Is there a difference between Liberalism and Progressivism?

[Higgins]

I personally feel there is.

Liberalism, to me, is about incremental change, working within the system we already have, with an emphasis on economic and social fairness and expanding the middle class. Liberalism as it stands today is basically Harry Truman's Fair Deal.

Progressivism, in my opinion, is about rapid, radical change, with overt leanings toward Social Democracy or Socialism, and an emphasis on economic and social justice and a focus on the poor as opposed to the middle class. Progressivism as it has developed is more akin to Huey Long than Harry Truman.

[Sumner 1868]

Yes, that's why liberals don't oppose war for the most part.

[Kingpoleon]

Between European liberalism and American liberalism, yes.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes, that's why liberals don't oppose war for the most part.

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive .and he was as big of a hawk as you can get .

[Goldwater]

The word "liberal" is uncool, which of course is why I am willing to call myself a "liberal" but not a "progressive".

[heatcharger]

The word "liberal" is uncool, which of course is why I am willing to call myself a "liberal" but not a "progressive".

This is a tremendous post.

[GoTfan]

My personal interpretation is that progressivism is slightly more leftwards than liberalism.

[parochial boy]

In the American context, "progressive" is a meaningless buzzword that means "left of the mainstream of the Democratic party".

The American meaning of the word "liberalism" is a terrible, terrible misapplication of the word, and its use should be completely obliterated.

[TheSaint250]

The American meaning of the word "liberalism" is a terrible, terrible misapplication of the word, and its use should be completely obliterated.

I couldn't agree more.

[dead0man]

In the American context, "progressive" is a meaningless buzzword that means "left of the mainstream of the Democratic party".

not really meaningless then is it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

this I agree with..well, not the "completely obliterated" part, it should just be used properly.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Of course there is. The difference is ever-shifting, however.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yes, of course, though not as described by the OP.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Liberalism (i.e. European liberalism, or how the word should be used) refers to a dedication to the values of the liberal society. Progressivism refers to a dedication to an ideal of progress; that is, the notion that the future will be better than the past if the progressive program is followed. This is not to say that liberals do not believe that their program will better society, but they do not conceive of time in the same fashion as progressives do; it is common for a progressive to use terms with negative connotations that denote the past, such as "backwards" or "out-dated", but a liberal usually will not do that. It should not need to be said that these can differ in some very important ways.

[Beet]

In the 1930s the debate was between Nazism, Soviet Communism, and nineteenth century classical liberalism, with the latter one in retreat. FDR Democrats started calling themselves liberals to emphasize that they stood with democracy as a form of government. In the 1950s conservatives, who were ironically close to nineteenth century liberalism, started deriding FDR Democrats and distinguished themselves from the latter by calling themselves conservatives. This shift only happened in the United States, not Europe. American liberalism became a shorthand for the American left, whereas the American right was conservatives. By the 2000s liberalism was a dirty word and wounded liberals started calling themselves progressives because conservatives spent so much time attacking the word liberal. Progressivism is just an exaggerated form American liberalism.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

To elucidate (as I understand it), within the context of the second half of the twentieth century, "liberalism" lay primarily within the center of the Democratic Party; you could confidently at various points call Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton all "liberals". That these men (and one woman!) did not all stand behind the same set of beliefs isn't entirely relevant--they represented the center-left of the United States during their times of prominence. This is somewhat interesting in that, up until at least the 1970's, one could be a liberal in the sense that they supported (moderate) organized labor, civil rights, and some form of stance against communism. As liberalism moved on, those that clung particularly stridently to this formulation became paleoliberals. At some point, liberalism became somewhat more comfortable with (limited) deregulation, and so liberals became assailed by those that had passed them by as neoliberals.

For our purposes, what we call progressivism in the era since the beginning of the 1940's could be called in some sense a protest ideology, and in some sense comprising the "left flank" within the more mainstream region of American politics. "Progressives" lined up behind a number of anti-establishment left-wing candidates (few of them winning). Retroactively, I would include in this category Henry Wallace, George McGovern, Frank Church, Jerry Brown (in some sense), Bill Bradley, and Howard Dean (if not Dennis Kucinich). In the most recent lexicon, America's self-identified progressives supported Bernie Sanders and, in general, take a more "comprehensive" view of policy--believing that long-standing social issues ought to be addressed rather than be given piecemeal half-measures (including those that are means-tested).

In a pre-New Deal era, "progressivism" could be described as a more non-partisan, if not non-ideological phenomenon, as it attracted supporters from both parties and constituted more a "reform" program than direct egalitarianism.

This little blurb is not intended to account for the variety of "liberal Republicans" of the Cold War era who seem to comprise that same strain of progressive or reform Republicanism of years past, as well as merely those that were more willing to accept the New Deal than their conservative contemporaries.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Some of the same people were calling themselves "progressives" also called themselves "liberals" as early as a century ago, particularly with the founding of The New Republic magazine. This was about the same time that the Liberals in Britain were moving toward a more economically activist program.  Before then, for the most part "liberal" was not a word that was widely used in the US to refer to a specific platform; unlike in the rest of the Western world, where "liberal" suggested a program that involved support for the idea of equality in political rights, secularization, and free-market (or at least business-friendly) economic policies. The US lacked some of the old or hierarchical institutions that European and Latin American liberals were rebelling against and that gave them their reason for being as a defined ideological and political force. 

