What and who are Neoprogs?

Soreprendase, me descuelgo con una entrada en inglés. Mi inglés es feo, disculpen las faltas:

I recently discovered that I am a neoprogressive. When you have left wing ideas and you become pragmatist there are mysterious forces that try to push you to the right side of politics. What is quite surprising is that forces are not coming from the right, but from de left. Try to reason as an economist with left wing values and you will be called a conservative, at best. It seems that empirical, rational and pragmatic reasonning are seen by both leftist and rightist as right wing ideology and you are, implicitly, invited to leave your leftist concerns on justice, equality and redistribution and shift to conservative principles.

The word “Neoprogressive” is the synthesis of neoconservative and progressive. The neoconservative movement was born during the cold war. It was mostly integrated by ex leftists that had discovered the horror of communism and had shifted to the right. It was a reaction ideology. As realists, they were sceptics about the liberal reforms concerning the welfare state and the new deal. They didn’t argue that the goal of those policies was bad, they just argued that those goals couldn’t be reached. However in the medium term, neoconservatives became conservatives. They were conservatives above all their values, their ideas, their philosophy were conservative and even reactionary.

I have a strong respect for the neoconservative strategy. That strategy has permited something so grounded in the past as conservative values of family and religion, to survive and even be the most powerful and influential viewpoint, from the the second world war to the Irak intervention.

Neoprogressives have something in common with neoconservatives (actually the symmetry is not casual): we also are sceptics. However, we remain leftists, with liberal values grounded in a left wing cosmovision. We are as ambitious as the more radical maxists are, we also want to radically change the status quo. But we believe that those changes won’t be neither easy nor free: that’s why we are sceptics

The meaning of scepticism

Neoprogressives are as idealists as science permits it to be and as sceptics as realism require to be. We believe in universal gravitation law and that social science conclusions are accurate. In fact, the scepticism does not concern the framework of reasoning: we accept that framework. So what does the scepticism mean?

We are, first, sceptical about traditional left “a prioris”. The traditional socialist way of reasoning is built on the basis of class struggle, the central place of workers. High taxes, trade unionism, a huge public sector and nationalization are the main ways for the old left. Neoprogs are sceptical about those policies. In middle class society, neither class struggle nor “workerism” look adapted. As socialdemocrats, we accept that the market is the most efficient resource allocation institution. Thus, we don’t think that an efficient market economy is compatible the paradigm of “hitting the firm, tax the capital”. A modern left shall think in term of consumer, not in term of worker.

The main principles of neoprogressive methods are two: people respond to incentives and nothing is free. We understand that transforming the society in a better place to live has costs and that people are most of the time individualistic. Taking these constraints as given, we aim to achieve our goals in the most efficient way.

We are, also, sceptical about “realist” solutions. In the last two decades an ideology who claim to be “realist” an so, impossible to contradict without denying the facts, has taken place. That ideology is said to be well grounded in scientific economic conclusions and prescripts privatization, tax cuts and the minimal state. Neoprogressive are sceptical about market fundamentalism. We don’t believe in supply side economics nor in the myth of welfare queens. On the basis of economic theory, we believe in market failures: assymmetric information, externalities, and collective action problems are real problem which can not be solved with the “magic effect of the market” alone. Environmentalism, consumer protection, minority rights, competition policy and income redistribution are all issues that require a strong state intervention. On the other hand, we are sceptics about welfare state policies but only for the rich. Right wing policies concerning agriculture subsidies and economic protectionism are harmful, not only for western consumer, but also for third world countries. The state is supposed to help the poor not the rich.

Which political orientation?

It is conventional wisdom that socialdemocracy is living a crisis. We just need to take a look to history to say that socialism has always been in crisis according to these view.

Of course you might think that this is a centre left ideology. I am strongly against this view. Been a centre leftist would mean that neoprogs have renounced to left ideal shifting, at least partly, to the right. If there is any way of grading how on the left is an ideology, neoprogs are far leftists, we are on the left of Marxist and anarchist. Our goals are as radical as revolutionary ones, however, our methods are modern ones.

Our values are the same as those of the left: we believe in a society based on the principle of individual self ownership, equality, true (and fair) meritocracy, compromise, redistribution and equity. We are against all kinds of inheritance: both economic and social inheritance. We are universalistic and internationalist. We think that what links society should be principles and values adhesion and not culture or tradition. But, where the traditional left used to nationalize and tax, we neprogs, believe in a draconian competition policy and a well coordinated partnership between the public and the private sector.

We don’t agree with any of the right wing paradigm values. We are not harsh defendant of family or patriotism, instead, we aim to substitute the national by the citizen which is for us the basic unit. We don’t believe in the selfish approach to individualism: individual have rights and there are threats to that rights other than those coming from the power of the state.

It is true that our methods may be the same as those of right wing neoconservatives. However, methods shouldn’t be neither left or right wing grounded: what makes ideology is your values: what you consider to be good or bad, but not your methods. Actually, it is just a way to find the most accurate way to get to the same place. Thus, there is no shift to the right, since our objective are as ambitious (or even more!) as the old left one.

We are (intellectualy) armed and dangerous. After Neocons, come Neoprogs.