What are the *personal* values associated with progressive political thought?

Separating "progressive values" from "human values" is pretty tricky. There's a huge amount of overlap that we all really do agree on, and I think it's pretty sleazy for some set of people to declare that they believe in them and others don't.  When you do try to separate out "progressive" values from shared ones, you find that it's hard to find things that all progressives share. I'd say, in fact, that when it comes to "personal" values, there is likely to be no difference between progressives and conservatives. That is, the differences are outward-directed rather than inward directed. Everybody loves mom & apple pie. There are interesting studies suggesting physiological, biological origins of the differences. Conservatives have a stronger startle response, and fMRI studies show different brain activity in response to pattern breaking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation I believe that these manifest largely in terms of how we relate to other people rather than in what we believe for ourselves. We project different things onto other people. Conservatives seem more likely to see the poor as possessed of personal failings (moral, intellectual, motivational) while progressives are more likely to see them as victims of circumstance.  The converse also holds for concentrations of wealth. Both situations hold on occasion; it appears to be a large difference in how much we estimate each contributes. If I can tease out a personal value from that, it would be in that conservatives are more likely to want to direct their charity themselves, while progressives are more likely to want collective action. Similarly, conservatives are more likely to trust themselves when it comes to external matters (such as the environment), where progressives see greed leading to tragedies of the commons. I realize that the question just calls for a list, but I don't think such a list can be drawn up meaningfully. If anything, that's an answer: "a liberal is someone who won't take their own side in an argument".

First, thank you for making the point about how many of the values we think of as unique to our group are actually fundamental to the human race and condition. The same sort of us versus them happens between nations too of course. It is a hugely important idea that should replace nationalism within the indoctrination (if we have to have indoctrination at all) we give our children (instead of the "Pledge of Allegiance" maybe we should have "Affirmation of similarities and value of diversity"). But in order to try to flesh out the differences between conservatives and progressives, I'll suggest a couple of hypotheses. These are of course both highly speculative but also biased and could suffer from the above-mentioned application of we are good and they are not. In both cases too it is more of a relative absence in progressives of conservatives values. I feel that trying to come up with any progressive equivalents or alternatives would be over-stating the difference. 1) Value of tradition Suggested by the titles the groups use: conservative versus progressive. I think conservatives are more moved by traditions and myths. They tend to talk about returning to what the country once was whereas progressives talk more about what the country could be if it ever lived up to its ideals. One idealizes the past, the other (to a much lesser degree, at least compared to a utopian like me) the future. The conservatives hail the Constitution and the Founding Fathers as mythical heroes beyond reproach whereas progressives tend to see them as flawed, a starting point, providing ideas in need of refinement in order to achieve the promise they made (and more precisely the promise we have posthumously -- in the case of the Fathers -- applied to them). Conservatives tend to think in 18th century terms about the US being a Christian nation (denying the fact and significance of increased diversity) and needing to avoid any ideas from Europe which are corrupt and out-dated. Healthcare reform, for example is demonized as too European... not realizing that Europe has become the New World, the US more like the Old. Capitalism too is a tradition of the United States to be defended at all cost, so the conservatives seem to believe. Capitalism and the free market got us where we are today (speaking about the wealth of the wealthy, not considering the poverty of the poor) and to mess with that would threaten the identity if the country (see point #2). In their defense the progressives don't offer much of an alternative, they're just not as committed in their faith to traditional capitalist values. Progressives believe education should teach about the future, conservatives put much more emphasis on teaching values of the past. 2) Perception of other humans Some people are evil, people are lazy, people are selfish. These seem to be much more firmly held beliefs among conservatives. Progressives seem to prefer to encourage and support good behavior instead of punishing bad. For conservatives punishment needs to be severe and decisive in order to either discourage evil behavior from evil people or to isolate evil people away from the rest of society. The safety net encourages laziness, if people can get food and shelter without working, why would they bother working? How else are the good people in the country supposed to prosper? Progressives want to make sure everyone has an opportunity, conservatives believe capitalism is unflawed (or mostly unflawed) and perfectly accounts for people's selfishness so they believe the correct solution to income inequality and unequal opportunity is to give the economy more free reign, let those who naturally thrive in the Free Market to thrive and let those that don't make it fail. It is when you take away the risk of failure or help out the weak that the system produces inequality. The government enables laziness and lets selfish people exploit alternative paths. Meanwhile progressives typically see people as naturally (or socially) more inclined toward hard work and community and that the Free Market is what is flawed. People don't need the threat of dire consequences to motivate them, they need an easier path than all the artificial obstacles capitalism imposes on hard work and innovation. In order for hard working people to succeed in a system stacked against them support is needed. Individuals can't do everything on their own, that is why we as a species have developed specialization. We should pool our resources and work as a team to let individual skills to flourish and succeed, making their greatest contribution to our society. Conservatives are more inclined to believe religion and strict morality rules should be imposed to restrain people's evil instincts. Progressives don't buy into this, see much of what poses as religion is manipulation that causes more damage to the human condition than does good. If religion were made more free without laws and pressure it would be more productive. Religion too should help people cope instead of threaten and dictate. Because they believe some people are evil, conservatives assert good people should be allowed to carry weapons (of any size and fire power) in order to protect themselves from the evil people around them. Progressive may be more inclined to see evil as a symptom of ails in the system instead of inherent to people. Providing more guns just results in more gun violence without addressing core issues. Conservatives believe a strong military is necessary in order to fight back the evil in the world. Progressives may feel more inclined to see evil acts as a result of over-aggressive US foreign policy than something inherently evil in other parts of the world. --------------------- Ok... I predicted it would be biased. The examples are extreme based on (perhaps more harmful than helpful) stereotypes, but they do point to a (likely small) difference between the personal values of conservatives and progressives. The main point remains, we all want essentially the same things: Freedom, Opportunity and a fair and level playing field. We are all human, what we have in common is greater than our differences.

