Weekly Briefing

How “HK on J” highlights the difference between progressives and conservatives   

What is it that distinguishes North Carolina “progressives” and “conservatives”? Is it their competing positions on tax policy? How about racial integration in the public schools? Transportation policy? Global warming? The death penalty?

A short answer is that it is all of these issues and many more. Over the past several decades, ideological lines between progressives and conservatives have arisen and evolved on any number of specific issues, large and small – from public education funding to payday lending; campaign finance reform to Smart Start.    

Of course, commitment to these competing general causes does not dictate disagreement on every issue. In some instances, battle lines have blurred and overlapped as progressives and conservatives have made common cause on such matters as public corruption and state sponsored gambling.

To further complicate matters, many people do not identify themselves as members of either ideological camp. These North Carolinians tend to opt for “progressive” positions on some issues and “conservative” ones on others.

Markets and government

Having said all of this, it’s clear that there remains a profound worldview divide in today’s state policy debate. Progressives and conservatives may overlap at times and average North Carolinians may hopscotch back and forth between the movements on specific issues, but for the most part, the overarching divide between the two sides is real and meaningful and worth understanding. 

This divide is also a function of more than just the views of the respective sides toward government and the “free market.” Many on the far right accuse progressives of being “statists” who see big government as the infallible solution to every problem. But, of course, these are the same “conservatives” who enthusiastically support a long list of intrusive state interventions into the most private of human behaviors and the ongoing expansion of the largest military/national security structure in the history of humanity.

As for the respective devotion of the two sides to “free markets,” writer William Greider put it best in his remembrance of the conservative demigod Milton Friedman in 2006:

“His "free market" faith has produced…the very thing Friedman regularly denounced: a bastardized system of interest-group politics that serves favored sectors of citizens at the expense of many others. Enterprise and markets were indeed set ‘free’ of government regulation, but big government did not go away (it grew bigger). Only now government acts mainly as patron and protector for the largest, most powerful interests–the same ones that demanded their liberation. Instead of serving the broad general welfare, government enables capital and corporations to feed off the taxpayers' money and convert public assets into private profit centers, shielded from the wrath of any citizens trying to object. If that is what Friedman really had in mind, he should have said so.”

In short, it is simply inaccurate to classify progressives as “pro-government” and conservatives as “pro-market.” Conservatives have evidenced a great fondness for big government so long as it favors certain interests and progressives are often the harshest critics of government excesses.

The real dividing line

No, the real and important difference between modern progressives and conservatives runs deeper than what they think about government and markets. What truly sets the two sides apart today are their respective visions of the future and the past.

For conservatives, the past is home. According to this worldview, all of the basic rules and insights that ought to govern the mechanics of human society have already been revealed. Between Adam Smith’s invisible hand and the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers, Americans (indeed, all humans) pretty much have all they need to know about ordering a society. To the extent that we have problems to overcome in modern times, it is primarily a result of our failure to adhere to the insights of 18^th century.

In this vision, human behavior is what it is. The best we can hope for is that the “natural order” of things will produce some kind of reasonably comfortable equilibrium between rich and poor, good and evil, hard working and slothful. “Progress” may occur – in material wealth and human comfort – but only to the extent we constantly rededicate ourselves to the insights of espoused by the white, western European men of the 1700’s. The principal objective of life is to acquire property and the main reason for having a government is to aid us in that quest.         

Progressives, in stark contrast, are looking to the future. In this “aspirational” worldview, humans are only beginning to tap into their individual and collective potentials – for good, for truth, for improving the planet. While progressives acknowledge and celebrate the insights of the past, they also understand that their forebears were, like themselves, imperfect. Invisible hands and free markets are important human forces to be channeled and used for the common good, not immutable truths to be worshipped.        

In the progressive worldview, many of the most important advances in the history of humanity (the development of democratic government, the end of slavery, the ongoing (albeit agonizingly slow) demise of racism and sexism and homophobia and child labor, the very contemplation of the idea of “human rights”) are the byproducts of intentional, collective action by people of good will who dared to dream. Future progress depends on humans continuing to dream and give voice to audacious demands.

Bringing it home

Anyone who doubts the reality of this critical distinction between modern progressives and conservatives would have done well to join the thousands of North Carolinians who descended upon downtown Raleigh this past weekend to participate in the “HK on J” march and rally.

As noted previously in this space, HK on J (for “Historic Thousands of Jones Street”) is the public face of a growing non-partisan, multi-racial, multi-ethnic movement for progressive policy change. The movement features, at last count, 82 partner organizations that have come together to promote a 14-point “People’s Agenda.”    

In almost every way, the HK on J event was the quintessential progressive, aspirational exercise. From the substance of the audacious agenda to the peaceful and hopeful way in which 4,000 to 5,000 people of different races, faiths and backgrounds came together to call for intentional, collective action to better our society, the event was about the future.

As Rev. William Barber, head of the state NAACP and lead organizer of the event, put it, “We need a movement that will lift the dreams and hopes of every child. We need a movement that will not leave the poor to fight by themselves."

Whether speakers were discussing the societal need for affordable health care and housing for all, the importance of compensating victims of past state sanctioned racism, or the idea of bringing North Carolina in line with the majority of modern states by abolishing the death penalty, the tone was always hopeful and forward-looking. To the extent that participants were asked to remember the past, it was never to pay deference to past law givers but to celebrate those, like Dr. Martin Luther King, who dared to dream of a better world.

In short, what unified North Carolina “progressives” last weekend and what unifies them going forward is not a list of specific positions on specific issues or a particular view of the relationship between government and the economy. Rather it is a commitment to an idea. It is the idea that humans can do better than we have done so far (for ourselves, for our children, and our planet) and that we have a moral obligation to work together in an intentional and practical way to make it happen.

Happily, if last weekend is any indication, the idea is alive and well.

 Email This Post  Print This Post

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 12th, 2008 at 12:04 pm and is filed under Weekly Briefing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.