Liberals, Conservatives, and Progressives

At a Democratic debate a few days later, Clinton was asked to respond. “I am a progressive who gets things done. And the root of that word, progressive, is progress,” she said. “A progressive is someone who makes progress.” Well, okay then.

Clinton’s tautological definition suggests that progressive has become a meaningless term devoid of ideological content; a signifier that signifies nothing in particular. In that sense, perhaps it is an apt descriptor after all for triangulating politicians like Tim Kaine and Hillary Clinton.

Defining politics: If Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine are “progressive,” then the word has lost all meaning (Salon)



Political words can change over time. Conservative, liberal, progressive, etc., have all meant different things at different historical moments and in different cultures. But, having said that, for language to be of any use whatsoever there must be some historical thread of continuity connecting contemporary uses of the word with those of earlier times and different cultures. And I believe that in America today, Hillary Clinton is certainly right about the core meaning of progressive: a progressive is someone who makes progress.

A proposed usage of a word needs to be definite enough that one can distinguish that word from words of much different meanings, but especially words that are - or are taken to be - similar in meaning.

After a brief scan of definitions (see Resources, below) I have come up with MY understanding and usage of some political words. I have taken into account more recent and more American usages but have not hesitated to provide my own nuance.

So consider these.

LIBERALISM: The core of liberalism is a belief in freedom for the individual, a belief that encompasses a variety of views on the size and responsibility of government from minimalist libertarian in which the government protects individual freedom by ensuring defense of the peace and protection against fraud to New Deal and Great Society understandings where an interventionist government engages in manipulations of the economy and social policies that attempt to establish equal opportunity for all citizens.

CONSERVATISM: The core of conservatism is a belief in the value to contemporary society in its inherited culture, tradition, and other institutions, and a distrust of social engineering on the part of the government to tinker with serviceable social institutions resulting from the wisdom of past generations.

PROGRESSIVISM: The core of progressivism is a belief that government can and should make evidential and rational interventions in societal processes (that is, social engineering) to improve the quality of life for its citizens. Its classic expression in America is in the late 19th and early 20th centuries where the financial and political inequality between workers and owners was seen as the chief barrier to that progress (a view which has suddenly become quite relevant in this election).

When it comes to the rightness and wrongness of each of these ideas, I hold to a key insight from John Stuart Mill.

In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny.
-John Stuart Mill

So I hold these ideas to be correct in what they affirm (the core beliefs I’ve outlined above) and wrong in what they deny - the wisdom and value of the other ideologies.

Because liberalism, conservatism, and progressivism are not, in principle, mutually exclusive.

I believe that what the world needs now is that which America was once uniquely qualified to give but seems to have now (hopefully temporarily) forgotten: a pragmatic ability to compromise that cuts across the many demographic barriers (nationality, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, etc.) to actually ACCOMPLISH things - no doubt often very imperfect and flawed things - to build and maintain a better America.

And to do so under a common rulebook: the United States Constitution.

So my personal stance in all this is that the liberal in me wants the government to leave me to hell alone in things that don’t impact IN SOME SIGNIFICANT WAY public order and the common good, the conservative in me appreciates what - in a Christian context - would be called “the received tradition,” and the progressive in me wants the government to appropriately use its power according to policies reasoned from evidence and applied cautiously and incrementally to more perfectly address the differing degrees of opportunity into which we are all born.

I still believe Hillary Clinton - who is also, like the rest of us, “very imperfect and flawed” - has the best “recipe” of liberalism, conservatism, and progressivism to move America forward over the next eight years.

RESOURCES

Liberalism in the United States (Wikipedia)

Liberalism (Wikipedia)

Conservatism in the United States (Wikipedia)

Conservatism (Wikipedia)

Progressivism (Wikipedia)

Progressivism in the United States (Wikipedia)

Defining politics: If Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine are “progressive,” then the word has lost all meaning (Salon)

Hillary Clinton: Engaging the Powers

My take on Hillary Clinton, as I posted in Hillary Clinton: Character Formation, is as follows.

*************
My take on the real Hillary Clinton is as a warm-hearted, passionate defender of and advocate for those cast to the margins of society, whose ‘theology of ministry’ recognizes that one must be willing to trade some amount of personal, moral, purity to get something done in this fallen world, and whose introverted (as compared to her husband) personality comes across as guarded and reserved and whose sometimes self-defeating defensiveness shows the scars she’s received through more than a quarter century of vicious attacks on her character suffered at the hands of political enemies advocating for the rich and powerful while she has continued, nonetheless, to persevere in her work.
*************

I reviewed her early development and believe that the foundation of her character and early influences are consistent with that take and are, in fact, consistent with my own experiences growing up in a center-right family, the public school system of a largely white, middle class, suburb, and various extracurricular activities.

The chief difference between us (aside from gender :-) ) is that she apparently was focused, ambitious, and a hard-worker. Few of my family or friends would find those words jumping to the top of the list if asked to describe me.

I went through her early development in some detail because I believed most people were unaware of it. Rather than continue into her college and grad school experiences I will point folks toward the Wellesley College years and Yale Law School and postgraduate studies sections of the same source: the Wikipedia article on Hillary Clinton.

Reading those sections, I didn’t find much to surprise me. Her movement into the adult world seems to continue trajectories from her youth and young adult years: a commitment to the marginalized, an interest in political action (where she transitioned from Republican to Democrat), academic excellence resulting in a law degree and postgraduate work at Yale, and paid and volunteer assignments working face-to-face advocacy for the marginalized. There seems to be a real connection between her academic work and her field work.

She was very ambitious and followed a strategy of working within the system to nudge the system in the right direction. Following law school her postgraduate studies on children and medicine at Yale helped further develop a continuing interest in child welfare, on the one hand, and the healthcare system, on the other.

I invite folks to read those sections and consider the sheer volume of her involvement in progressive issues. [For those looking for something a bit scandalous, it DOES mention that during one summer internship she worked at at law firm “well known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes (two of its four partners were current or former Communist Party members); Rodham worked on child custody and other cases.” :-) ]

This is really as far as I need to go, biographically. At about this point she began dating Bill Clinton, determined to follow him to Arkansas without abandoning her own political ambitions and then all hell broke loose. :-) 

I’m not engaging Clinton Scandology because, frankly, I believe that - whatever help either Clinton may have contributed to that corpus due to their own human failings - the entire right-wing pursuit has largely been a right-wing witch hunt, funded by our tax dollars, that - to my knowledge - has not resulted in either Clinton being indicted for any crime.

I will gladly admit that there’s been a great deal of smoke over more than a quarter century of these political shenanigans, helped in large part through Clintonian moral failings and public relations blunders.

But there simply is nothing in Hillary’s background that disqualifies her from the presidency. We’re not comparing her to St. Augustine or Gandhi. We’re comparing her to the legions of flawed politicos that have - in the midst of affairs, lack of transparency, and a willingness to color outside the lines on occasion.

Smoke. Yes.

But no fire.

And a candidate who has been thoroughly consistent in her trajectories and commitments through life.

NEXT: Hillary Clinton: Economic Policy & Credibility

RESOURCE

Hillary Clinton (Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton