Shifting Language and Ideals in Progressive Politics
In the last twenty years, we’ve seen progressive activists reshape American political language with new terms and expressions. Words like microaggression, cisgender, bipok, and Latinx have become commonplace. Others, like referring to the homeless as “unhoused” or calling former convicts “returning citizens,” reflect this shift in terminology.
Progressives often act as voices for those who might not be as tuned into these academic trends, including voters who don’t align with the Democrats. It’s almost like a new language has emerged. They’ve even redefined familiar words. Take “fair,” for instance. It traditionally referred to ownership of property, but now it more commonly signifies a sense of justice or fairness—more robust than mere equality.
This concept of fairness has become central to today’s discourse around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). In this updated context, fairness goes beyond equality; it’s about recognizing and rectifying imbalances.
The National Association of Colleges and Employers, strong advocates of DEI, explains that fairness and justice differ from equality. They emphasize that equality means giving everyone the same resources, while equity acknowledges that we don’t all start from the same point. We need to make adjustments to address these disparities.
Following the George Floyd protests in 2020, DEI initiatives began to spread across various sectors—government, education, and private businesses—prompting job seekers to articulate their commitment to promoting diversity and equity in their work.
Democrats jumped on the equity bandwagon, with President Biden directing federal agencies to develop an Equity Action Plan aimed at promoting racial equity and better supporting underserved communities right from his first day in office in 2021.
However, the DEI emphasis hasn’t been well-received universally. Many working-class voters perceive it as a distraction from pressing issues like immigration, the cost of living, and rising crime. Some even view it as an elite imposition.
There’s been significant backlash. Concerns about progressive rhetoric surrounding DEI likely played a role in political shifts, influencing perceptions regarding candidates and parties.
The current administration has made moves that suggest a reduction in diversity-focused programs within the federal government. This political climate raises questions about how Democrats should respond to what some see as a rising tide of cancellation culture from the other side.
They should advocate for freedom of speech and conscience but also reflect on their approach to identity politics—especially when it seems to overshadow broader welfare concerns in favor of favored groups.
Perhaps distancing from Martin Luther King’s vision of a colorblind society in favor of DEI and similar frameworks has created a schism among Americans. Focusing on differences can make it challenging to forge a united front, particularly as many voters feel alienated from progressive circles that are focused on identity-based advocacy.
Democrats should therefore re-assess their stance on racial essentialism and re-emphasize individual rights and freedoms rather than group identifications. Historical exclusions from citizenship underscore the need for universality in applying these values, rather than dismissing them.
Liberal leaders throughout history have recognized the difference between striving for equal opportunity and the unrealistic expectation of equal outcomes. Encouragingly, claims of achieving complete equality often hint at authoritarian practices that suppress freedoms.
Historian Seymour Martin Lipset remarked on the unique American approach to social welfare and education, noting that Americans have consistently aimed to provide equal opportunities through universal public education, unlike the European welfare states.
Most Americans, particularly working families, prioritize economic growth, lower inflation, and opportunities for upward mobility over concerns about inequality. For them, equality seems like an elite attempt to address past wrongs while potentially creating new injustices.
The push for social change works best when rooted in a universal vision of American values rather than importing external ideologies. Therefore, liberals and Democrats should move away from a strict interpretation of fairness, commit to fighting all forms of discrimination, promote equal opportunities, and focus on advancing the common good.
Echoes of past democratic principles can still guide us forward.
