Can somebody explain the difference between a Populist and a Progressive?

[philly_bob]

Which category is Sanders in? Clinton?

The distinction came up in a heated discussion on Perez's changes in DNC positions. I ask sincerely.

[Mediumsizedhand]

1. I see Sanders as Populist and Clinton as progressive.

Last edited Mon Oct 23, 2017, 12:20 AM - Edit history (1)

pop·u·list
ˈpäpyələst/Submit
noun
1.
a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.


pro·gres·sive
prəˈɡresiv/Submit
noun
1.
a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

[unblock]

2. they refer to two different political dimensions.

populism basically just means appealing to the masses. any politician, whether right-wing, left-wing, or otherwise, who plays to the masses, seems to get draw big crowds and get wild applause, would be a populist.


progressivism, on the other hand, refers to a set of political positions that tend to benefit the most people and in particular the most disadvantaged people. help for the poor, differently-abled, infirmed, as well as policies that reduce discrimination, etc.



donnie could be (and has been) characterized as a populist, while his policies are most certainly not progressive.

[Hortensis]

34. Good start but important parts need adding.

Populism arises from anger in people who most often ignore and go along for years until they finally get angry for themselves, and it always manifests as resentment toward a mostly undefined "establishment." Populist movements can be both left and right wing, or joined temporarily, and can arise from or fight for almost any type of government. Their anger can be dangerously directable and is often used by one faction to seize power from another.

By definition, progressivism is simply a belief that organizations should be used to solve problems too big for individuals. This contrasts with a typical conservative belief in a natural order that will reward good and punish bad and that interference with that ultimately always causes more problems than it solves. Churches and governments, local PTAs, etc., can be either progressive or anti-progressivism. Our constitution is inherently progressive and a large majority of Democrats are small-p progressive, as intrinsic to their character.

At lot of the people who are still with Sanders calling themselves capital-P Progressives in this era, and back in FDR's time, tend to come from a bit farther, more radical left, and it is their natural zeal and strong belief in the righteousness of their causes that give his movement a great deal of its character. However, his movement is made up of both populists and Progressives. While populists' hostility is toward "the establishment" of any party, "progressive" resistance is mostly focused on the mainstream left party. In our nation this is the Democratic Party. They tend to advocate for progressive solutions, but not necessarily more radical ones. Universal healthcare, for instance, has long been a mainstream idea proposed for decades. In this era, Progressives rejected the ACA in favor of more comprehensive reform proposed by them.

Progressives can still reject mainstream Democrats even when in power, such as in the case of President Carter, who bears great similarity to Sanders in a number of ways. (His speaking out -- again -- against mainstream Dems Obama and Clinton, and softpedaling on Trump, in that interview makes me think of him.) Even though both houses of congress were controlled by the Democratic Party, Carter spent a good part of his presidency quarreling with a congress he then, like Sanders now, viewed as corrupt and wrong on most things.

As an example of the relation of issues and opposition in Progressives, it was "progressive-type" President Carter who proposed a limited healthcare program to Congress, mainstream Dem Sen. Ted Kennedy who wrote a bill/plan for widely comprehensive birth-to-death coverage, and Carter who shot the mainstream Dem's bill for what today's Progressives want down.

[Mediumsizedhand]

37. Interesting, but I see this a little differently.

ACA itself was a progressive move. Were there others that wanted it to go further? Yes, they would be the populist that wanted to push for something that was not going to happen where as our progressives knew we needed to get ACA passed and then by step, by step move it forward, progress.

Just because one lives in the real world and not what can and can not be accomplished, not willing to throw the people out with bath water, does not mean they are any less progressive, and may mean they are true progressive.

When the single purpose it to throw "establishment" out, it is not about progressiveness, but populism. Those that insist that ACA should not have been good enough or accepted and only universal was good enough would be the populist, not progressive.

I am not standing by this. I am interested what you have to say. I can always, almost, be swayed.

[Hortensis]

40. Oh, ABSOLUTELY the ACA was progressive,

but not "Progressive."

The latter Sanders followers, as they exist now, are a faction that has separated themselves out from normal Democratic progressives, who, they feel, are not nearly progressive enough compared to Progressives to even be considered progressive.