When used in the context of American society, Progressivism is commonly treated as the populist form of Liberalism. See It's also worth noting that as a single axis of philosophical consideration, conservative <-> progressive is about ONE thing when used properly. It is about an individual's positions regarding the maintenance of established social institutions. Should things be conserved in their present state (with any change being introduced very slowly and very carefully)? Or should they be progressed to a new potentially (although not necessarily) "better" state? Another thing I'm looking at is We tend to shortchange many axes of belief when we lump them all together. People who are curious about this question might want to check out http://www.yourmorals.org

I found the conservative values to be a weird mish-mash of contradiction. You cannot admire wealth and frugality. If you admire wealth, you cannot be a Christian. A lot of it is just non sequiturs. No one is against charity---but the idea that charity can replace state funding is unrealistic. Ditto self-help. No one is against that, but dismissing people who need help as dependent isn't just wrong, it is going into evil territory. How dare anyone be so judgmental. Here is what I think separates progressives from conservatives. The bigger picture: It is easy to dismiss someone as evil, but that does not cure the problem. Conservatives believe they can treat the symptoms rather than the cause. This is shown by the stupidity of drug policy. No one is pro-drug-taking, but aggressive policing of drug-taking does not work. The real world: I always find conservative stories completely fake. Good guys don't always win out over the bad guys. A lot of people work hard and are poor. A lot of the rich are lazy, useless parasites, who got their positions from nepotism. People do not become good if you beat them. This kind of simplistic logic is repeated as fact. The real world does not work like that. Christian Values: I have never heard any "Christian" right winger talk about love, tolerance and forgiveness, even though these seem to be Jesus' main themes. Their vision of Christianity is the harsh judgmental stuff that is the exact opposite of the New Testament. It is okay to be wrong: A lot of right-wing thinking is along the lines that--- there is one right view and they are the ones espousing it. To have doubts is weak. To compromise is wrong. A more progressive idea is to consider each case on its merits and be flexible. Progressives believe that the individual is mature and sensible enough to come up with their own version of the "truth". Right wingers believe the truth should be imposed.

