DLC vs Progressives

The Flip. Until FDR, "progressive" was actually the most common term used to describe the mainstream of American leftism. In what can be considered an early example of triangulation, FDR instead chose to call himself a "liberal," thereby poaching some of Hoover's turf while also distancing himself from the left-wing label "progressive." FDR thus changed the meaning of both terms in American political discourse, as the "progressive" label was rendered fringe left-wing, and the "liberal" label was tied to the economic policies of the New Deal instead of the laissez-faire and corporatist policies. From what I understand, Hoover was so outraged over FDR calling himself a liberal during the 1932 campaign, that Hoover challenged FDR to a debate entirely over who was the true "liberal" in the race. It is also important to note that when former Vice President Henry Wallace broke from the Democratic Party in 1948, he took up the banner of the "progressive" party. After that debacle, people did not call themselves "progressive" for some time.

The 1990's revival. After nearly fifty years in the post-Wallace wilderness, the term "progressive" saw a revival in our political discourse in the 1990's primarily from two sources. First, "third way" triangulation types such as the DLC took to the term as a means to avoid being labeled as "liberal." Second, left-wing creative class types, at first primarily in the Bay Area, took to the term in order to disassociate themselves with the exiting "liberal" political infrastructure on both ideological and identity-based grounds. It must have been unpalatable for the wildly successful, and generally cutting edge, entrepreneurs of the Bay Area to self-associate with an ideological term that appeared to be old-fashioned and failing.

The New Big-Tent Term. Entering 2007, "progressive" appears to be the new and emerging "big-tent" term for the American center-left. The term is used just as comfortably by New Dem types as it is by the Democratic Party's left-wing. Whether or not this has drained it of any significant meaning is open to debate. Whether or not it still has any significant difference from the term "liberal" is also open to debate. It certainly appears to have morphed into something of an empty vessel term that an increasingly large segment, if not the majority, of the left and center-left political activist community feels comfortable self-identifying with. That is a good thing, because it allows us a sense of unity we lacked when many would call themselves moderate and many would call themselves liberal. However, it is difficult to tell what degree of resonance the term has outside of the universe of political activists. Pollsters like to use the same question for decades, and thus are not ready to start including the term "progressive" in ideological self-identification questions anytime soon.

Chris' history lesson on the subject is basically sound if a bit incomplete. He's correct in saying that late-nineteenth century Democrats (at least up until the fusion with Populists in 1896) were "liberal" in the European sense of favoring laissez-faire economic policies; there's a good reason that ur-libertarian Ayn Rand regarded Grover Cleveland as the beau ideal of American political history. But they did not always think of themselves as such, given their espousal of states-rights and constitutional strict-construction doctrines; regular southern Democrats in particular called their party "conservative" through most of the nineteenth century.

Likewise, "progressive" was not universally used as the self-identifier of the center-left prior to the New Deal. The term was often used by business interests who thought of advanced capitalism as a historically determined trend. And many Populists, who often argued they were restoring a pre-capitalist Jeffersonian political order, certainly didn't embrace the label of "progressive," either.

Chris is spot-on in noting that "progressive" became tainted by its association with the pro-communist (or at least anti-anti-communist) Left, especially in 1948. And he's also right in acknowledging that the revival of the "progressive" self-identification occurred almost simultaneously in two very different parts of the Democratic Party in the 1990s: the anti-war, anti-corporate, anti-establishment Left, and the New Democrat movement in the center-left.

I have one quibble with Chris' suggestion that New Democrats started using the term "progressive" (most notably with the establishment of the Progressive Policy Institute in 1989) "as a means to avoid being labeled as 'liberal.'" That suggests the terminology was purely cosmetic and non-ideological. In fact, the early New Democrats argued that "liberalism" had become temperamentally reactionary, consumed with defending the dead letter of every single New Deal/Great Society program and policy, while sacrificing the spirit of innovation that made "progressives" progressive. The whole international "Third Way" phenomenon was not designed to produce a moderate middle-point between Left and Right, but instead a reformulation of the progressive mission of the center-left at a time when the Right was successfully battening on popular discontent with outworn social democratic programs. That's why many of us from the New Dem tradition heartily dislike the "centrist" or "moderate" labels, even though they are hard to escape as a short-hand for intra-party politics.

