The Two Progressivisms by Nate Silver

[Ichingcarpenter]

The definitions of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have been the subjects of much debate in contemporary American politics. But it has become increasingly clear that the term "progressive" is equally ambiguous, and is associated with at least two relatively distinct philosophical traditions. Although these two "progressivisms" share common ground on many (probably most) issues, they are at loggerheads on some others, as has perhaps become more apparent since the election of President Obama.





The first type of progressivism has its philosophical underpinnings in 18th Century, Enlightement-era thought. It believes that politics is a battle of ideas. It further believes that through the use of reason and the exchange of ideas, human society will tend to improve itself through scientific and technological innovation. Hence, it believes in progress, and for this reason lays claim to the term “progressive”. Because of its belief and optimism in the faculties of human reason, I refer to this philosophy as rational progressivism.

Rational progressivism tends to be trusting, within reason, of status quo political and economic institutions -- generally including the institution of capitalism. It tends to trust these institutions because it believes they are a manifestation of progress made by previous generations. However, unlike conservatism, it also sees these institutions as continuing works in progress, subject to inefficiencies because of distorted or poorly-designed incentives, poorly-informed or misinformed participants, and competition from 'irrational' worldviews like religion. It also recognizes that certain persons who stand to benefit from preserving the status quo, particularly elected officials but also corporations, may seek to block this progress to protect their own interests. The project of rational progressivism, then, is to propagate good ideas and to convert them, through a wide and aggressive array of democratic means, into public policy.

The second type of progressivism is what I call radical progressivism. It represents, indeed, a much more radical and comprehensive critique of the status quo, which it tends to see as intrinsically corrupt. ...........snip


Snip....


Interesting read.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/two-progressivisms.html

[WeDidIt]

1. Brilliant piece!

Silver hits this one out of the park.

I'd call myself a rational progressive.

I'd further state that the majority of DU demonstrates radical progressive traits.

[bananas]

2. oops - hit unrec by accident. nt

[nemo137]

3. I hate when that happens.

fixed it for you, though.

[BzaDem]

4. I agree with this post, though I think there is a much simpler distinction that captures a lot of it

A "rational progressive" sees the limits of what can be accomplished within the current system (regardless of the merits of that system). A "radical progressive" ignores them, or assumes that they can be overcome by some massive political revolution that is always just around the corner.

For example, a rational progressive would argue that single payer will not get close to a majority vote in either house in the current Congress or any Congress elected in the next decade or two. A rational progressive would point to the last 30 or so Congresses failing to enact or even consider single payer as evidence of this. Therefore, a rational progressive wants to achieve the best reform possible, even if such a reform isn't as good as the reform they would want in the end (and always acknowledges and considers the probability of actually getting a certain policy enacted). For example, a rational progressive would see that adding 30 million to the insurance rolls is a good thing, even if all or most of them have to get private insurance as opposed to public insurance.

A radical progressive, on the other hand, isn't so concerned with limits, votes, probabilities, or procedure. They simply demand single payer now, regardless of its probability of being enacted now or ever. When confronted with the fact that such a policy isn't going to get enacted, and is therefore nothing more than an academic exercise, they often start singing the praises of such a system (as if that somehow changes the possibility of it being enacted at all). Many don't even try to confront the political feasibility point (or pretend they are confronting the point by talking about the normative benefits to a single payer system). Of the ones that do try to confront the lack of political feasibility, while they would agree that the current Congress isn't going to enact single payer, they claim that there will be some political revolution (perhaps due to the massive, short-term "collapse" of the current health system, ignoring the history of the last 70 years where this has not happened). But this more fits into the five stages of grief than an actual policy analysis. These people, realizing that Congress isn't going to enact the policy they want, simply construct an alternate reality (the "collapse") that would "force" Congress to enact the policy they want. This alternate reality makes their view coherent, and resolves the cognitive dissonance nicely (to them).

Some would claim that Nate Silver's analysis is problematic, because few people would identify themselves with the "irrational side." They claim that (for example) having a single payer system is the ultimate rational policy (especially when compared to the policies currently on the table in Congress), without considering whether such a policy would ever actually get enacted. However, I believe the fact that few people would identify with the "irrational side" is a strength of the analysis, not a weakness. People who don't consider "political feasibility" need to be called out. Ignoring such an important factor is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty, and those that do so need to be confronted, not pampered.

[Pirate Smile]

5. This rings very true to me and explains the constant battle between the two factions here on DU.

[lapfog_1]

6. I'm a half from column A and half from column B person...

So where does that leave ME?

Transformative
outcome-oriented
empirical
orients by antithesis
sees politics as a battle of ideas AND will
sees ideology as malleable (or possibly mailable)
Technocratic
prone to neither, even though I happen to know that I'm better than everyone else, and I can argue long hours to prove it
accommodating unless I'm not
difficult to organize (even by myself)
pessimistic (figures that I wouldn't fit in to his neat little chart)
cynical to an extreme
conversational (well, I'm here aren't I)
incrementalist (hey, there are a few things I like in the health care reform bill)

[BzaDem]

7. "prone to neither, even though I happen to know that I'm better than everyone else"

:rofl:

[Joanne98]

8. Another "don't fight back" lecture!

[Odin2005]

9. I clearly fit in the Rational Progressivism catagory.

Good read!

[Pirate Smile]

10. kick