Agree: "When the single purpose it to throw "establishment" out, it is not about progressiveness, but populism." Agree. These are potential barn-burners. What comes next is a less immediate concern.

Disagree: "Those that insist that ACA should not have been good enough or accepted and only universal was good enough would be the populist, not progressive."

By that definition Sanders would not be a Progressive. But he is. He was leading a dual Progressive and populist movement, including trying to draw conservative barn-burners away from Trump.

Sanders himself based a great deal of his campaign on his promise to immediately replace the ACA -- in its entirety -- with universal. Virtually all political and policy experts and economists felt both that it would not be doable as he planned, and that, given a giant list of other problems that desperately needed addressing, this circling back and investing enormous political capital on reforming healthcare all over again simply did not make sense. Except to him as part of his lifelong opposition to mainstream Democrats, and tohis most ardent followers.

You know, when speaking of Progressives in this context, I am thinking of the Sanders types who are particularly unhappy with the party and feel it's very corrupt and needs reform--as Sanders has been insisting for the past 25 years in spite of voting 96% of the time with the party for those 25 years.

NOT the 90% of all Sanders' primary Democratic voters, who'd (like me) been drawn by his messages on income inequality but were happy to have Hillary as their second choice and basically approve of the party's positions and goals. They are very different in political personality from this group who were emphatically not, not just people with slight variations in policy preferences.

This far smaller group is still sure that the ACA must be replaced, because the leader they current accept says so. They "know" by definition that Democratic Party is corrupt because it does not accept their lead, that it must be reformed, and it can only be reformed by them, no one else is principled enough. And that kind of righteousness and rejection of cooperation or compromise with others are both classic radical-leaning behaviors.

Notably and amusingly (might as well smile), both Carter 93 and Sanders 76 have been badmouthing mainstream Democrats like me, and Obama and Hillary, for decades. Carter's campaign, complete with accusations of massive corruption by practically all Democrats but him, was very similar to Sanders', and neither has ever seen any reason to change his mind.

[Mediumsizedhand]

41. neither has ever seen any reason to change his mind.

And that too would be more Populist than progressive, lol.

Open minded is the heart of liberal and moving forward, not backward would be the progressive. An unwillingness to be open is a lack of progressive. Now I am just playing. I have learned a lot about Carter that I did not know way back then.

And it all seems to wrap around white and male, with benevolent, pat on the head, fatherly approach to social politics.

I am not going to play the game of big P and little p. I have looked at diagrams of "progressiveness" of our Democrats and Sanders simply does not have it, factually, on our other Democrats that the faction want to kick out of office. I am not into solving issues with false facts.

Thank you Hortensis, I appreciate the well put together posts.

[Hortensis]

44. We're both progressive, right? Liberals by almost any

definition are virtually always progressive?

I did not care to just throw out that Sanders was not progressive in this environment, and I find it interesting that you do not see him that way. That would be an interesting discussion.

In any case, I do agree "Open minded is the heart of liberal and moving forward, not backward would be the progressive." Since at base progressivism is belief in the value of using organizations to solve problems too large for individuals, I can't rule Sanders out on a closed basis.

However, I am reminded that we might have had comprehensive healthcare reform over 35 years ago if Carter had been willing to work with Congress to achieve it, when Democrats held both legislative and executive branches. In the end how much does it matter if a person says he's progressive if he sabotages progressive advances because of unwillingness to cooperate and compromise?

And we might once again be holding both branches if we had worked together.

[Mediumsizedhand]

45. f he sabotages progressive advances because of unwillingness to cooperate and compromise?

if a person says he's progressive if he sabotages progressive advances because of unwillingness to cooperate and compromise?

This would be my point. And Hortensis. Thank you so much for this fun conversation. I do appreciate it. I love exploring and seeing where we end up.

Good post.

[Hortensis]

46. Me too, nice chat. I just dropped back when I realized

I didn't agree that certainly progressivism is also very much about advancing society--because we can. Had to add that because it's huge. Have a nice day.

