Not sure I would characterize progressive liberalism as particularly localist in the narrow sense. If you polled the founders and executives of international NGOs (organizations whose very existence is a refutation of narrow localism) my guess is you would find a whole lot of liberalism in there.
My sense is that both liberalism and socialism are more internationalist, on average, than conservatism.
For example, speaking in a European context, socialism has a proud internationalist tradition (the anthem is not called L’Internationale for nothing) yet Third Way social democrats as well as liberals (the more centre-right European brand Americans may not be used to) have tended to be the strongest supporters of European integration. Conservatives meanwhile have predictably pushed for policies such as reduced foreign aid, reduced immigration, and exiting the EU. This both reflects differing ideologies and differing electorates—conservative voters tend to be older and more rural.
Any sets of ideas, especially those resembling political ideologies, are bound to enter into tension at some point. However I believe it is also possible to fuse liberalism, socialism, and EA inspired thinking in a fruitful way.
For example you could take:
from liberalism, a commitment to human rights (including property and free enterprise) and checks and balances… but not the idea that those are sufficient in and of themselves and anything more such as a social safety net or guaranteed health insurance represents creeping tyranny
from socialism a commitment to democracy, realized capabilities, non-exploitation, and the notion that “currently existing capitalism” is not some final form of economic arrangement we can never improve upon… but not the idea that enhanced conflict, sectarianism, and a general attitude of sarcastic nastiness represent the best way to achieve those goals
from EA, impartial welfarism across space and time, scope sensitivity, and the use of reason and evidence in argument (what you might call the Enlightenment toolkit)… but not the idea that it is a totalizing solution that solves the need for politics forever.
I suspect a number of EA-sympathetic left-wingers would sit fairly comfortably at this intersection.
I’m thinking of liberal progressivism as a narrower category than liberalism generally.
I do think that liberal progressivism is popular amongst internationalists, but that is because the other major political force in America is conservatism which is even less internationalist than liberal progressivism.
I think internationalism is more popular amongst socialists and liberals than amongst liberal progressives. I think that socialists and liberals are a lot more internationalist than liberal progressives, who are a bit more internationalist than conservatives.
I’m wondering if some of the difference of opinion in several comments are definitional. Can you clarify how you see liberal progressivism in comparison to liberalism generally? For example, as someone heavily involved in United States politics, I see the terms usually understood in the following way by my colleagues (and opponents). But this is not necessarily how they are used globally: * Socialism = far left socially and economically * Liberal progressivism = progressivism (the phrase liberal progressive isn’t used by most politically active citizens) = solidly left socially and economically * Liberalism = Center-left socially and economically (although historically has been used where progressive is used today)
Not sure I would characterize progressive liberalism as particularly localist in the narrow sense. If you polled the founders and executives of international NGOs (organizations whose very existence is a refutation of narrow localism) my guess is you would find a whole lot of liberalism in there.
My sense is that both liberalism and socialism are more internationalist, on average, than conservatism.
For example, speaking in a European context, socialism has a proud internationalist tradition (the anthem is not called L’Internationale for nothing) yet Third Way social democrats as well as liberals (the more centre-right European brand Americans may not be used to) have tended to be the strongest supporters of European integration. Conservatives meanwhile have predictably pushed for policies such as reduced foreign aid, reduced immigration, and exiting the EU. This both reflects differing ideologies and differing electorates—conservative voters tend to be older and more rural.
Any sets of ideas, especially those resembling political ideologies, are bound to enter into tension at some point. However I believe it is also possible to fuse liberalism, socialism, and EA inspired thinking in a fruitful way.
For example you could take:
from liberalism, a commitment to human rights (including property and free enterprise) and checks and balances… but not the idea that those are sufficient in and of themselves and anything more such as a social safety net or guaranteed health insurance represents creeping tyranny
from socialism a commitment to democracy, realized capabilities, non-exploitation, and the notion that “currently existing capitalism” is not some final form of economic arrangement we can never improve upon… but not the idea that enhanced conflict, sectarianism, and a general attitude of sarcastic nastiness represent the best way to achieve those goals
from EA, impartial welfarism across space and time, scope sensitivity, and the use of reason and evidence in argument (what you might call the Enlightenment toolkit)… but not the idea that it is a totalizing solution that solves the need for politics forever.
I suspect a number of EA-sympathetic left-wingers would sit fairly comfortably at this intersection.
I’m thinking of liberal progressivism as a narrower category than liberalism generally.
I do think that liberal progressivism is popular amongst internationalists, but that is because the other major political force in America is conservatism which is even less internationalist than liberal progressivism.
I think internationalism is more popular amongst socialists and liberals than amongst liberal progressives. I think that socialists and liberals are a lot more internationalist than liberal progressives, who are a bit more internationalist than conservatives.
Love this fusion and mostly agree with it.
I’m wondering if some of the difference of opinion in several comments are definitional. Can you clarify how you see liberal progressivism in comparison to liberalism generally? For example, as someone heavily involved in United States politics, I see the terms usually understood in the following way by my colleagues (and opponents). But this is not necessarily how they are used globally:
* Socialism = far left socially and economically
* Liberal progressivism = progressivism (the phrase liberal progressive isn’t used by most politically active citizens) = solidly left socially and economically
* Liberalism = Center-left socially and economically (although historically has been used where progressive is used today)
Mostly agree, although I don’t necessarily think property rights as currently understood in Western culture are actually good.