Liberalism and Progressivism: Opposites or Free-Minded Allies?

The debate over whether liberalism and progressivism are opposing ideologies or compatible social forces is both timeless and highly charged. In recent years, the differences between these two philosophies have only become more pronounced, with some asserting that they are irreconcilably at odds. This article aims to explore the nuances of both views, examining the historical context and the contemporary implications of these ideologies.

Conceptualizing Liberalism

At its core, liberalism is a wide-ranging ideology that emphasizes individual freedom and the importance of personal liberties. The classical liberal perspective, as championed by thinkers like John Stuart Mill and Milton Friedman, advocates for a minimal intervention in the affairs of individuals and the market. This philosophy is underpinned by a respect for the rule of law and the protection of individual rights as guaranteed by constitutional frameworks.

For instance, classical liberalism, which is not to be confused with the libertarian wing of the political spectrum, champions the idea of negative freedom: the freedom from any unnecessary or unjust constraints on individual choice and behavior. These advocates of classical liberalism have often been critical of any form of authoritarianism, censorship, or policies that circumvent individual rights.

The Progressive Turn

Progressivism, on the other hand, represents a shift towards a more activist and interventionist form of governance. This ideology seeks to use government as a tool for achieving various social and economic goals, often at the expense of the traditional individual freedoms enshrined in the American Constitution. The term progressivism gained prominence in the early 20th century, marked by the reforms of President Theodore Roosevelt and the New Deal policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Progressives argue that the Constitution's rigid structure must be loosened to allow for more progressive and equitable social outcomes. They advocate for an "organic evolutionary model" where experts can shape the public sphere and exert greater national control, often through expansive government intervention.

Historical Context and Ideological Tensions

The tension between liberalism and progressivism has been evident throughout American history. Classical liberals like Theodore Roosevelt recognized the need for government regulation to address corporate abuses and environmental degradation. However, this pragmatic approach to governance is fundamentally different from the more radical and expansive vision of progressivism, as seen in the later stages of Roosevelt's administration.

According to Bradley C.S. Watson’s Progressivism: The Strange History of a Radical Idea (2020), the progressive vision calls for a complete overthrow of the traditional constitutionalism based on fixed natural rights and limited authority. Instead, it envisions a fluid and evolving Constitution that prioritizes political control and social engineering.

Centrist Perspectives

Centrist theories and positions navigate the tension between liberalism and progressivism by embracing a balanced approach. Centrists include both classical individualist liberals and moderate conservatives, whose views and policies often shade into their respective ideological wings.

For example, classical liberals are known for their emphasis on individual freedom, maximum freedom of expression, and intellectual dissent. They advocate for the preservation of negative freedom and are strongly opposed to any form of authoritarianism, including social policies that impose equal rights at the expense of individual liberties.

Contemporary Implications

The inherent conflict between individual freedom and state-sponsored schemes aimed at achieving radical egalitarianism is a central issue in modern political discourse. While liberals like Jefferson and Madison emphasized personal freedoms and individual rights, contemporary progressivism tends to prioritize collective welfare over individual rights, often at the expense of constitutional protections.

James Ostrowski's arguments highlight the fundamental incompatibility between classical liberalism and the progressive vision, especially as exemplified by policies like the New Deal and later social programs. The tension between these ideologies is not just ideological; it has real-world consequences for governance, individual liberty, and social justice.

Conclusion

Despite the evident differences, both liberalism and progressivism have roots in the belief in a better future through active involvement in governance. While some argue that these ideologies are inherently opposed, a closer examination reveals a shared concern for transformative societal change. The key distinction lies in the means by which these goals are pursued: classical liberals emphasize individual freedom and constitutional constraints, while progressivism advocates for more expansive government roles and interventions.

The debate between liberalism and progressivism will undoubtedly continue, shaping the future direction of American politics and society. Understanding the nuances and complexities of these ideologies is crucial for fostering informed and constructive public discourse.