[Squinch]

3. When heated discussions arise about this, its a sign that someone is trying to divide Democrats.

Best to walk away.

[Mediumsizedhand]

5. I disagree. A faction has taken ownership of progressive, and I have always defined myself as such.

As have many Dems. Yet, we are being told, we are not part of that faction. I want ownership along with all the rest, of being progressive. It is really the opposite of divisive and more as becoming one. Kumbaya!

[Squinch]

6. Vote Democratic. The end.

[Mediumsizedhand]

7. O Kay. Exclamation Mark.

I like you!

[Squinch]

9. .

[Hortensis]

47. The perfect short and sweet answer.

[brer cat]

33. Ah, but who gets ownership of "true?"

"As the goalpost moves" would make a good political soap opera with actors playing pin (or is that spin?) the tail on the donkey with one side equipped with nouns and the other with adjectives.

I agree with you, Mediumsizedhand. Welcome to DU!

[Mediumsizedhand]

36. Ha ha. True that. It is all in the word "true". Very good.

I have not put my finger on it but every time I hear true progressive it does trigger something and I cannot pull out from where.

[Amimnoch]

4. Going at this from a point of ignorance.

I haven't seen, and have no interest in involving myself in any more of those Sanders vs Clinton vs Sanders etc discussions.

Populism is the "us" or the common man vs the "them" the elites, now-a-days commonly referred to as the 1%ers.

Progressivism is a political philosophy that focuses on political and especially social issues. It is an ideal of progress. Progressive movements tend to centralize on social issues above all (suffrage movement, anti-trust and worker rights movement, civil rights movement).

Neither is reliant or dependent on the other. It is possible for someone to be both, either, or neither.

Much debate on it, but I myself see Sanders as being both a populist and progressive. I see Clinton as being Progressive.

[Hortensis]

48. Actually, political scientists have specific definitions for each,

Last edited Mon Oct 23, 2017, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)

which are extremely valuable to know, both because one can search on them for further information and further understanding and because it helps people make sense out of dialogue that is hopelessly confused -- often very insidiously and deliberately -- by lack of standard vocabulary. I see cynical attempts at manipulation-by-misused-vocabulary in political articles and programs every single day.

Same for "liberal," one of the most misunderstood and misused words out there, to the point that I feel like jumping up and hugging anyone who displays understanding of what liberalism is, both liberal personality (probably 10,000 years old) and political attitudes based on liberalism.

Liberalism as a formal political philosophy arose in the Age of Enlightenment and its basic principles have continued and evolved over 300 years to this day, are embodied in our Constitution, and are still advanced in a very different world by the Democratic Party.

Who can be really proud of us without understanding this?

(To this day conservatives by personality have never developed a cohesive political philosophy in the U.S., though attempts were made in the mid 1900s that have collapsed in our era. So, instead, without the guidance of wisely formulated principles, reactions arising from their personalities alone are being manipulated like rings in their noses to jerk them about.)

Merely understanding the most basic fundamentals of conservative and liberal personalities, moderate and extreme tendencies and manifestations of each, different moral codes arising from each, and of the political bents that grow from those, will allow one to ignore labels and rhetoric and instead examine the behaviors of almost any group in the world to get immediate significant clues to where they're really coming from and where they're likely to want to go.

If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything. -- Confucius

~3000 years ago! And here we are, in states of helpless, manipulated confusion.

[Squinch]

8. As you can see, there is no agreement about the answer to your question. Yet some will

fight each other to a pulp over it.

[lovemydogs]

10. here you go:

Populist:

Populists can fall anywhere on the traditional left–right political spectrum of politics, and often portray both bourgeois capitalists and socialist organizers as unfairly dominating the political sphere. Political parties and politicians often use the terms populist and populism as pejoratives against their opponents.

Progressive:

Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of social reform. As a philosophy, it is based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.

[Mediumsizedhand]

12. Progressive sounds like every Democrat and the Democratic Party and leadership I have listened to.

[lovemydogs]

11. Sorry, I forgot to post about Sanders and Clinton

Sanders is a progressive

Clinton is neither a populist or progressive.
She is more a centrist liberal

[Mediumsizedhand]

13. Clinton is not an advocate for social reform?

Clinton is not for "advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition."

