The American Left nowadays have shown a preference for abandoning the L-word (liberal) in favor of the P-word (progressive). The evidence is thus: if you try to label their views “liberal,” they will respond by saying they don’t like labels, because labels are divisive and hamper consensus. But if instead (and not afterwards) you call their views “progressive,” you will probably get a proud smile. So much for divisive labels. QED.

I’m glad to see the word “liberal” begin to return to its roots, as in “liberal democracy,” which describes pluralism, the rule of law, the protection of rights (including property rights), subsidiarity, and central government with well-defined limits. In other words, a classical liberal is today’s conservative.

A progressive is a quite different creature. Rather than adhere to a set of core principles, progressives like to try to adapt to circumstances, and try new solutions, solutions to problems usually of therir own making when they began to abandon the core principles of liberalism.

Progressives became prominent after the Industrial Revolution, at about the same time as Marxism and Fascism, usually as a counter to these movements, but too often adopting some of their ideas. Teddy Roosevelt, America’s first Progressive, believed that industrialists had become too rich, powerful, and corrupt, but didn’t fully appreciate the fact that state patronage and protectionism had been enablers. Rather, he assumed an activist role, as a “trust buster” instead of a market reformer.

Progressives prefer statist approaches to address major issues (and increasingly even minor ones) over free-market approaches; judicial remedies over legislative remedies; and international institutions, treaties, and organizations over free associations and national sovereignty. But with important exceptions: defense treaties are objected to if they seem to favor U.S. national security over the interests of NGOs, and trade treaties are objected to if they weaken the influence of labor unions (which rely on the coercive power of the state to thrive).  

So I have no problem with the American Left calling themselves progressives; I call it truth in advertising.

While watching the progress of the presidential primaries, think about how far the two major political parties have come in the area of diversity.

One conclusion easily reached is that the GOP is by far the most diverse of the two parties, if using a strict definition of diversity. A less strict, and more popular understanding of the term essentializes the identities (race, ethnicity, sex) of the candidates and their followers. But these are external factors that neglect the wholeness of a person’s character and uniqueness. Scratch below the surface, and things get much more complex. And refusal to look below the surface is not only intellectually lazy but dishonest and unfaithful to the teachings of civil rights vanguards of the last century. We should all have learned by now that such superficiality unfairly classifies individuals into artificial groupings which demeans their essential quailities as individuals.

True diversity in politics is reflected in ideas, and by extension ideology (defined as ideas taken seriously). If you made a Venn diagram of the policies advocated by the Democratic Party candidates, you would find a great deal of overlap. Not concentric circles (100% overlap), but nearly so; the loci of these circles are very close to one another.

Among the Republican candidates, however, the diagram is less orderly. To be sure, there is some overlap, but the areas common to all is smaller than that common to any two. Even in the defining issues of tax policy and the use of military force, the area of difference is larger than the area of consensus. You could even say that the loci of the cirles lie outside the center, as opposed to inside the consensus area, as they do for the Democrats.

Diversity, of course, is an antonym of unity. But since the left wants it both ways, they lessen the importance of ideas (or else demand conformity), and increase the importance of identity to achieve their fantasy diversity model. This explains the quick elimination of all of the white males in their candidate primaries, even though their views are the most orthodox and their accomplishments as elected officials more evident.

Within this framework, the Democratic VP candidate must, by necessity, be a white male with orthodox “progressive” credentials. This telegraphs to party faithfuls that the only way for a white male to achieve stature within the party (even though he would be among the first to be eliminated in a presidential primary contest) is to adhere to progressive othodoxy. Blue Dog Democrats will soon go the way of the Dixie Democrats.  

So expect the Democrats to choose a VP candidate* along the likes of John Edwards (but not John Edwards himself). And conversely, the GOP VP candidate will likely have political views which are quite different from those of the top of the ticket. Think about this the next time you hear a candidate mention diversity.

*Likely choices would be Evan Bayh of Indiana (economics wonk and industrial policy advocate) or James Webb of Virgina (military veteran and populist).