Are you a progressive?

[Marmora Man]

Why is the word progressive invariably used as a positive?

Gordon Bown insists Labour can win the next election "by showing we are the progressive party", David Cameron says he has a "progressive reform plan for Europe" and Nick Clegg says ?the Lib Dems are the progressive party now?. All use it to burnish their credentials as politicians for the future.

Progress implies a journey toward an end point. Progressive seems to imply a continual, never ending journey, a perpetual revolution perhaps?

Change and challenge are an intrisic part of human endeavour. Childen challenge patents, new political ideas challenge old, new products, services, systems and tools overtake and replace the old. Such challenge and change has, historically, been ameliorated by (small c) conservatism that kept the pace appropriate and acceptable - preventing swift irreversible shocks to society.

I am not sure that progressive politicians, of all hues, recognise this. Britain signed up for significant change in the late 40s with the creation of the welfare state - but many of that generation would be appalled at how the progressive changes to the concept have brought UK to a position where over a third a of all families rely upon tax credits.

In the 70s many voted to join the Common Market - a free trading economic union. Many are now aghast that progressive politics has turned the simple economic mutual society into a quasi overly bureaucratic superstate.

In the 90s controls on immigration were relaxed and a growing multicultural society to replace some traditional ideas of Britishness were positively welcomed by the current government as a progressive measure to reflect British tolerance and open borders. With hindsight it is possible to see that this policy has had diversive and detrimental effects on UK society and cohesiveness.

It is not possible, nor desirable, to prevent change but should it be controlled and directed to best effect?

What word could be applied usefully to challenge the, I believe, incorrect belief that progressive politics and progressive policies are always positive and good?

[mockney piers]

The thing is the language of politics and the truths of politics are very different. Semantics are also key, progressive certainly implies that the journey is positive as that's also implied in the word progress. You progress towards a desired destination.

The opposite of progress implies either stagnation or regression. What amazes me about conservatism is that for a long time it's managed to make a positive political dialogue out of essentially negative values, but now that language is SO key this is no longer sustainable for them and they've fallen into the trap of new labour that it's the impression that matters not the substance, and impressions are created by presentation and language.

Of course the reality isnt necessarily, as you rightly point out, remotely related to this.

The US is absolutely fascinating for studying the language of politics as that's entirely where the political battles are fought, whereas here we still retain some rational analysis, mainly thanks to a better media.(yes auntie Beeb, we can thank your existence for much of this, despite what the detractors say). I'd say in countries like France and Spain they are much much more rooted in reality than we are still.

Anyway, one minor example in the US (who invented the Progressive movement, the capital P one) is that everything has to be framed in a positive aspect, noone can be against anything because negativity turns people off, hence you have pro-life, not anti-abortion. Have a look at the political dialogue over there on any subject and you'll see what I mean. The naming of some of the lobby groups is positively Orwellian!!

I haven't really answered your question mind you, just some observations.

[Huguenot]

I can see what you're saying MM, but confused by the post.

Your first question was about progress necessarily being a positive. An issue that has no answer. Please feel free to watch "Waiting for Godot". The characters were happy, but most of the audience would rather it wasn't them.

Then you launched into a ridiculous tirade of selfish conservative little England-ism.

Your talk about preventing "swift irreversible shocks to society" has more than a little 1984 in it.

I take it you're not suggesting that tax credits are essentially bad - the tories offer loads of them to big corporations - you're just saying you don't want to give them to families?

I take it you're saying that the EU isn't bad, you're just suggesting that you prefer the robber baron environment of unregulated markets?

On immigration you just seem to be saying we shouldn't let in foreigners? They think differently?

[tomchance]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am not sure that progressive politicians, of all

> hues, recognise this. Britain signed up for

> significant change in the late 40s with the

> creation of the welfare state - but many of that

> generation would be appalled at how the

> progressive changes to the concept have brought UK

> to a position where over a third a of all families

> rely upon tax credits.

Why do right wing pundits attack pro-equality policies then moan about the uptake of welfare required to soak up the problems? It's like knocking social rented homes being built then expressing shock at the uptake of housing benefit.

The main problem I can see with the welfare system is that, for worry of perpetual attacks from the right, no government has been able to redesign the system to incentivise work without knocking great big holes through the safety net.

> In the 70s many voted to join the Common Market -

> a free trading economic union. Many are now aghast

> that progressive politics has turned the simple

> economic mutual society into a quasi overly

> bureaucratic superstate.

Which many on the left criticise, too, although "superstate" is a bit of an overstatement. Another funny conservative tendency - to assume they are the only ones who dislike the undemocratic structures of the EU.

> What word could be applied usefully to challenge

> the, I believe, incorrect belief that progressive

> politics and progressive policies are always

> positive and good?

You might like to read up on some essays by George Lakoff from a few years back for inspiration. He got the Democrats in the USA to stop adopting Republican terms like "tax relief" and "pro life", which so effectively framed the debate that they were unable to get their points across. A bit like, oh, I don't know, "the European superstate" :)

[Marmora Man]

Thanks Mockney for a rational response.

T'other responses don't even begin to respond to the question. Hugenot has made some predictable stabs, but they are based on assumptions of my position not the thesis posited. TomChance makes some similar assumptions but does, at least in his final paragraph, contribute. I'd happily debate the points they make on another thread - but that wasn't the focus of my question

I suppose my thinking is:

a. Policies labelled as progressive seem to involve continual change.

b. Continual change isn't necessarily a good thing

c. I fear that progressive policies and politicians tend to be based upon unsustainable optimism rather than thoughtful analysis.