You were not listening.

[lapucelle]

15. Well, a life of public advocacy for women and girls

around the world could merely have been a clever ruse to trick people into thinking that she wanted to improve the human condition.

I do, however, vaguely remember how happy New Yorkers were when she worked hard to bring high-speed broad band to the mountain regions upstate and how often she spoke about launching that effort nation-wide during her 2016 GE appearances. Is the internet technology? I keep forgetting.

[Mediumsizedhand]

16. Clinton's whole history being on the ground blows all politicians to the curb. Yet, they do NOT

want her accredited progressive. What is that shit?

[GulfCoast66]

19. But she's a girl...

[Mediumsizedhand]

20. What? At 68. Girl, you. ;) !

[GulfCoast66]

22. Surely I did need the sarcasm thingy!!

[Mediumsizedhand]

24. No, you did not.

[loyalsister]

50. Not until she advocates for welfare restoration

The Democrats have not seen past encouraging employment numbers to address the poverty that lies within them. As they have embraced capitalism and the poverty that comes with it, there should be an effort to make life a little easier for poor people. It has been ignored and poor people have been exploited as scapegoats in the effort to chase the middle class voters.

[pnwmom]

32. Of course Clinton is a progressive. Look again at the progressive policies she ran on.

And her record as a Senator put her among the most progressive of Democrats, also.

[Kleveland]

14. Sheep vs. Einstein.

Make of it what you will.

[Yupster]

17. Clinton is progressive

Sanders is both progressive and populist.

Trump is populist but not progressive.

Mitt Romney is neither populist or progressive.

[flyingfysh]

27. William Jennings Bryan was a populist

but was definitely not a progressive.

[Yupster]

28. Bill Clinton was a populist

but not a progressive.

[Iggo]

43. This.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. My short hand quick and dirty is that populists strongly identify with common people (or fake it)

and usually believe that common people are exploited and/or threatened under the status quo. Populists can be either left or right wing, or hold a minimal amount of ideological beliefs.

Progressives have an ideological belief system that finds that entrenched capital and the interests that serve it warp the political and economic system to the advantage of oligarchical forces, to the disadvantage of common people.

These terms are not mutually exclusive. Many populists are progressive and vice versa. Some populists can be right wing though, and some progressives do not identify strongly with common people to the extent that true populists do, though they do believe that the essential interests of common people must be protected from exploitation by those more powerful.

[GulfCoast66]

21. Populist and too often progressives are nationalist by another name

There is always someone to blame. That person can be many stereotypes and can come from the left or right. Some of them are...

Blacks
Immigrants
Catholics
Millionaires
Gays
Liberals
Irish
Atheists
Billionaires
Christians
French
Muslims

The list goes on. I am a liberal and a scientist. Anytime a politician makes generalizations or plays to stereotypes alarm bells go off.

I prefer Candidates who do not pit American against each other and have fully fleshed liberal agendas like the one that lost the last presidential election. Or had the election stolen from her.

[Mediumsizedhand]

23. +1.

[JHan]

30. yep +++++

[stevenleser]

25. Wikipedia is actually pretty good on this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

Populism is a mode of political communication that is based on contrasts between the "common man" or "the people" and a real or imagined group of "privileged elites", traditionally scapegoating or making a folk devil of the latter. Populists can fall anywhere on the traditional left–right political spectrum of politics, and often portray both bourgeois capitalists and socialist organizers as unfairly dominating the political sphere

Political parties and politicians often use the terms populist and populism as pejoratives against their opponents. Such a view sees populism as demagogy, merely appearing to empathize with the public through rhetoric or unrealistic proposals in order to increase appeal across the political spectrum
----------------------------------------------
Further down in that article in the section on Populism in the US it highlights Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders as both populist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#United_States

The 2016 presidential election saw a wave of populist sentiment in the campaigns of Bernie Sanders (as a self-described "democratic socialist" ) and Donald Trump, with both candidates running on anti-establishment platforms in the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. Both campaigns criticized free trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Their movements coincided with a similar trend of populism in Europe. Ultimately, Trump was elected President of the United States in the Electoral College, defeating the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
-----------------------------------------------
I come down on the side of the point of view the second paragraph discussed. Populist politicians, IMHO, are almost always demagogues.