As a bit of an expert on the DLC's "positions on everything" based on 12 years' experience, let me go through Atrios' list and respond.

1. Undo the bankruptcy bill enacted by this administration.

The DLC took no position on the bankruptcy bill; I opposed it, as did Marshall Wittmann.

2. Repeal the estate tax repeal.

Totally, absolutely, adamantly, that has been the DLC's position.

3. Increase the minimum wage and index it to the CPI.

Check. A longstanding DLC position.

4. Universal health care (obviously the devil is in the details on this one)

Check, with devilish details involving the DLC/PPI's dissent from the single-payer approach.

5. Increase CAFE standards. Some other environment-related regulation.

Yup. We've offered an alternative approach involving a tailpipe emissions cap-and-trade system, but the urgency of better fuel efficiency standards is Holy Writ in these (DLC)parts.

6. Pro-reproductive rights, getting rid of abstinence-only education, improving education about and access to contraception including the morning after pill, and supporting choice. On the last one there's probably some disagreement around the edges (parental notification, for example), but otherwise.

Yes again, if "getting rid of abstinence-only education" doesn't mean getting ridding of any abstinence education.

7. Simplify and increase the progressivity of the tax code

Totally, and in excrutiating detail.

8. Kill faith-based funding. Certainly kill federal funding of anything that engages in religious discrimination.

No to the first sentence, yes to the second.

9. Reduce corporate giveaways

Oh yes, for many years. The DLC/PPI helped popularize the very concept of getting rid of "corporate welfare," dating back to a late-1980s event we did with Ralph Nader. This principle has undergirded everything the DLC has said on the budget, the tax code, and state economic development policies.

10. Have Medicare run the Medicare drug plan

Nope. We opposed the current plan, but think the problem is cost and complexity, not the basic idea of offering choice and competition, a la the federal employees' plan.

11. Force companies to stop underfunding their pensions. Change corporate bankruptcy law to put workers and retirees at the head of the line with respect to their pensions.

Not a subject the DLC specifically has addressed, but I have no problem with it.

12. Leave the states alone on issues like medical marijuana. Generally move towards "more decriminalization" of drugs, though the details complicated there too.

No specific DLC position, though I can't imagine anyone here having a problem with state licensing of medical marijuana, and while not embracing "decriminalization" of drugs, we have long opposed the "mandatory minimum" drug sentencing that stuffed the prison system with non-violent offenders in the 1980s and after.

13. Paper ballots

If this means outlawing electronic voting, no, but we've supported a requirement of paper receipts for electronic voting machines to ensure against fraud.

14. Improve access to daycare and other pro-family policies. Obiously details matter.

Totally, and again, in ridiculous detail.

15. Raise the cap on wages covered by FICA taxes.

As part of a more comprehensive Social Security/Medicare reform package, definitely.

Then Atrios offers a few toss-offs:

Torture is bad
Imprisoning citizens without charges is bad
Playing Calvinball with the Geneva Conventions and treaties generally is bad
Imprisoning anyone indefinitely without charges is bad
Stating that the president can break any law he wants any time "just because" is bad.

Agreed on all points. Maybe nobody in the progressive blogosphere actually reads New Dem Dispatches or other institutional DLC utterings, preferring to rely on stereotypes, myths, or a few notable disagreements, but it's all there on the web site.

Now, by my rough count this represents something like 80% agreement--totally aside from the much higher percentage of agreement between left-bent bloggers and the DLC about the vast number of bad policies, terrible politics, and sheer incompetence associated with the Bush administration and the Republican Party. I guess this raises Chait's pointed question about the attitude of progressive bloggers to those Democrats who agree with them most of the time, but not all of the time.