I wrote a comment on the difference between Liberalism and the Progressive movement in the United States and why it is important for us to understand the difference and a couple of people asked me to expand it in to a diary. I am somewhat worried about doing this because there are a number of people who will not agree with what I have to say. I will ask that if a discussion does somehow get started out of this diary that it be a careful and well thought out one. I also know that my writing sometimes comes across as strong statements of belief. This is just the residue of my writing style. As you will read over the course of these diaries (if indeed they do get some response) is that a Progressive perspective requires an understanding and respect for all thoughtful, well though out, and legitimate responses - we an only learn, and therefore progress, by listening to each other. Everybody's perspective can be improved, everybody's knowledge is flawed.
Let me start then by discussing an important argument between two philosophers - George Santayana and John Dewey. Santayana was part realist and part pragmatist who concentrated his efforts on the role of history in human activity. Dewey was an instrumental pragmatist who believed human progress is best achieved through inquiry leading to consensus. Santayana argued that you need to go back and study history because there are important truths buried within it. Of course the truths are buried and you must work to unearth what really happened, but if you do you can use that knowledge to affect present society. Dewey argued that the study of history was dangerous because history, like anything else, is a tool in current activity that people use to accomplish proximate goals. Even though I consider myself an instrumental pragmatist, that all actions that are not habits are basically tools used in accomplishing some type of goal, my heart is basically with Santayana on this. I do believe (faith based perhaps?) that it is possible to unearth truths from history.
I also need to offer some very basic philosophical terms in order to explain the difference between liberalism and progressivism. Up until about the middle of the nineteenth century there were two basic philosophical perspectives that serves as context for how and why people act and think - they were realism and idealism (I want to emphasize that I am speaking from a Western perspective here - I apologize for that but it makes it easier. If anybody wants to add an Eastern perspective I welcome it) - the two perspectives and realism and idealism. Realism is the idea that the best way to understand the world is to understand the things within it. It is possible to understand these things (objects, humans) as they actually are. The ability to understand them gives us the ability to categorize them, put them in to a hierarchy, make them work in all manner or form in ways that make sense in order to make life more livable. Idealism is a more dynamic perspective, the belief that there is some absolute ideal of existence (strong religious overtones) and we become better as human beings by actively moving towards that ideal. You will notice that in some ways realism reflects a traditional conservative view point and idealism reflects a traditional liberal view point. This will be important as we define the differences between liberalism and progressivism.
After the Civil War in the United States a number of thinkers returned from the war (or being affected by that war) concerned that neither realism or liberalism worked for the human condition. These included such luminaries as William James, Oliver Holmes, and Charles Sanders Peirce. Spurred on by the publication of "Origins of the Species" they began to develop a perspective that was dynamic but not ideological (believing that ideology was one of the chief causes of the Civil War and that in the end it did nothing but separate people and bring pain. Everybody believes they know what is best for the human condition). Realism was in the end too static and in the end too nihilistic - it really did not speak to the idea of progress in the human condition. Influenced by the Transcendentalism of the New England intelligentsia (the work of Emerson and Thoreau) they developed a perspective that was both dynamic and non-ideological. This perspective was not based on what is, but on what is done. That is you look at the world as a series of problems and human activity as constantly adapting to those problems by developing instruments and solutions. All problems are unique, and one does not necessarily inform another because the world is constantly changing. If you will notice this is a very evolutionary based perspective - this philosophical perspective was named Pragmatism by Charles Peirce. But it was developed by a very elite sub-group and had certain qualities that reflected that elitism (and was manifested in its transcendental nature). One of the biggest issues however, pushed hard by Peirce and James, was that ideals of any type were dangerous and should be avoided at all costs - it is in the end idealists who cause the things that bring the most suffering like war (it seems counter-intuitive to say that "modern" war is idealist - but think about it).
One important thing to notice is that both realism and idealism have ties to European history and the issue of the divine right of kings. In the case of realism it has to do with princely succession, and in the case of idealism it has to do with an oligarchy that understands what is best for society. (You will also notice that liberalism actually has a stronger tie to religion than conservatism - which is ironic when you think of how the definitions have played out in our own politics). Pragmatism avoids both of these. The one thing to notice about this early Pragmatism however is that it is not progressive. It does not have any mechanism for making to human condition as a whole better. Each problem is individual and simply suggests methods for dealing with these individual problems.