The three examples I gave were not meant to represent any particular political stance - they were presented to illustrate that what started out as a good idea can, at least in some people's opinion, turn into something less good if no brakes are applied, no post implementation review carried out and instead continual change, always moving away from the original status quo, is adopted.

So my original question becomes "are progressive policies necessarily a good thing?"

[HAL9000]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "are progressive policies necessarily a good thing?"

In a world desperately seeking stability, perhaps not. On the other hand, progress towards greater stability might be. Hmmm.

[tomchance]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I suppose my thinking is:

>

> a. Policies labelled as progressive seem to

> involve continual change.

> b. Continual change isn't necessarily a good

> thing

> c. I fear that progressive policies and

> politicians tend to be based upon unsustainable

> optimism rather than thoughtful analysis.

You could simply say that "conservatism" is concerned with conserving the past, whilst "progressivism" is concerned with making progress towards a better society. But politics and political philosophies are so complex, and the media's application of labels so simplistic, that it's a fairly pointless exercise trying to use the etymology of a word or it's usual sense to determine whether Labour or "the left" or "progressives" are a good thing. Think of the 70s/80s New Right, for example, making a nonsense of my simplstic definition of conservatism above. Thatcher was anything but a conservationist, whilst Blair, who you might want to label as a "progressive", conserved many of the central economic assumptions of that New Right movement.

So I think your original question is rather meaningless.

> The three examples I gave were not meant to

> represent any particular political stance - they

> were presented to illustrate that what started out

> as a good idea can, at least in some people's

> opinion, turn into something less good if no

> brakes are applied, no post implementation review

> carried out and instead continual change, always

> moving away from the original status quo, is

> adopted.

Hence some of us focused on your examples, because they set your argument up by taring a meaningless label with a (your?) particular take on those complex topics.

I could equally ask "is it good to conserve the past?" and suggest that conservative economic policy in the 80s led to more racism, oppression and a new, unhealthy reliance on the welfare state. Or that the heritage buildings movement has stopped people from improving their homes, making them more energy efficient and the like.

[Keef]

I'm not so up on politics as many on here, but it seems to me, that in a lot of ways, we go around in circles, so "progression" is often going back to an old idea and tarting it up a bit.

In social services (and probably many other services), there is a constant cycle of what works and doesn't work. It's like people forget that things were rubbish last time they tried something, because they feel they're even more rubbish in the here and now, so they go "forward" by effectively doing something they were doing 10 years ago, then they realise it's rubbish, so they'll try something else they've already done.

I think it's probably the same in politics.

[????]

Well it's just a label isn't it... and many, but not all of those, with supposed "Progressive" views are the most conservative (with a small c) thinkers about

[SeanMacGabhann]

Citation needed

[mockney piers]

There is an innate problem with electorally democratic politics that an encumbent needs to be seen to be doing something.

So there is a perceived (possibly justifiably) pressure to change things and tinker and put ones stamp on something.

Small c conservatism has a lot to say for it, but it shouldn't be a philosophy more a pragmatic starting point.

Capital P progressivism was basically a small l liberal one, but he world has changed a great deal in over a century. Like much in politics in the millenial Anglo-Saxon world (another misnomer I'd live to see ditched) these labels are by and large meaningless but Libertarian, Progressive and Conservative play well to the gallery.

[????]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Citation needed

Where do I begin?

Number 1 - Tony Benn often going on about 'us in progressive politics' on Mao "The greatest man of the 20th Century"

[SeanMacGabhann]

Well, if you have to go THAT extreme...

[????]

Well - what's wrong with that, he's still worshipped by the 'progressive left' as some sort of cuddly old progressive..I'd have been scared what have happened to this country - on several levels - if he'd ever got his hands on power. Idealism turns to dogma far too often, infact I spit on it - like your teacher who ruined the Romantic poets for you ;-). Incidentally, as mockney points out, it's all a bit arguing about semantics but in terms of governemnts, the 3 most Radical since the war

Atlee's - nationalisation, the full welfare state, creation of NHS

Wilson's - the great Social reforms of the 60s all progressive on abortion, death penalty, divorce and homosexuality

Thatcher's - privatisation, freemarkets, reform of dinosaur Unions

[Marmora Man]

???? Wrote:

In terms of governemnts, the 3 most Radical since the war

>

> Atlee's - nationalisation, the full welfare state,

> creation of NHS

> Wilson's - the great Social reforms of the 60s all

> progressive on abortion, death penalty, divorce

> and homosexuality

> Thatcher's - privatisation, freemarkets, reform of

> dinosaur Unions

And two of the three could genuinely be called progressive in that they moved the country and political thinking from one paradigm to another - and, I would argue, to a better place - the Wilson Government and the Thatcher Government.

The Attlee Government replaced the "old" paternalistic approach of society with a paternalistic government - reducing personal responsibility and increasing government responsibility. Many of the Attlee reforms have been watered down to the point where they are unrecognisable - except, unfortunately, Government sponsored paternalism.

[Huguenot]

I respect MM, that it's more convenient to paint me as irrational; but how 'bout this from Cameron:

"We are progressive Conservatives. Our goal is a fairer, safer, greener country where opportunity is more equal. It's because we are progressives that we will protect the NHS."

Dated a couple of days ago.

It's a fair point that an undemanding future is craved by those who have run their race. 'Tis only self indulgence that would demand the same from youth.

Crikey man, you're demanding the emasculation of your competitors. Like a wounded lion you're arguing that the new generation shouldn't achieve their birthright.

Long in the tooth you'd like to retain your "droit de seigneur". Savaged by cubs, you reject the attention.

It's deserving of scorn, not celebration. I enjoin you as I do myself to respect the smarter wit of our juniors. We shall smoke cigars and look on.