Progressives vs. biblical realists

Over the years I’ve referred to “liberals” and been reluctant to use the moniker lots on the left like: “progressive.” I now plan to do the opposite—and please stay with me as I give two reasons why.

First, the ambiguity of liberalism. In the 18th century the term did not confuse. It signified a defender of liberty. Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776) proposed “a liberal system of free exportation and free importation.” He opposed those who wanted to regulate “the industry and commerce of a great country … upon the same model as the department of a public office.” He favored “allowing every man to pursue his own interest his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality, liberty, and justice.”

In the 20th century, though, politicians and pundits on the left made the case that business was the enemy of equality, liberty, and justice, and to bring those about we needed a central government massive enough to boss around big corporations. As George Mason professor Daniel Klein showed recently in the journal Modern Age, they turned the word “liberal” on its head: Liberals became government-expanders, and those who still emphasized individual liberty often became known as “conservatives” (some call themselves “classical liberals”).

Second, old liberalism had a certain nobility about it. Old liberals for nearly two-thirds of the 20th century supported higher wages for hard-working family providers. Their economic plans were sometimes counter-productive, but we didn’t have the hard and disillusioning experience with big government that we now have. Over time, though, liberal unions that had negotiated good deals for members emphasized holding onto those boons by keeping others from getting their own.

So if we agree not to call Hillary Clinton a “liberal,” and (since we’re polite) not to call her “Lyin’ Hillary” more than once, what do we dub her and her supporters? Let’s use a word they like, “progressive,” but let’s scrutinize the word through biblical glasses. The Bible is repeatedly unprogressive. Mankind from Eden to Noah declined. From Noah to Babel came decline again. Israel from Moses to Samuel declined. From David to the last kings of Judah came decline again.

In American history, compare the Federalist Papers to the writings of either Northern abolitionists or Southern fire-eaters in the 1850s. Compare the Lincoln-Douglas debates to our recent Trump and Co. debates. I sympathize with the desires of those who would like a new constitutional convention that would make some things right, but it seems far more likely that we would end up with more things wrong.

So if Hillary Clinton wants to be called a “progressive,” call her that. But to those of us who embrace biblical realism, it’s not a term of endearment.