Progressive Identity Project - #2 (Wednesday, May 28th)

Thanks to all who stopped by on Sunday to participate in the first official Progressive Identity Project conversation. Your contributions to this ongoing series are much appreciated and I hope we can continue to build on our dialog each and every time out.

For those of you new to this series, please take some time to stop by the introduction to the project and Diary #1 when you have a moment. What goes on here every Sunday and Wednesday beginning at 9am EST/6am PST, and continues for the remainder of the day, is a conversation about progressive identity in new media environments. It's a part of my Masters thesis and a media ecology research project that requires your help. Please rec and participate as often as possible. I hope you'll check in regularly via subscription and consider joining my e-mail distribution list for updates, scheduling reminders, and interview requests. You can leave me your information at:

[e-mail]

Follow me after the fold...

In today's discussion, I'd like to continue the theme of progressive identity, and the meaning of progressivism, by reviewing some of the remarks in Dairy #1, framing them for further conversation, and adding a few new remarks for consideration.

plf515 began our discussion with this poetic approach to defining the shared values of progressives:

 The best definition of progressive (7+ / 0-)

that I've ever read, is very short, and is also my favorite quotation of all time.

It's from Rabbi Israel Salanter and he said:

Most men worry about their own bellies and other people's souls, when we all ought to worry about our own souls and other people's bellies

Progressives are that latter group

Further exploration of that idea uncovered that progressives care about issues like racism, sexism, war, torture, and so on because they prioritize real world need of others over the metaphysical. By inference, we might say that progressive efforts on issues like these nourish the souls of those who take action. The contrast to this idea suggests that prioritizing the souls of others while attending to personal needs/wants helps to frame what progressives are not. Very interesting assessment of shared progressive values.

As the discussion shifted to the role of government in the progressive framework, there was some debate about whether progressivism favors "other peoples bellies" via a safety net. My line of questioning was aimed at uncovering whether a conservative could share progressive values, but differ in their approach to meeting those values in practice. ezdidit touched on this point with a very astute observation, while simultaneously ruffling my feather by calling me a dunce:

No, you dunce, not a 'safety net...' (0+ / 0-)

Government is great when it does its job of moderating the needs of the people against the viability of private sector organizations (corporations) that only exist to "enhance shareholder value."

And, indeed, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that strategic goal.  But government must make certain that the interests of the STAKEholders, i.e., the employes and customers, are met, irrespective of the amoral cost-benefit analyses that drive private interests' business models. (see, also, DDT, tobacco companies,  and cross reference the Republican policies as enemies of the people.)

Government should not need to provide a "safety net" if it acts as a fair arbiter toward our national goals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all.

This point will become important later as the notion of fairness is introduced into this discussion for today. 172 IQ offers an important addendum to this line of reasoning, in the meantime, saying:

Don't forget the part about (1+ / 0-)

how the progressive agenda is to be financed.  The average conservative actually does support the concept of some progressive ideas, but they're not willing to pay for them.

A back and forth with JFinNe led to the realization that elements of intellectualism and populism seem to be intertwined in progressive identity and culture, and shunpike offers some thoughts on the mercurial nature of progressivism, owed in some part to the nature of the culture in juxtaposition to conservatism:

Again I have to come back to an action (power in place) and reaction (those seeking to change the power in place) dichotomy. If we can say that a conservative protects the rights and priviledges in situ, and a progressive seeks to reform or expand them, then we have some terms that we can go forward with.

While I feel very good about the evolution of our first conversation, and believe that some key characteristics of progressive identity were uncovered in our exploration, I think there's more to do with respect to the topic. I'll summarize some of the important points from our first conversation in bullet point form, add a new set of quotes to talk about, and then begin the fun. Here goes...

Progressive identity/culture encompasses:

1. A commitment to others needs, and the improvement of the overall condition of humanity

2. A commitment to both intellectualism and populism

3. A commitment to government as a fair arbiter of society

4. A commitment to shared funding of government programs

5. A commitment to the reform and expansion of individual rights and privileges (changing power in place)

If I were to attempt a comprehensive statement from these findings, I might say that progressivism is a grassroots commitment to an enlightened reform of government, dedicated to fairness and justice for all. Perhaps there's more, but I think that statement works as a jumping off point.

A more expansive jumping off point for today is the definition of progressivism described by Mark Halpin. Halpin, a Senior Fellow and Executive Speechwriter at the Center for American Progress, wrote an instructive piece called "Progressivism in 2004: Transcending the Liberal-Conservative Divide" in which he describes several key characteristics of progressive culture.

At its core, progressivism is a non-ideological, pragmatic system of thought grounded in solving problems and maintaining strong values within society.

Not that far off from my own statement just above. Halpin hits on four key points regarding progressivism in the piece, three of which I'll deal with here. The fourth is patriotism and national security, but I think his analysis strays from what I'm trying to accomplish here for the moment, so I'm setting it aside.

The role of government...We want to focus instead on finding the best solution – public or private – to a given problem, a proven approach that marries American pragmatism and our history of taking all challenges head on...For progressives, government should help create an atmosphere that fosters individual and private sector success, but it should not be viewed as either the enemy of freedom or the favored solution to pressing societal needs.

Fairness and opportunity...progressives escape this false divide by focusing on fairness – the legal, political, and economic conditions that provide access to equal opportunity and allow people to combine their abilities and aspirations and make the most of their lives...Fairness does not guarantee that everybody will be the same, think the same, or get the same material benefits in life; it simply means that people should start from a level playing field and have a reasonable shot at achieving success whether they want to go to college, start a business or have their day in court.

Citizenship...progressives focus on bringing politics back to the people, and on creating an active and engaged citizenry imbued with a sense of duty and sacrifice to society and country...Progressives believe that the best ideas come from the grass roots, and that public officials have a duty to create new forums for citizen engagement and input. In turn, citizens must keep themselves educated on important issues, get involved in the political process, and encourage civic virtues in younger generations.

And so I open the floor to you. Consider my statement and the assertions of John Halpin, and tell me about how specific issues are discussed at DailyKos within their framework. For example, how is an issue like health care discussed at DKos in terms of "a grassroots commitment to an enlightened reform of government, dedicated to fairness and justice for all"? You pick the issue and cite any examples you are aware of from Kos diary threads. Have fun. As always I leave you with a list of important contributors to the Media Ecology field...

Jacques Ellul, Lewis Mumford, Harold Innis, Marshall McLuhan, Walter Ong, Neil Postman, George Herbert Mead, James W. Carey, Edward T. Hall, Gregory Bateson, Paul Watzlawick, Alfred Korzybski, Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, Norbert Weiner, Ervin Laszlo, Niklas Luhmann, Walter Benjamin, Edmund Burke, N. Katherine Hayles, Claude E. Shannon and Warren Weaver, Jeremy Campbell, Wendell Johnson, Edmund Carpenter, Erving Goffman, Susanne K. Langer, Roland Barthes, Joshua Meyrowitz, Lance Strate, Paul Levinson, and many many more.