Discussion Thread: Progressive Liberalism and Public Policy
Define “progressive liberalism.”
Using previous readings and concepts from this course to reinforce your logic, discuss
whether changes to our current constitutional system should be found in reform, return to
American founding principles, or revolutionary change?
Explain how certain features or assumptions of progressive liberalism impact (or may
impact) debate about the public policy you are exploring.
How does (or could) your public policy research or advocacy respond to the assumptions
of progressive liberalism from the point of view of your Christian worldview or calling?
Sometimes the words progressive and liberalism are used synonymously, and though they may
be similar, the origins of the ideologies would suggest they are different but related. Progressive
liberalism is a type of liberalism that is focused on generating social change. Deneen (2018)
states that progressive liberalism set to achieve equality and intervened more in areas of church,
family, and human sexuality. And though there is a clash of some sort between classical liberals
and progressive liberals, in actuality, the two concepts are not opponents. They both promote the
liberation “from any arbitrary and unchosen relationships and remake the world into one in
which those especially disposed to expressive individualism would thrive,” (Deneen, 2018, 143-
44). Both also praise the rule of the electorate and at the same time they promote systemic
governmental features which ultimately will minimize electoral influence (Deneen, 2018).
Lowi (2010) examines the idea of the United States having many “regime” changes through the
years since 1787 – if we recognized this type of thing in the United States. He suggests this
because of how the United States has had many different constitutions, stating the republic under
the Articles of Confederation as the first and then the government under the Constitution of 1787
as the second (Lowi, 2010). However, since these changes are not recognized as such, the change
that has happened most recently is regarded as the Second Republic. This shows a history of the
constitution in the United States changing since the start of America. However, these are not
revolutionary changes (except for maybe the constitution change after the Civil War) and
obviously the Constitution of today is not exactly the same as it was originally. These changes
were more implemented in a reform process. Personally, I would make the argument that perhaps
since there are still things that seem to have already been addressed are still an issue, specifically
inequalities, it is time for some revolutionary change. However, I do not think this perspective is
backed up in the readings from this course. So, continued reform to the constitutional system
should be practiced. Through much of the reading there have been discussions of the reforms
which have happened throughout history, mainly starting in the 1930s. Even though much of this
does not expressly state reform is the best option, there are themes of when situations occur or
when you know better, do better which provide the need for reform (Postell, 2017; Birkland,
2015). However, Lowi (2010) seems to suggest going back to or at the least not straying too far
with liberalism from the original American founding principles is necessary – that the customs
that have been around since then are necessary. Still, the United States is not the same as it was
in the 1700s. The world is not the same. With technology advancements, the acknowledgement
of inequalities, and more comes the need for reforms to Constitution.
It seems as though progressive liberalism and progressive liberals would be in support of racial
disparity reform. Especially since their ideology is to promote social change and to liberate
individuals from oppressive social norms. Therefore, it would seem as though progressive
liberalism would be a positive form of liberalism for racial disparity reform. Though, Deneen
(2018) suggests that progressive liberalism actually does harm to those it brings in support from
when claiming to fix the current injustices. Undoubtedly, Deneen offers some thought provoking
points to reinforce this suggestion. Using Charles Murray and Robert Putnam’s examples of
Belmont and Fishtown, Deneen (2018) argues that it is not a departure from what liberalism
promotes but instead what liberalism has brought about which creates the situations found in the
two cities. If what Deneen claims is accurate, then the progressive liberalism movement will
seem ideal for racial disparity reform and those who want this will praise and encourage
progressive liberalism, but in the long run it could end up making things worse for those
impacted by racial disparity. Maybe this suggests that it is time for a revolutionary change by the
people (and not leaving reform up to the politicians) to the constitutional systems to start over
and this time include those marginalized people and create real social change?
Progressive liberalism calls for the departure from customs and many of those customs stem
from religious ideals. And many Christian thinkers suggest it is this departure from the norms or
status quo or customs that are harmful in the long run and does not benefit a society. As a
Christian some of these customs are necessary to follow in my personal life specifically. But
there is an argument to be made similar to what St. Augustine (1954) suggests, that we as
Christians need to be able to and can live in a society where leaders who are unbelievers and
create laws not based on God’s morals – so long as it does not restrict Christians from following
what is outlined in the Bible for themselves. Even Matthew says, “…Then he said to them,
‘Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,’”
(Matthew 22: 21).
Bibliography:
Augustine, Saint. (1954). The City of God: Books XVII-XXII. Translated by Gerald G. Walsh and
Daniel J. Honan. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.
Birkland, T. A. (2015). An introduction to the policy process: theories, concepts, and models of
public policy making. Routledge.
Deneen, P. J. (2018). Why liberalism failed. Yale University Press.
