May 13, 2008
Editor's note: This article first was published July 24, 2006.
Dear Readers:
If you've been paying even partial attention to El Paso politics, you know that the word "progressive" is omnipresent, used variously to describe certain elected officials, an RMA, the Downtown Plan, and many other movements in our city. Being for "progress," however, is about as specific as being for "good things" — for children, for health, for education — and therefore is fairly meaningless. (If this sounds too extreme, consider for a moment the chances of a candidate who campaigns against progress.)
For fun, I decided to see how "progress" has progressed through the centuries.
We can begin with Webster's Dictionary, where "progress," as a noun, is defined as:
1) a moving forward or onward
2) forward course; development
3) advance toward perfection or to a higher or better state
Rather innocuous. "Progressive," the adjective form, gives us more clues as to its political undertones:
1) moving forward or onward
2) continuing by successive steps
3) of, or concerned with progression
4) designating a tax whose rate increases as the base increases
5) favoring, working for, or characterized by progress or improvement, as through political or social reform
6) of an educational system stressing individuality, self-expression, etc.
7) Med. becoming more severe or spreading to other parts; said of a disease.
The term also refers to a member of the Progressive Party, which existed in several different incarnations in the United States. Some might say that the moniker "progressive" is rather gallingly employed by Democrats today, as the first Progressive Party actually split off from the Republican Party; it was led by Theodore Roosevelt, who ran for president in 1912 and lost to Wilson, due to that annoying third-party problem of splitting the vote. This party was also known as the "Bull Moose" Party, from the colorful term used by Roosevelt when he defended his fitness for office. The 1924 Progressive Party, of no relation to the "Bull Moose" progressives, ran Robert La Follette for president, carrying only the state of Wisconsin (a well-known progressive bastion?). A third Progressive Party ran Henry Wallace, who was FDR's Vice President, as its 1948 presidential candidate, and received the endorsement of the Communist Party. Today, Vermont and Minnesota are the only two states with active Progressive Parties.
The causes espoused by the various progressive parties were as varied as the meanings behind the word; women's suffrage, public railroad ownership, workman's compensation, health insurance, and inheritance taxes were all "progressive" causes at some point. But don't make the mistake of equating progress with higher taxes: it was a Progressive Party mayoral candidate in 1949 who led the riots in Boston against the MTA fare increase (also leading to the Kingston Trio's hit song about the man who never returned).
The modern notion of progress is often tied to economic growth, but this is a relatively new development. In philosophy, many thinkers prior to the mid-18th century did not equate the two. Aspirations of virtue seasoned by cultural, spiritual, and intellectual growth often prevailed over material ambitions in the philosophers' "development model," though this may not have been the case for the layman. With the spark of the Enlightenment and the fuel of enormous population growth, the economic domination of the discourse of progress has lasted through today.
Is it possible that this dominant focus on one type of growth may ultimately endanger the cultural and intellectual progress that defined past centuries? Increasingly, many classical "free-market" liberal economists are questioning the value of equating national growth with national well-being. The technology, big houses, and time spent at work which are the national reward for monumental growth often have a negative impact on active and stimulating leisure time. The consequences of this narrow notion of progress could be severe.
Looking at El Paso, I can understand how some people see progress in building more roads and in providing mass affordable housing, while others find progress in encouraging stricter terms for growth. Some think ASARCO's high-paying jobs are desirable markers of development, and others see progress in the absence of such industry from a city. Nationally, we are split on issues of abortion, property rights, and energy policy, to name a few — each person tends to hold his or her position sacrosanct, and each would claim a progressive viewpoint. This fails to help the real discourse, which is fueled by debate on the merits; instead of discussion, we get obfuscation.
As in a progressive disease, talking points have the tendency to overtake precision in language. And much like poor old Charlie of MTA fame, we just go round and round ...
Vanessa Johnson is the former publisher of Newspaper Tree.