It might be said that in America a form of liberalism was assumed in its national founding; the question was whether it would be a liberalism which sought to conserve its foundations, or one which sought to progress and change to meet the times.

[darklordoftech]

liberal = to the left of the center of the overton window
progressive = to the left of the center of the Democratic Party
neoliberal = applying the principles of classical liberalism to today's economy

[Higgins]

To elucidate (as I understand it), within the context of the second half of the twentieth century, "liberalism" lay primarily within the center of the Democratic Party; you could confidently at various points call Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton all "liberals". That these men (and one woman!) did not all stand behind the same set of beliefs isn't entirely relevant--they represented the center-left of the United States during their times of prominence. This is somewhat interesting in that, up until at least the 1970's, one could be a liberal in the sense that they supported (moderate) organized labor, civil rights, and some form of stance against communism. As liberalism moved on, those that clung particularly stridently to this formulation became paleoliberals. At some point, liberalism became somewhat more comfortable with (limited) deregulation, and so liberals became assailed by those that had passed them by as neoliberals.

For our purposes, what we call progressivism in the era since the beginning of the 1940's could be called in some sense a protest ideology, and in some sense comprising the "left flank" within the more mainstream region of American politics. "Progressives" lined up behind a number of anti-establishment left-wing candidates (few of them winning). Retroactively, I would include in this category Henry Wallace, George McGovern, Frank Church, Jerry Brown (in some sense), Bill Bradley, and Howard Dean (if not Dennis Kucinich). In the most recent lexicon, America's self-identified progressives supported Bernie Sanders and, in general, take a more "comprehensive" view of policy--believing that long-standing social issues ought to be addressed rather than be given piecemeal half-measures (including those that are means-tested).

In a pre-New Deal era, "progressivism" could be described as a more non-partisan, if not non-ideological phenomenon, as it attracted supporters from both parties and constituted more a "reform" program than direct egalitarianism.

This little blurb is not intended to account for the variety of "liberal Republicans" of the Cold War era who seem to comprise that same strain of progressive or reform Republicanism of years past, as well as merely those that were more willing to accept the New Deal than their conservative contemporaries.

This is basically how I see it. I also see today's progressivism being more the domain of aging 1960s radicals, and their ideological heirs/students - not as a continuation of the progressive ideals of the early 20th century. IE Walter Mondale would be a Liberal. Bernie Sanders would be a Progressive. One accepts Capitalism but feels it needs to be regulated. The other doesn't accept it at all. One cares about the gains made in the past 100 years; the other only cares about revolution.

[Crumpets]

I agree that both terms have different meanings in different political contexts and in different eras. Currently, I think of "progressives" as advocating for a more hands-on approach from government, and a more top-down approach to social change. Liberals are more likely to take the position that "things will just get better as long as we're all engaged and respectful citizens." I don't think the two positions are necessarily mutually exclusive, and I definitely identify as both in different contexts.

[darklordoftech]

To elucidate (as I understand it), within the context of the second half of the twentieth century, "liberalism" lay primarily within the center of the Democratic Party; you could confidently at various points call Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton all "liberals". That these men (and one woman!) did not all stand behind the same set of beliefs isn't entirely relevant--they represented the center-left of the United States during their times of prominence. This is somewhat interesting in that, up until at least the 1970's, one could be a liberal in the sense that they supported (moderate) organized labor, civil rights, and some form of stance against communism. As liberalism moved on, those that clung particularly stridently to this formulation became paleoliberals. At some point, liberalism became somewhat more comfortable with (limited) deregulation, and so liberals became assailed by those that had passed them by as neoliberals.

For our purposes, what we call progressivism in the era since the beginning of the 1940's could be called in some sense a protest ideology, and in some sense comprising the "left flank" within the more mainstream region of American politics. "Progressives" lined up behind a number of anti-establishment left-wing candidates (few of them winning). Retroactively, I would include in this category Henry Wallace, George McGovern, Frank Church, Jerry Brown (in some sense), Bill Bradley, and Howard Dean (if not Dennis Kucinich). In the most recent lexicon, America's self-identified progressives supported Bernie Sanders and, in general, take a more "comprehensive" view of policy--believing that long-standing social issues ought to be addressed rather than be given piecemeal half-measures (including those that are means-tested).

In a pre-New Deal era, "progressivism" could be described as a more non-partisan, if not non-ideological phenomenon, as it attracted supporters from both parties and constituted more a "reform" program than direct egalitarianism.

This little blurb is not intended to account for the variety of "liberal Republicans" of the Cold War era who seem to comprise that same strain of progressive or reform Republicanism of years past, as well as merely those that were more willing to accept the New Deal than their conservative contemporaries.

This is basically how I see it. I also see today's progressivism being more the domain of aging 1960s radicals, and their ideological heirs/students - not as a continuation of the progressive ideals of the early 20th century. IE Walter Mondale would be a Liberal. Bernie Sanders would be a Progressive. One accepts Capitalism but feels it needs to be regulated. The other doesn't accept it at all. One cares about the gains made in the past 100 years; the other only cares about revolution.

"1960s radicals" were focused on social liberalism, not economic leftism.