What is Progressive?

In the UK, the term ‘progressive’ is used to rally people across political parties to work together to defeat those who favour discrimination, exploitation, neglect of the poor and vulnerable, and sacrificing common wellbeing for plutocratic gains. In the US, ‘progressive’ is often a label for those accused of in-fighting with moderate Democrats, and pressing for ever more radical policies in support of social, economic, and environmental justice.

So is the progressive outlook ultimately going to be a unifying or splintering force in the political battle against greed and bigotry? 

Come to think of it, what is progressive? Although the term has been used in various ways for over a century, there are important elements that have featured from the time The Progressive Party was founded in England in 1988 (it went on to win control of the London County Council in 1889), when the similarly named Progressive Party emerged in the US (its candidate for the 1912 presidential election was no less than Theodore Roosevelt), through the decades down to contemporary intellectuals and policy advisors who align themselves with progressive critiques and advocacy. These elements can be summed up under four main categories:

Responsible pluralism

There are diverse views and ways of life, and none should ever be dismissed dogmatically without due examination. Unless there is tangible harm involved, different ideas and practices should be allowed to exist alongside each other. Diverse outlooks and customs can enrich life and promote new improved approaches to problem-solving. However, one must be responsible, and any move towards harassment, discrimination, intimidation, abuse, subjugation should be challenged and restrained. Disagreement is to be neither removed by diktats nor perpetuated in the name of ‘each to one’s own’. Everyone can make their case, share their contributions, while no one can be permitted to deprive others of the chance to live a fulfilling life.

Critical experimentalism

Claims cannot be arbitrarily ruled out, but nor should they be accepted as legitimate for teaching or circulation if they do not stand up to objective scrutiny. Systematic evidence gathering and examination should guide investigations so that lies and prejudices can be exposed. Observation and experimentation have a key role to play in the evaluation of proposed theories and explanations. Past arrangements and practices should not be shielded from change just on account of how long they have been around. At the same time, the introduction of new proposals should be guided by tests and expert analyses. Cautious trials ought to precede sweeping alterations, with risk management incorporated as essential and not disregarded as inherently reactionary.

Cooperative incrementalism

People are to work together to improve their lives. No one is to produce a blueprint for change that everyone else must follow. What is to be preserved, altered, introduced, and how to move forward are matters that require the input from all concerned on a mutually respectful basis. While we may have to draw a line with those who are set on brushing our interests aside, the vast majority of people are willing to explore common ground and pursue shared objectives. Cooperation is better carried out through inclusive engagement and relationship building, with open deliberations facilitating give-and-take and a readiness to help those unable to offer much help to others. Negotiation and compromise are integral to genuine collaboration. 

Democratic realism

Many problems require collective power and resources to tackle, and how such power is to be exercised in turn needs to be steered by the informed and inclusive input from the public. Prevailing democratic arrangements should be continuously improved so that there is real proportionality in the efficacy of each vote, people are not misled about the issues, corruption is held in check, and money’s influence is curtailed. An imperfect system is nonetheless what elections are fought on, and unless enough support is won, power would go elsewhere. There is no point in putting forward what would not secure sufficient backing, and worse, it would be a betrayal of democracy to incite violent protests when one cannot succeed electorally.

These four elements do not give us policy details, but signify what guides progressive thinking in working with others to explore and pursue the common good. It is a unifying force in bringing together people who want to press for improvements across society in certain ways, and it also marks a dividing line that differentiates between those willing to work with others and those who are convinced they alone have the answers.

Empathy Obstructed

Empathy is not about summoning up a feeling identical to that experienced by another person. It is about appreciating what kind of experience someone else is having without having that experience oneself. Some people mistakenly suppose that one can only relate to any feeling if one has experienced that exact feeling. 

But empathy is important precisely because it enables us to relate sensitively to the experiences, good or bad, of other people who are quite different and distinct from us. It means we are able to recognise the pain inflicted on those who may otherwise have little in common with us but their humanity. It prompts us to question, and possibly challenge, what is bringing about such outcomes.

Alas, empathic pathways have been increasingly obstructed. Policy makers barely take issue with this corrosive development, and routinely overlook the need to intervene. Four areas call for urgent attention.

First of all, we have the media demonisation of scapegoats. Be they refugees, immigrants, benefit claimants, they are targeted by rich owners of media empires for relentless negative portrayals so people do not respond to their suffering, but instead see them as despicable causes of problems for society. Distorted, biased coverage effectively poison readers’ minds until they have lost all empathic capability for relating to many of the most disadvantaged people.

Secondly, we have the deliberate hiring of borderline-psychopathic people to senior positions to shut down organisational empathic connections. These people have three notable characteristics: [1] they are charming and subservient to those at the very top; they come across as can-do and are ever-ready to sort any ‘problem’ out; [2] they do not care about how unreasonable, ethically dubious, or practically impossible the orders are that they give to their subordinates; and [3] they are adept at putting all the blame on others, and dismiss any feedback or complaint as ill-judged.

Thirdly, there is the systemic displacement of human connection by private and public service providers. Staff are required to ‘focus’ on their job so that they do not ‘waste’ time on listening to or engaging with service recipients. The next often-taken step is to channel all queries from service recipients to automated response-givers – either humans tied to a rigid script or some form of computer system – and anything the service provider does not want to hear about is ignored. 

Finally, there is the accelerated decline of local familiarisation through a combination of economic deprivation which leaves more people isolated, and relentless cuts to all forms of community development just when they are more than ever needed to bring people together to build trust and share ideas. Instead of helping people find a common voice in expressing their concerns, private and public sector organisations step back and leave communities fragmented. 

Empathy is the oxygen of social existence. To obstruct its availability is to suffocate mutual understanding and community cohesion. Policy makers should stamp out media vilification of targeted groups; adopt recruitment criteria that guard against the appointment of those who treat empathy with disdain; strengthen service provisions by building in better and more extensive human responsiveness; and give greater and sustained support to community development to nurture connections and shared goals for local improvement.