"Progressivism" is Meaningless save as Leftism, and Leftism is Meaningless without a Goal
The modern American Left likes to call itself "Progressive." But "Progressivism" is an inherently meaningless term by itself, as "progress" merely means "forward motion." By definition we all "move forward" into the future: the question is, "In what direction?"
The European civilization of the 19th century "progressed" technologically from 1815 to 1914, a fact which most of us would consider almost entirely positive. They also "progressed" philosophically from a belief in peace and international trade as ultimate good states to a belief in war and autarky as ultimate good states: the result being the period of almost incessant war from 1914 to 1953. This progress strikes most of us as a much less positive, even negative thing. So too a baby progresses to become an adult, or a cancer may progress to metastasis. It's all in the direction and the goal.
Once upon a time, there were two Leftist strains in the West. One of them had a goal: classical liberalism, which is to say the maximization of individual rights. This is the strain that produced the democracies of America and Great Britain. That Leftism mostly completed itself in the 1960's and 1970's in America with the attainment of full equality under the law for non-whites. In consequence, that "leftism" is no longer thought of as "liberal" or "left" -- in America it is conservative or libertarian.
The other Leftist strain had the goal of equality. This goal ran with the goal of individual liberty only insofar as equality was being blocked by formal legal privileges for elites or disabilities for the despised: beyond that point the goals are opposed, as enforcing equality of result requires violating individual liberty.
Equality-based Leftism led to disaster after disaster, since enforced equality of result is contrary to human nature at a very deep level (specifically, to the human desires for pleasure and status, which are both ancient in our evolutionary history). Starting with the French Revolution, and continuing with the Russian, Chinese and others, equality-based Leftism has generally meant tyranny, mass murder, wars and poverty for the masses.
In the late 19th and most of the 20th century, the animating theory behind equality-based Leftism was Marxism. Under Marxism, history had a direction: the Communist final society. It was the assumption of this direction from which modern "progressivism" derives its own label.
However, Marxism has been discredited, everywhere save on university campuses. It has been discredited because it failed the reality test: every attempt to implement Marxism has led to economic, legal, military and social disasters. Eventually, this evidence of failure rendered it impossible to persuade most informed individuals to keep on making the attempt.
That is precisely why the modern Left now labels itself "progressive." To label itself "socialist," "Marxist," or worse "Communist," would never work in America, which remembers her victory over international Communism in the Cold War. (In America, the modern Left had labeled itself "liberal," only to give up that description when "liberal" acquired its own legacy of failure in the 1970's).
The problem is that without an explicitly socialist goal, Leftism is adrift, which means it is prone to acquire any goals that happen to come its way and look vaguely attractive to its leaders -- even goals that look attractive only because they are anathema to the Right. Even if they are anathema to the Right solely because they are anti-American or anti-Western -- including anti-liberty.
This is more than a theoretical problem. Much of the modern Left now supports, or at least opposes opposition to, the goals of international Islamism, simply because the Right opposes these goals. In Europe, much of the Left is now working hard to ensure that the State does not enforce religious, sexual or sexual-orientation equality upon Muslims, even when such enforcement would merely consist of ensuring that Muslims have no more rights than anyone else to abuse people simply for being non-Muslim, women or homosexuals.
Most non-Muslim strongly religious persons tend toward the Right anyway, but women and gays are put into a double-bind here. The Leftists claim (and are largely believed) to be speaking for them, yet the Leftists are also actively preventing the enforcement of the laws which protect women and gays from abuse -- in short which secure female and homosexual equality under the law. This is an especially tough situation for gays, against whom there is considerable Rightist prejudice, and against whom the Muslims are the most viciously prejudiced (they consider it ok and indeed laudable to murder homosexuals on sight).
This is what happens when a movement comes adrift. It is liable to drift all over the place -- including over innocent victims.
The European civilization of the 19th century "progressed" technologically from 1815 to 1914, a fact which most of us would consider almost entirely positive. They also "progressed" philosophically from a belief in peace and international trade as ultimate good states to a belief in war and autarky as ultimate good states: the result being the period of almost incessant war from 1914 to 1953. This progress strikes most of us as a much less positive, even negative thing. So too a baby progresses to become an adult, or a cancer may progress to metastasis. It's all in the direction and the goal.
Once upon a time, there were two Leftist strains in the West. One of them had a goal: classical liberalism, which is to say the maximization of individual rights. This is the strain that produced the democracies of America and Great Britain. That Leftism mostly completed itself in the 1960's and 1970's in America with the attainment of full equality under the law for non-whites. In consequence, that "leftism" is no longer thought of as "liberal" or "left" -- in America it is conservative or libertarian.
The other Leftist strain had the goal of equality. This goal ran with the goal of individual liberty only insofar as equality was being blocked by formal legal privileges for elites or disabilities for the despised: beyond that point the goals are opposed, as enforcing equality of result requires violating individual liberty.
Equality-based Leftism led to disaster after disaster, since enforced equality of result is contrary to human nature at a very deep level (specifically, to the human desires for pleasure and status, which are both ancient in our evolutionary history). Starting with the French Revolution, and continuing with the Russian, Chinese and others, equality-based Leftism has generally meant tyranny, mass murder, wars and poverty for the masses.
In the late 19th and most of the 20th century, the animating theory behind equality-based Leftism was Marxism. Under Marxism, history had a direction: the Communist final society. It was the assumption of this direction from which modern "progressivism" derives its own label.
However, Marxism has been discredited, everywhere save on university campuses. It has been discredited because it failed the reality test: every attempt to implement Marxism has led to economic, legal, military and social disasters. Eventually, this evidence of failure rendered it impossible to persuade most informed individuals to keep on making the attempt.
That is precisely why the modern Left now labels itself "progressive." To label itself "socialist," "Marxist," or worse "Communist," would never work in America, which remembers her victory over international Communism in the Cold War. (In America, the modern Left had labeled itself "liberal," only to give up that description when "liberal" acquired its own legacy of failure in the 1970's).
The problem is that without an explicitly socialist goal, Leftism is adrift, which means it is prone to acquire any goals that happen to come its way and look vaguely attractive to its leaders -- even goals that look attractive only because they are anathema to the Right. Even if they are anathema to the Right solely because they are anti-American or anti-Western -- including anti-liberty.
This is more than a theoretical problem. Much of the modern Left now supports, or at least opposes opposition to, the goals of international Islamism, simply because the Right opposes these goals. In Europe, much of the Left is now working hard to ensure that the State does not enforce religious, sexual or sexual-orientation equality upon Muslims, even when such enforcement would merely consist of ensuring that Muslims have no more rights than anyone else to abuse people simply for being non-Muslim, women or homosexuals.
Most non-Muslim strongly religious persons tend toward the Right anyway, but women and gays are put into a double-bind here. The Leftists claim (and are largely believed) to be speaking for them, yet the Leftists are also actively preventing the enforcement of the laws which protect women and gays from abuse -- in short which secure female and homosexual equality under the law. This is an especially tough situation for gays, against whom there is considerable Rightist prejudice, and against whom the Muslims are the most viciously prejudiced (they consider it ok and indeed laudable to murder homosexuals on sight).
This is what happens when a movement comes adrift. It is liable to drift all over the place -- including over innocent victims.