That was a long preamble I know, but we are finally getting to the Progressive movement and the difference between progressivism and liberalism. Liberalism evolved mostly I believe in the Northeast. A number of thinkers and scholars went to Europe after the Civil War and picked up a good deal of their philosophy and brought it back. I also believe that Transcendentalism can (and I stress the word can) have strong ties to European style liberalism. This liberalism was deeply influenced by the Enlightenment Project in Europe (also a major force behind the birth of academics in Europe) and was very tied to the idea that society needed to develop an elite that could guide it towards human ideals. It is my personal theory that liberalism also evolved out of the arrogance of the industrialized north after the Civil War. Even though nobody won the Civil War really, it was a complete human debacle, many intellectuals in the North believed that they had been right, that by defeating the South they had advanced the cause of humanity, that in some way the Civil War was a just and righteous war and the side of good had prevailed. A great deal of this was tied to the fact that Lincoln ended slavery. What is ironic though is that Lincoln did not feel this way. Liberalism also had ties to the Founding Fathers, especially Jefferson, and to the ideas of Manifest Destiny. Don't get me wrong, these are a lot of good things about liberalism, not the least of which is the belief that we can make a better world. But there is a great deal of danger built in to the liberal position. If you believe you can make the world a better place through your vision, then you are willing to engage in any type of activity to achieve your vision. When you have competing ideologies this can lead to disaster.
While liberalism emerged in the Northeast and among the more enlightened industrialists (who believed they were building a better world), a second political movement emerged in the Midwest. There were a number of individuals involved in the birth of the Progressive movement, but I will attempt to explain through the activities of John Dewey and Jane Addams because I know them best and it is easiest for me. Dewey was also a Pragmatist but his perspective was a little different from the one that developed in New England (even though he was originally from Vermont). Dewey developed an approach that has been called Instrumental Pragmatism. He concentrated on the actual problem solving and the way humans lives could be improved by improving their problem solving. The idea that Dewey believed human lives could be improved as a whole, and not just problem to problem, is critical. Dewey also believed that there was no line to be drawn between the philosophical, the political, and education. He believed that the human condition as a whole could be Pragmatically improved in two ways. 1) Human beings were better at solving problems as a community rather than individually, but they often came up with ideas individually. If you could create a community where individuals listened to each other's ideas respectfully and worked together (without ego) to figure out which one was best, humans could accomplish enormous things even in the face of the gravest problems. Notice what he is not saying. He is not saying that you can train people to be experts in the solving of particular problem. That is because if you truly believe in Darwin's ideas on evolution and adaptation there is no way you can know what the next problem is going to be, and there is no way to know who will have the best solutions to the problem (by having experts you may very well be precluding those who have the best solutions from the decision making process). 2) That social communities, given enough information and working together are able to find the best answers to their own problems - far better than anybody might tell them. Dewey believed there was a continuum between humans and nature (one of the reasons why the Progressive movement has always had a strong environmental bent) and that people living their problems understood them best. The key to making good decisions was information. Both realists and idealists strove to keep information away from the public for their own reasons. One of the first principles of Progressivism became the unfettered flow of information (which especially idealists claimed, and continue to claim today is dangerous).
Jane Addams came back from England and was determined to start a Settlement House movement in Chicago. Now there are a number of reasons that the Progressive movement was strongest in the Midwest. One of the most important reasons was the cult of Lincoln (which continues to be a critical part of our national psyche and unless we reclaim it to the Progressive movement we will always have difficulty - but that is another diary). Jane Addams believed deeply in Lincoln's philosophy (or what she saw as his philosophy, or his non-philosophy). Lincoln believed it was the function of government to provide the raw materials and channels for a citizen to live the good life and make their own choices. For example a community establishes a frontier town but they have difficulty getting their product back to a market. The community works together as a government to build a canal so people in the frontier town and the people in the market are prosperous. Once provided with this though people make their own decisions about what is the good life. Jane Addams saw the responsibility of the community to provide these platforms to people to build their life on. The more people who are successful in society, the more successful society is. It is also up to people to determine what it is they need as that platform. You do not plan communities. You go in to communities and offer the raw materials so that they can emerge. In one of Jane Addams' most famous writing she compared a self-proclaimed liberal to King Lear in Shakespeare. He gave so much to his workers believing that they should be grateful to him and proclaim him a great man. But like Lear's daughters eventually they would turn on him because they did not belong to him, he had no ability to determine what was right for them. They needed to be able to live their own lives.
All right, I guess this is enough for now. If there is a decent response I will continue. If you want this to continue please recommend. I am hoping from just this diary you can see why there is a natural antipathy between Progressives and Liberals, and even why some of the brutal flame wars that occur here at DailyKos happen. I do know that one of the things we need to understand to Progress is this relationship between Progressives and Liberals.