Just responding to the recent discussion about articluating the principles of progressive ideology. (Understanding the ideologies of the left and the right)

On 7/19/18 (possibly 18th) Thom Hartmann responded to a man who refers to migrants as “invaders” and those who do not support immgration as a legal process as “traitors”. Thom stated that no ELECTED Democrats are suggesting open borders and stated specifically that any Dem who would should be voted out. He conceded that anyone who would promote open boarders can be considered a traitor. And summarily terminated the ability to even make that big progressive rhetorical push and settle for the inevitable middle ground.

On the same/next day, FAIR, in an interview with Jacinta Gonzalez gave voice to those who want to see immigration leave the legal system as it is currently adjudicated.

It seems like progessive/liberal/Democrats are singing two completely different tunes and who knows, this may be the exact kind of thing the right would spin as “hey conservative friends, when you call in, they claim they’d never support open borders. When they speak amongst themselves that’s exactly what they’re talking about.”

What we should realize is that the Progressives of yesterday are the liberals of tomorrow. Just as the Liberals of today are the rank and file Democrats of tomorrow.

As our Overton window has shifted our consciousness of conservativism as mainstream, those who considered themselves moderates have begun to identify more as just Democrats. (A little bit a nasty taste in their mouth about the state of the Republican party’s social views, and there you go.) We can see this in the broad and individualized senses.

(I’m going to introduce a really clunky term for the sake of this conversation)

Those who had been actively pressing for social change has reached the limit of change that their neuro-political-elasticity if you will, allows for. They may have been okay with gay marriage but maybe not so much with nonbinary gender representation. So, we have to accept that the velocity and willingness at which progressives adopt a broader application of what I will reveal as my definition of progressivism, slows as we reach the outer limits of what seems normal to them.

Think of it as moving for a new job. You’re definitely moving across town maybe just changing your local convenience store. Not a huge paradigm shift there. You may move out of state and switch from Kroger’s to Giant Eagle or Von’s. You’ll have to drive a new name. It’s going to be more of a psychological stressor to move to another country where actually there is no super market. You have to remember to go to the local grocer, the pastry shop, the fruit stand, etc.

So, what it comes down to is, as Jay has identified, the very definition of progressivism: An ever-forward striving endeavor to secure in social and legal contexts the inherent worth and dignity of all people.

There you have it, the progressive ethic. And we are limited in our view of what that means by our own senses of our neuro-political-elastic breaking point. Your progressivism today with be woefully inadequete to respond to the reality of tomorrow without great effect to remain politically and morally elastic in your conception of what progressivism is. Going back to our example, Thom considers himself progressive or at least liberal, but his views are progressive for the 70s and liberal for the 90s. While the progressives of 2018 are doing precisely what is inconceivable to him as a rank and file Democrat in 2018.

Also, I want to interrogate this idea that there was a two generation lull in progressivism followed by our present moment.

First, for all of the history of socialism, it doesn’t seem to be making its way to the presidency or Congress in any large numbers. Might we say that it isn’t catching on? I wonder how that squares with the potency of the socialism story.

Second, if we are to accept this recent history of progressivism, what has accounted for its resurgence sans grand ideological narrative spanning centuries? And, can we see defining a progressive agenda linked to our contemporary political and moral ideas as antithetical to the idea of moving ever forward. The socialism history suffers from the same problem as the conservative one: constantly fitting a centuries old ideology into a modern context and having to grapple with whether the ideology is being manipulated past its purity and any previous incarnations that were not all-people inclusive and all-people affirming.