"progressives" versus "liberals" [View All]

[welshTerrier2]

it would be easy to dismiss this discussion as nothing more than a game of semantics ... some dictionaries even say the terms are synonyms ... and that's fine ... we could stop right there and do no further analysis ... or, we could use the terms to differentiate between two different views within the Democratic Party ... the article below by David Sirota chooses the latter path ...

the distinction he makes is that liberals support government programs, largely through spending programs, to "subsidize" those in need of government support ... the focus, as Sirota defines it, appears to be one of bringing a better standard of living to those who can't afford it ...

progressives, at least in this model's definition, support the liberal approach but go a step further ... progressives equally focus on the inequities of competition that enable certain players in our economy to exploit weaker players ... for example, progressives call for a windfall profits tax on big oil ... progressives might push back against the "free market" right wing to demand accommodation in some form from the pharmaceutical industry ... the focus goes beyond programs for the poor or middle class to make the wealthy and powerful play by the rules ...

rather than discussing whether we are just playing semantics, let's try to focus a discussion on these two different philosophies ... it really doesn't matter what terms we use to make the distinction ...

it's time for the Democratic Party to fully endorse what Sirota calls "progressivism" ... the Party has failed for too many years to make the distinction to the American people between being "anti-business" and anti-abusive business ... some commercial entities, and industries, have grown so large and powerful that their interests no longer align with the national interest ... it's time we used the power of government, i.e. the collective power of Americans embodied in their government, to put an end to corporate conduct that does not serve our country and its citizens ...

this could be a major plank in the Party's platform and it could go a long way to building some unity between center and left ...

comments ??

read the full article here ...

To put it in more concrete terms - a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). A more "progressive" solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry's profiteering and market manipulation tactics. A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor; A progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America (much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money).

Let's be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class.

We can see a good example of this hesitation from Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in his "health care to hybrids" proposal. As the Detroit News reports, Obama is calling "for using government money to relieve Detroit automakers of some of their staggering health care obligations if they commit to improving fuel economy by 3 percent a year for 15 years."

Here's the thing - we all want to see autoworkers' health care preserved, and we all want to see better fuel efficiency standards for cars. But is this really the road we want to go down as a society? I'd say no. The fact is, the auto industry should be forced to produce more fuel efficient cars through higher government fuel efficiency mandates, without taxpayers having to bail out the industry. It's not like those mandates would be asking the industry to do something that doesn't make good business sense - demand for higher fuel-efficiency cars is skyrocketing.

Paying off corporations to do what they already should be doing sets a dangerous precedent - it sends a message to Big Business that they can leverage their irresponsible behavior into government handouts. In this case, the auto industry would be leveraging its refusal to produce more fuel efficient cars and preserve its workers' health care into a giant taxpayer-funded subsidy.