, I really wish so, but I'm afraid it isn't true. Too many people have learned to interpret "liberal" as "creeping socialist" or at least as "nanny-government, tax and spend, America-hating. Politically-Correct Idiot", so they have to find a new cover name. For classic liberals, taking "liberal" back now is like taking back a diaper after it's been used.

"The second is too vague. Who isn't for "progress?"

"Conservatives" in the original meaning of the term. (Today's so-called conservatives fit the original definition no better than today's so-called liberals follow John Stuart Mills.) I think it was Jane that quoted a passage by Chesterton that very well illustrated the original conservative thinking: Chesterton said that before you throw out some apparently outmoded custom, you should first thoroughly understand why it was adopted in the first place.

Not being anywhere near as good at writing as Chesterton, I'll use a much cruder approach to illustrate the original meaning. Remember Tim Allen trying to soup up his power tools in Home Improvement? That's what original conservatives think is probably going to happen every time you tinker with our government, other institutions, society, or morals. In other words, on institutional and social change, there are three basic approaches:

1) Progressive, etc.: I think I can make it work better.

2) Moderate: Don't fix it if it isn't broke.

3) Original conservative: Even if it is broke, you're just going to make things worse trying to fix it.

Read the Declaration of Independence, and notice how hard the authors were trying to convince the reader that they were in group 2, not group 1.

So I guess that by the original definitions, I'm a liberal and a (mostly) conservative. I think the 19th Century liberals got it mostly right, so let's return it to what they had and ensure that after that no one changes anything.

It isn't only the people now adopting the name "progressive" that forgot their history. "Right" and "left" also have pretty bad associations if you go back to their source. On the eve of the French Revolution, Louis XVI called a meeting of the French equivalent of parliament. Louis XVI's supporters sat on the right. The radicals sat on the left. So the first "leftists" were the group that started guillotining each other after they ran out of enemies. I wouldn't brag about following in their footsteps, nor would I brag about following in the footsteps of a monarchist.

"I never said all conservatives are racist. I said that racists are overwhelmingly conservative. A fact that no gentleman would dare to contradict"

With apologies to J.S. Mill

P.S. My, what an amazing tool libertarians have turned out to be.

For classic liberals, taking "liberal" back now is like taking back a diaper after it's been used.

Cloth or disposable?

;)

This discussion reminds me of the near-constant renaming of low-IQ people. Idiot, imbecile, and moron became derogatory terms that gave way to retarded, learning disabled, and mentally handicapped. Of course those labels have become derogatory too, and advocates are again searching for new terminology.

Modern leftists suffer the same problem. It doesn't matter what you call leftist ideology, it's still at its heart a tyrannical, anti-freedom body of beliefs. So eventually any label that's slapped on it will become derogatory.

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Comments are Closed.