Opinion: Someone please send progressives the destination and ETA

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Apparently, the fall elections in Minneapolis are shaping up to be a contest between “progressives” and “superprogressives” within the DFL. At least that’s the report from more than a few of the wards. Lost in this mix are the moderates. Or maybe they should be called “moderate progressives.”

If so, we would then have the perfect three-ring political circus within the only political party that matters in the city. DFLers will have to choose among ordinary run-of-the-mill progressives who will be facing off against superprogressives to their left and moderate progressives to their … right (?). Really now, is there such a political animal as a right-wing progressive? Maybe so. At least stay tuned for a bit on that one.

Actually, what is a progressive? Everyone who identifies as a progressive ought to ask that question. And everyone running for public office ought to be very public with their answers to such a question. Perhaps the best way to frame things would be this: What do I want my city (or state or country) to be progressing toward and why?

Of course, there is a related question to be asked as well: How quickly do I want all this progress to take place? Sometimes that can be the only question that divides progressives on the left. After all, there was a time when communists were defined as nothing more than “liberals in a hurry.” Well, progressives today can be in various stages of hurrying. But hurrying toward what?

The great English writer G.K. Chesterton thought that no one should be called a progressive unless one knew — and could precisely state — what one wanted to be progressing toward, whether as an individual or for one’s society. In that sense, everyone is — or certainly could be — a progressive. And yet it’s also possible that no one is a progressive.

At best, “progressive” is a catchall term that captures a vague sense of optimism about the future, especially when it comes to trying to make sure that one is on the right side of history. At worst, it’s a deceptively convenient term to hide behind — especially for politicians and would-be politicians, as in, “I’m a progressive, and who could possibly be against progress?”

A more accurate term for today’s progressive might well be “statist,” as in “Let’s make sure that government keeps getting bigger — and presumably better — at all levels, and all in the name of progress.“ To call oneself a statist really would be more accurate, if not nearly as warm and cuddly, let alone as optimistic when it comes to riding the arc of history. But two huge unanswered questions remain: When and where does it all stop?

Furthermore, today’s progressive statists aren’t statists across the board, since many of them want to defund the police, while at the same time privatizing law enforcement by outsourcing this crucial task to what progressives call “violence interrupters.” To be sure, these interrupters are on the public payroll, so this is actually a form of quasi-statism. Better yet, not to mention more accurately, make that a form of irresponsible quasi-statism.

At the same time, no true progressive would possibly favor extending this concept to, say, education. But why not? If a student is lagging in school, maybe there should be teams of private “education interrupters” on hand and ready to step in. This might even prove to be responsible quasi-statism in action. Rather than standing around waiting for violence to happen they would be actively interrupting the lack of educational progress in order to achieve actual intellectual progress.

Then there is the matter of equity, whether racial or economic. Progressives seek to eliminate something called white privilege, while also doing away with what Bernie Sanders refers to as all-too powerful “oligarchies.” Well, to assure a level playing field and institutions that “look like America” will require a very powerful oligarchy all its own, not to mention an NBA that looks more like America but is much less compelling to watch.

In any case, it’s all unnecessarily intrusive, not to mention confusing and unfair. After all, who could possibly be opposed to progress? Besides that, what types are set in opposition to the progressive? The conservative stick-in-the-mud, of course. Or, worse than that, the out-and-out reactionary.

But if Chesterton is right, and guess what, I think he is, none of the three deserve the label “progressive” without spelling out precise goals first. Even the conservative has trouble here. Mr. Conservative, William F. Buckley, founded National Review in 1955 to stand athwart history yelling “stop.” Well, does a conservative today want to shout “stop” now, or as of 1955, or at some point before or after that?

Chesterton, by the way, thought of himself as a reactionary. More than that, he thought that only a reactionary could be a progressive, because only a reactionary knew exactly what he/she wanted. But that’s another story. In the meantime, let’s all agree to do one of two things: Either abandon the term “progressive” altogether or require self-described progressives to be much more complete, as well as thoroughly honest, about what they want us to be progressing toward, as well as how and when they want us to get there.

John C. “Chuck” Chalberg writes from Bloomington. For years he performed around the country as G.K. Chesterton.