note: this was written in response to a question coming out of the campus progress national student conference, and was also posted to my campus progress blog.

progressivism, at least my version of it, is willing to make big changes. in that way it's a kind of radicalism — and although it's always tiresome to go through this explanation, "radical" comes from the latin "rad" which means "to get at the root of." liberalism is content with the status quo, allowing small social programs to serve as band-aids for larger social malaise.

for instance: social security and related programs were the some of the first true "progressive" policies enacted on the federal level. up to that point liberals had been content with faith-based charity, almshouses, orphanages, soup kitchens, etc. but the progressives in the 1930s, drawing on the socialist and communist movements in that and earlier decades, decided that people in a community had a responsibility to support each other over and above what the wealthiest members' philanthropy could support.

similarly, the fight for the eight-hour workday, the weekend and the right to collective bargaining that was undertaken by labor unions, socialists and anarchists at the end of the nineteenth century pressured state and eventually the federal government to enact progressive law codifying these rights.

what we are searching for, however, is a new kind of progressivism. we shouldn't be flip about the shortcomings of progressivism in the twentieth century. woodrow wilson had a vision in the league of nations, but he was also an avowed racist. teddy roosevelt broke up the big combines and monopolies, but he also led an imperialist war that had lasting effects for nearly a century. these aren't just character flaws, either. this understanding of the world as something that needed to be "saved," "civilized," "pacified," etc. was a defining element of progressivism, from william jennings bryan on up to john f. kennedy.

what we're searching for — or at least, what i hope we're searching for — is a kind of progressivism that seeks to empower people rather than simply doling out charity. (it's important to note that the progenitors of corporate welfare and social darwinism can be traced directly to the current "centrist" beliefs in faith-based philanthropy and self-regulating business.)

at times, of course, it will be necessary to enact laws and protect rights: preserving environmental laws, shoring up affirmative action, opposing the same-sex marriage ban, finally passing an equal rights amendment including the right to an abortion, etc.

most of what we should be spending our time focusing on, however, is creating programs and — more importantly — communities that seek to empower those who are systematically disempowered in our society. we need to endorse, for instance:

• volunteer health clinics
• community arts programs
• sustainable farms and agriculture
• job-training programs
• after-school tutoring
• women's self-defense classes
• reliable sex education
• conflict resolution/alternative to violence programs (avp)
• workers' collectives
• community-based community development projects

i come from the rocky mountain west, where libertarianism is a strong force. today it mostly shows up manifested in republican-party affiliation, but it wasn't always that way. progressivism was born in the west — wyoming was the first place in the united states to allow women to vote, in 1869. the example of "bleeding kansas" you already know. and the western-state system of easily-established citizen initiatives, referendums and resolutions — the kind that got gray davis kicked out of office — were traditionally used for progressive ends, such as medical marijuana and euthanasia statutes in oregon.

there are times when government, insofar as it is our current community of people, needs to be able to protect basic rights through law and basic life through funding. but by and large people are willing to take care of each other, if given the chance. programs like the ones i outlined above have been started all over the united states (not to mention the world) to great success. if progressives began collectively working toward developing these sorts of things — with or without federal funding — i think that we could increase the quality of life, especially in disempowered communities, quite regardless of whether the state is "red" or "blue."

that's where i'd like to see progressivism head.