A New Era of Progressivism?

Progressivism is a term that refers to a broad school of international social and political philosophies. The term progressive was first widely used in late 19th century America, in reference to a general branch of political thought which arose as a response to the vast changes brought by industrialization, and as an alternative both to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more or less radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them.

Progressivism historically advocates the advancement of workers' rights and social justice. The progressives were early proponents of anti-trust laws and the regulation of large corporations and monopolies, as well as government-funded environmentalism and the creation of National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. -- Wikipedia

From U-S-History.com:

... Progressivism was rooted in the belief ... [that humans were] capable of improving the lot of all within society. As such, it was a rejection of Social Darwinism, the position taken by many of the rich and powerful figures of the day.... Specific goals included:

The desire to remove corruption and undue influence from government through the taming of bosses and political machines;

the effort to include more people more directly in the political process;

the conviction that government must play a role to solve social problems and establish fairness in economic matters.

The successes were many, beginning with the Interstate Commerce Act (1887) and the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). Progressives never spoke with one mind and differed sharply over the most effective means to deal with the ills generated by the trusts; some favored an activist approach to trust-busting, others preferred a regulatory approach. A vocal minority supported socialism with government ownership of the means of production. Other Progressive reforms followed in the form of a conservation movement, railroad legislation, and food and drug laws.

From :

Sound Familiar?
Progressive Movement: Concerns over abuses by business and the "robber barons" who exploited labor and the lack of government regulation of the marketplace ... was a prevailing theme of those seeking reform. The sharp rise in economic activity spurred by industrialization and cheap labor contributed to concentrations of economic power among large national corporations and the formation of huge "trusts" as companies sought to eliminate their prime competitors. Between 1897 and 1904, 4,227 firms merged to form 257 corporations, with the largest merger consolidating nine steel companies to create the U.S. Steel Corp. controlled by Andrew Carnegie. By 1904, 318 companies controlled about 40 percent of the nation's manufacturing output. A single firm produced over half the output in 78 industries.

An Early Version of the"Blogosphere"?
Progressive, "muckraking" journalists also played key parts in highlighting specific economic and social ills that led to government action. Jacob Riis exposed the poor living conditions of the tenement slums in How the Other Half Lives (1890), which led to significant legislation establishing minimum safety and housing standards in tenements. In The Shame of the Cities (1904), Lincoln Steffens exposed the rampant political corruption in the party machines of Chicago and New York, arguing that the political machines served the interests of businessmen who sought government contracts, franchises, charters, and special privileges. The Jungle, published by Upton Sinclair in 1906, traced an immigrant family's exploitation and the unsanitary practices prevalent in Chicago's meat packing industry. The outrage provoked by the novel contributed to the enactment of the and the Meat Inspection Act in 1906, the first legislation of its kind to set minimum standards for food and drug production.
*********

Progressive (and sometimes populist) changes continued on and off through President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which in large part was designed to head off even more intense and dramatic changes springing from the Labor Movement and Communist revolutions. Some strains of the movement continued into the 1970s with the civil rights, women's and GLTB movements, as well as innovative programs like the GI Bill, Peace Corps and Medicare. Then Richard Nixon's infamous "Southern Strategy" of using opposition to the new civil rights legislation to turn the Southern bloc of states into a Republican stronghold.

Eventually, this led to "conservative" victories, with Ronald Reagan as President and a Congress led by the likes of Rep. Newt Gingich dedicated to turning back the clock on many of the reforms of the progressive and New Deal eras and returning to an unregulated market and corporate hegemony. This still wasn't good enough for Bush II and cronies -- who have worked for 7 years to literally bankrupt, cripple and dismantle the government and regulatory agencies.

The reliance on government to create a level playing field in a variety of areas was replaced by the view that government was the problem, not the solution. The negative results are apparent in virtually every aspect of American life, as well as on a planetary basis. The ravages of "free" trade, severe deregulation, privatization, militarization, anti-unionization and multinational corporatism are everywhere. The Robber Barons are back -- as truly global actors this time.

Unfortunately, too many of today's Dems are aligned with the DLC wing of the Party, or self-identify as so-called "centrists," "moderates" or "pro-business" Democrats. These politicos are dedicated to using "triangulation" to support global corporatist power and fight against "core" or "progressive" Democrats. The new progressives want to institute reforms similar to those implemented in earlier progressive eras to reinstate a level playing field where ordinary working people can prosper and community and environmental needs -- not just the corporate bottom line -- are a primary part of the value system.

From The 50 Year Strategy: A New Progressive Era (No, Really!), By Simon Rosenberg And Peter Leyden, Mother Jones magazine, November/December 2007:

A New Progressive Era?
A conservative president who is deeply unpopular with Americans. A country facing profound economic and security challenges. New technologies upending old media. A cohort of new immigrants and a bulging generation of young people ready to transform the political calculus.

2008? No, 1932, the tail end of the Hoover administration. And you know how that one turned out. FDR and his fellow progressives took on the challenges of their day and built the domestic programs and international institutions that ushered in an era of unrivaled prosperity and stability. They used a new medium—radio—to reach citizens, and fashioned a new majority coalition from the emergent demographic realities of their time.

Today's progressives face a political opportunity as great as any seen since. The election of 2006 may well have marked the end of the conservative ascendancy that began with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. George W. Bush now has the potential to do what Herbert Hoover did in the 1920s—tarnish his party's brand for a generation or more.

As in FDR's day, a new media is emerging, one that will ultimately replace the broadcast model of the 20th century. A new American populace is emerging, led by the arrival of the millennial generation and a new wave of immigrants, particularly Hispanics. And once again, the nation faces massive challenges—from climate change to health care in the era of biotech and preparing young people for a global economy. On the eve of the 2008 election, it's worth raising our sights beyond what it would take for a Democrat to win the presidency, and begin thinking about what it would take to bring about deeper, more lasting changes. The stars have aligned to give progressives a chance to permanently shift the conversation about the nation's values. The question before us now is, Do today's progressives have what it takes to do what FDR and his allies accomplished 75 years ago—seize the new politics, take on the big challenges, and usher in a new era?

Rise of the Internet and Participatory Politics
... This new paradigm represents a profound threat to the politics of privilege. Funding expensive broadcast campaigns forces political leaders to raise enormous sums of money, giving large corporations and wealthy individuals disproportionate influence. Republicans and Democrats have both played this game, but the Republicans consistently won; now, using Internet fundraising, Democratic Party committees consistently out-raise Republicans. The two leading Democratic presidential candidates raised $60 million in the second quarter of 2007—60 percent more than the $38 million for the two leading Republicans. By July, Barack Obama already had 258,000 donors to his campaign, more than any presidential campaign ever had at that point. Embracing this model has allowed the progressive movement and the Democratic Party to become much more authentic champions of the middle class, dependent as they now are on the financial support of average people.