[Lithos]

26. They're not exclusive

Populist just means appealing to the sentiments of the people. Your politics tend to appeal towards the sentiment of the people. The question though is how broadly a net is drawn in the politics. Trump is an extreme right-wing populist in that he appeals to a very specific set of Evangelicals and White Nationalists.

Progressive means advancing the human condition of people by being an advocate for science, technology, education, medicine, general economic development, etc. with a view towards improving the lot of everyone. The Democratic Third way was ostensibly Progressive as the stated goal was improvement of the economics for everyone. I will leave it to whether it was the best approach or not. One other wrinkle about Progressivism is that it, at one time, advocated Eugenics. Manifest Destiny and the White Man's Burden were at one time considered Progressive Ideals.

To me, the better angle is the overlap between the two - Progressive Populism and to do so in a liberal context of social justice for all not based on color, sex, sexual preference, etc.

L-

[Eko]

29. Here is an easy one

A populist is someone who thinks that because the people don't see a reason for Social Security, it should be abolished.
A progressive is someone who knows that we need it and are better off with it than without even though its not perfect. The people will also agree with that after they have voted against it and then realize how great it was.

Freely exchange social security with taxes, trade deals, The ACA, banks, and a whole lot more.

[Jamaal510]

31. A person can

be a populist without being progressive.

Defined: any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.

He Who Shall Not Be Named, for example, was able to gain the presidency in part by appealing to the fears of ordinary (primarily White) Americans, and he thrived on nationalist ideas. With him having zero political experience, he was the ultimate outsider and anti-establishment candidate of the 2016 cycle. In addition to this, he has helped to cause rifts within the GOP among the old guard versus the wingnuts, and he has pushed jingoistic and unorthodox solutions whether it's the border wall (when deportation is already high), the Muslim ban, or interfering with how the NFL handles protesting players. As for which categories I think Sanders and Clinton fit in, I don't feel safe diving into that here.

[Adrahil]

35. Populism rarely makes for good policy, IMO.

Some folks will tell you that populism is about policies that are good for the people. But IMO, it's more about telling a group of people what they WANT to hear.

[Mediumsizedhand]

38. Throwing in the definition of Liberal, which Sanders does adamantly reject, though not sure why.

lib·er·al
ˈlib(ə rəl/Submit
adjective
1.
open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
"they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people"
2.
(of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
synonyms: wide-ranging, broad-based, general
"a liberal education"
noun
1.
a person of liberal views.

I would say that leave Democrats and our party and leaders as Liberal Progressives. Clearly.

[NastyRiffraff]

39. Personally I prefer "Liberal"

but I do want to take back the Progressive term from those who have hijacked it. "True Progressive" is a dishonest meme, implying someone with that label is somehow purer, better, than a just plain Progressive.

Clinton is a Liberal and a Progressive
Sanders is a populist.

[philly_bob]

49. There's been a hijacking of liberal term by "Neoliberals" --

which to my mind are very much not liberals, especially on economics.

For this reason, I'm not sure liberal is a useful term.

[stevenleser]

52. No there hasn't. There has been a hijacking of the term "Neoliberal" by folks seeking to use it as

only a pejorative for folks they dont think are Liberal enough.

Neoliberal has an actual meaning and it's not "especially on economics" its ONLY on economics. Neoliberalism doesnt have any non-economic meaning except for those who have hijacked it.

[Iggo]

42. Progressivism is an ethos. Populism is a tactic. (n/t)

[philly_bob]

51. Thanks for informative discussion. My conclusions:

Both Sanders and Clinton are progressives.

Sanders had a populist tone, promising (like Trump) to "drain the swamp" or shake things up.

Clinton did not have a populist tone, because of her history. That's why Sanders generated so much more enthusiasm.

I don't think I will use the "populist" term much. I remember populist George Wallace.

[Mediumsizedhand]

53. Clinton, I think, Could be labeled a progressive liberal. Sanders a populist progressive.