I also looked at the conservapedia list of conservative values and found very little to take issue with.  I think what is probably happening is that while values are the same for progressives and conservatives when expressed in abstract terms, we apply them in different contexts.  As I read the list, I had a pretty clear sense of the specific context that conservatives would apply each item listed, and how progressives would frame them differently. For example, concerning  "a never-ending quest for the truth, despite obstacles based on emotion and personal experience, and spreading such truths for the benefit of all" I'm thinking, is there any value more fundamental to progressive thought?  How can you "progress" unless you are continually applying critical thinking to the status quo?  and "emphasizing humility and open-mindedness instead of arrogant certainty about one's own views. "Humility" for progressives would be about recognizing our common humanity and resisting the temptation to judge and criticize others without fully understanding their circumstances.  Conservatives, on the other hand, would tend to frame both of these values in terms of combating political correctness and intellectual arrogance.       The term "freedom", although (surprisingly) not on the conservapedia list,  is another classic example.   Conservatives will emphasize economic freedom, while progressives place higher value on political and social freedom.          Another factor is that given two conflicting values, conservatives and progressives will disagree on which is more important.   For example, progressives would place "a devotion to the principle of justice" as a higher priority over either "downplaying significance of wealth, disparities in wealth, and materialism in general" or "recognizing the power of the free market" when either of the latter conflict with the former, as always happens to some degree. The conservapedia list of liberal values was just funny; a good counter-example for "emphasizing humility and open-mindedness instead of arrogant certainty about one's own views".

I shared this response on a different question actually, but it seemed particularly relevant here as well... (Sorry in advance to the questioner if you were only interested in individual opinons rather than aggregate data of opinons. Hope you find it interesting nonetheless...) Jonathan Haidt offers an interesting look at the difference in moral values between liberals and conservatives (http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html).  Based on data gathered from interviews with self-identified  conservatives and liberals, he found they differed on 6 core moral  values: Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm. Fairness/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions. (He has also referred to this dimension as Proportionality.) Liberty/oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized. Loyalty/betrayal to your group, family, nation. (He has also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.) Authority/subversion for tradition and legitimate authority. (He has also connected this foundation to a notion of Respect.) Sanctity/degradation, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. (He has also referred to this as Purity.) Haidt found that the more politically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics people are, the more they tend to value care and fairness  (proportionality), and the less they tend to value loyalty, respect for  authority and purity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatives or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics people, tend to value all the moral foundations somewhat equally.  Similar results were found across the political spectrum in other  countries. Haidt has also described the liberal emphasis on care as  "one foundation morality", contrasting with the conservative moral  balance. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt)

Progressives have only one principle: win elections even if it means adopting the most loathsome policies of their opponents. People who call themselves progressives do so because they don't want to stand up to the criticism of the radical right. Liberals, on the other hand, have very definite and deeply held principles which are: Kindness Fairness Tolerance Reluctance to use force or to be a bully Favoring those policies which would be good for: • everyone • you if you were some other American tomorrow. Liberals can imagine being someone else. Optional reading: BTW, conservatives somehow made a negative brand of the term, liberal. It's time for liberals to stop calling themselves progressives and proudly come out of the closet and proudly proclaim, We're Liberals!  Of course that would mean that we would have to repudiate all of Democratic Party's policies that are not liberal. I think it's time we did that too. What good it it if the Dems win an election by becoming Pubs?

This guy is pretty good: http://www.uctv.tv/shows/George-Lakoff-on-Moral-Politics-How-Liberals-and-Conservatives-Think-11194

The same as their political values. Progressives do not distinguish between the two. To a progressive, there is no difference between doing something and forcing other people to do something. What they consider as morally wrong must be banned.