Lowi, T. J. (2010). The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States. W.W.
Norton & Co.
Postell, J. (2017). Bureaucracy in America: the administrative state’s challenge to constitutional
government. University Of Missouri Press.
Replies:
Andrew,
I appreciate your thorough analysis of the readings and the points you have made. What
specifically caught my attention was where you say, “I am gravely concerned about the idea that,
to achieve equivalence in quality of life for all Americans, Americans must submit to more
administrative procedures and governmental control.” What then do you suggest being done to
achieve equivalence in quality of life? Is the idea of sacrificing some individual liberties and
being more regulated worth more than the wellbeing and quality of life of everyone? John 15:12
tells us to love each other as God has loved us, Proverbs 19:17 tells us to care and be gracious to
the poor and the Lord will repay us, and especially Philippians 2:4 “Instead of each person
watching out for their own good, watch out for what is better for others.” Human beings fall to
corruption and just as legislative bodies and courts of law can become corrupt (McClellan 2000)
those who own businesses, etc. can also become corrupt and therefore sometimes we need the
government to have more administrative procedures and government control to achieve quality
of life for all Americans. McClellan (2000) also claims that all good constitutions change over
time because circumstances of nations change over time.
As to your point stating “We cannot unwind the clock, so a revolution is largely out of the
question…” I do not believe the Founding Fathers intended for their documents written 200+
years ago to be the guiding light forever. Jefferson writes in correspondences, “god forbid we
should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion…the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from
time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants,” (Jefferson 1787). If the Founding Fathers
intended for the Constitution and other founding documents to be permanent, they would not
have included the right to protest and gather, etc. They valued the idea of being able to revolt
against a corrupt government. Therefore, I would not say a revolution is out of the question.
Another thought on this is that Jefferson considered the election of 1800 (his presidency) was a
revolution in itself through the reform, by the people declaring what they wanted (Jefferson
1819). This idea that the United States has had many different ‘regime’ changes – if we were a
country that recognized such things – is also talked about in Lowi (2010). Revolting against a
corrupt government is why we have the Second Amendment. The ability to have a revolution if
the people deemed it necessary was extremely important to our Founding Fathers.
References:
Jefferson, Thomas. “Letter to William Smith.” Letter, 1787.
Jefferson, Thomas. “Letter to Spencer Roane.” Letter, 1819.
Lowi, T. J. (2010). The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States. W.W.
Norton & Co.
Mcclellan, James. (2000). Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional
Principles of American Government. Liberty Fund.
Christan,
I really connected with your discussion post. Your references of Thomas Jefferson hit it home for
me. I have also used quotes of his to defend my position on other comments. The quotes you
used here are extremely important, also the ones where Jefferson states, “god forbid we should
ever be twenty years without such a rebellion…the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots and tyrants,” (Jefferson 1787). When considering whether we
should go back to American founding principles, use reform, or have revolutionary change it is
extremely important to acknowledge what the Founding Fathers intended. And most of them did
not intend for there to never be another revolution or change to the founding documents which is
why they created certain rights, such as the Second Amendment, First Amendment, and as you
mentioned Article V. As Lowi (2010) discusses, how if the United States was a country who
acknowledges regime changes, we would see that there have been many throughout the history
of the United States. This is in line with the thinking of the Founding Fathers. The United States
should be changing every so often, otherwise the citizens are not following because they want to
and believe in the government. A good constitution changes over time because the circumstances
of the also change over time, and the constitution should keep up with the changes (McClellan
2000).
I appreciate your thought when it comes to going green and the bible and how you say the focus
of Christians should be to proclaim the truth of the gospel, however, I would like to suggest that
taking care of the environment and animals is the responsibility of mankind and this
responsibility was given by God. In Genesis 1:26 (ESV) it says, “Then God said, ‘Let us make
man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over
the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.’” When God
tends to say ‘rule over’ or ‘in charge of’ he seems to also indicate a sense of responsibility. This
verse seems to say that mankind being created in God’s likeness is going to have dominion over
the earth and that dominion comes with responsibility. God is giving us the responsibility of
caring for the earth. Those who rule over anything have a duty to those subordinates. Just as we
have a duty, a Christian duty, to the earth and animal kingdom to do everything within our power
to help save the environment. I believe that in following through with our duty to the
environment we are in a way spreading the gospel. We are showing that we, as Christians, do in
fact do what is asked of us by God. Being a Christian is not all about spreading the gospel it is
also about being a shining light to others and an example of a Christian.
References:
Jefferson, Thomas. “Letter to William Smith.” Letter, 1787.
Mcclellan, James. (2000). Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional
Principles of American Government. Liberty Fund.
Lowi, T. J. (2010). The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States. W.W.
Norton & Co.
