| Words matter.
It's a simple enough premise: the meanings of ephemeral concepts such as "justice," "equality," and "liberty" are affected by the words we choose to describe them. In modern American politics, those concepts mean entirely different things to neighbors, friends and siblings who nonetheless find themselves on opposite sides of the political aisle.
Unfortunately, many on both sides of that aisle have been misusing some important political words. Curious?
The Political Left: "Progressive" vs. "Liberal"
"Progressive" entered the American political lexicon in the late 1800s and early 1900s as a movement advocating ideas that endure to the present: Efficiency. Regulation. Social Justice. Environmentalism. These causes were advanced by leaders in both the Democratic and Republican parties, but many found their culmination in the New Deal, pushed during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration. Several programs instituted then, including Social Security and the Securities and Exchange Commission, survive today.
But as the 20th century wound on, the infamous Powell Memo was written, conservative think tanks sprang up and "liberal" became a four-letter word during the Reagan years. Depending on how one defines liberal politics, the last truly liberal president may have been Jimmy Carter, or perhaps even Lyndon Johnson. And, by many measures -- NAFTA and changes to the welfare system, for example -- Bill Clinton was not an especially liberal leader.
Read more after the break |
| Today, "liberal" generally means an emphasis on individual civil rights, community-supported and community-targeted programs like universal health care and education programs and a hands-off approach for government on social issues. "Progressive," on the other hand, tends to have a slightly different meaning. According to Jeffrey Feldman, editor of Frameshop and author of Framing the Debate,
"Progressive, liberal and conservative are important political symbols more than precise terms. As such, we tend to see people identifying with them more than using them to describe particular policies. Overall, though, "progressive" seems to describe a periodic, "bottom-up" movement within the much broader ideology of liberalism (e.g., all progressives are liberal, but not all liberals are progressive)."
One point that Feldman stressed was that particular issues, like Iraq, can skew this analysis: "There's nothing particularly progressive about wanting the war in Iraq to end now and troops to come home, but many people think that this view of Iraq is what makes them progressive."
In modern American politics, then, a progressive is mindful first and foremost of the people he or she represents -- working from the bottom up. Single-issue groups, special interests, corporations, these come second. This is how common-sense legislation like the minimum-wage increase made it through the U.S. House of Representatives so quickly once the Democratic caucus took over the chamber's leadership. It was exceedingly easy for Democrats from across the country to unite around a bill that supported their constituents against the forces of globalization and inflation. Although their new majority consisted of liberals, moderates and conservatives on social and foreign policy issues, when it comes to their constituents and especially their constituents? economic needs, the entire conference is made up of progressives.
Today, however, many Democrats replace "liberal" with "progressive" when describing candidates and elected officials, and such replacements are not always called for. Here in Minnesota, there are two freshman DFLers in our congressional delegation, Tim Walz from the 1st District and Keith Ellison from the 5th. The districts are different in many ways: Walz's reaches 300 miles across southern Minnesota, encompassing farmland and plenty of rough rural roads, while Ellison's contains Minnesota's largest city and its immediate suburbs. If one examines Walz's and Ellison's positions on important wedge issues, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that each fits his district. Walz is a moderate Democrat and Ellison a more classic liberal. What unites them is their progressive streaks -- each publicly puts the interests of the people he represents above those of omnipresent lobbyists and monied special interests.
But Democrats need to be careful about conflating the two descriptors, lest vastly popular progressive legislation -- minimum wage hikes, health care reform, and many other important bills -- get slapped with a pejorative and inaccurate label.
The Political Right: "Fiscal" vs. "Financial"
Raise your hand if you've heard a Republican presidential candidate call himself a "fiscal conservative."
It makes sense. It rolls off the tongue and leaves the impression that the speaker will spend your money wisely.
Only that's entirely not what the speaker meant. There's a gulf of difference between fiscal policy and financial policy. Financial policy is what you and I practice when we (hopefully) balance our checkbook and pay our bills and move a small percentage of our paychecks into our savings accounts each month: We're spending only what we can afford, putting something away for a rainy day, and living within our means.
"Fiscal," however, refers to large-scale budget policy and, in modern political parlance, has nothing to do with managing money as we the people might. As Feldman succinctly put it, "fiscal conservatism is a business approach to the economy: borrow, invest, longterm growth -- advance by taking calculated risk. It's anything but ?cautious.? " Unfortunately, Republican candidates and officials have conflated smart money management with a businessman's approach to government, an approach that does not always yield positive results for those affected by it. Put another way, running a government is, most often, not like running a company.
---------
These ideas are not particularly biased one way or the other. On the contrary, both the left and right fall victim to incorrect connotation of words like "Progressive" and "Fiscal." With Congress? approval ratings only a few points higher than Vice President Cheney?s, it is clear that the American people know something is wrong with what their representatives are telling them. But it is the American people, and not just a political party, who would benefit from both parties fixing their respective nomenclatures. |
