Beyond tribes: the humanist case for moderate progressivism

By David Warden

In this article, David makes the humanist case for ‘moderate progressivism’, tracing its roots in early US reform movements and examining its modern, more radical and contested forms. In an age marked by polarisation, moral certainty, and rising social anxiety, he argues for a more balanced and reflective approach – one that resists ideological excess, fosters genuine dialogue, and draws on humanist commitments to open-mindedness and intellectual humility. The ‘middle way’, he suggests, may offer not only a more constructive politics, but a more stable and sane way of navigating our unsettling world.

American origins

The ‘Progressive Era’ – from the 1890s to the 1920s – was a major period of social, political and economic reform in the United States. It arose in response to the inequalities and corruption of the Gilded Age, aiming to strengthen democracy, regulate industry, and improve public welfare through legislation and institutional reform. Two of its key figures were Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Progressive Era reforms laid the foundation for modern American regulatory institutions and social policy. They curbed corporate abuses, expanded democratic participation, and introduced standards of public health and welfare that persist in US governance today.

Alongside political reform movements, the United States also saw the emergence of explicitly ethical initiatives such as Felix Adler’s Ethical Culture movement, founded in 1876. While not a political movement in itself, Ethical Culture shared many of the moral concerns of the Progressive Era – including social reform, education, and the promotion of human welfare through reason and ethical action. In this sense, it can be seen as a parallel expression of the broader progressive impulse, but rooted less in policy and more in moral philosophy and individual ethical formation.

Britain

Although the term ‘progressive’ was most closely associated with the United States, the underlying impulse – to use reason, policy, and collective action to address social harms – was not confined to America. In Britain, it found expression in the tradition that culminated in the work of the liberal social reformer and architect of the British welfare state, William Beveridge (1879–1963). In 1942, he published a famous report arguing that post-war Britain needed to tackle five great social evils: want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. Beveridge was not a religious thinker, and his work reflects a broadly humanist commitment to improving human welfare through reason and social reform. In this sense, he fits comfortably within the progressive tradition of social and political thought, although the term ‘progressive’ itself was not widely used in post-war Britain, where language such as ‘liberal reform’ or ‘social democracy’ was more common.

Collage of progressives by ChatGPT

The meaning of progressivism today

In the US, the term ‘progressive’ never fully disappeared after the Progressive Era. In the 1960s and 1970s it became associated with the New Left and civil rights movements, and from the 1990s to the present day it has re-emerged as a strong centre-left political identity. In the UK, the term has also been adopted, though more loosely and often within elite political and media discourse, where it can function both as a badge of honour on the left and as a term of criticism on the right.

Today, ‘progressivism’ is commonly used to describe a left-leaning outlook centred on social justice, equality, and inclusion. It places strong emphasis on addressing inequalities linked to identity – such as race, gender, and sexuality – as well as on environmental sustainability. It often extends to questions of migration and borders, where more open or humanitarian approaches are often advocated, and to critical reassessments of history, particularly in relation to colonialism and its legacy. In this framework, progress is frequently understood as the continual expansion of rights, recognition, and moral concern. While many of these aims are widely shared, the modern progressive agenda is not a neutral or uncontested expression of progress, but a particular and evolving interpretation of it, which can give rise to tensions and disagreements. For some critics, the term now carries a qualifying adjective: ‘radical progressivism’, reflecting a perception that its tone and scope have become more ideologically driven.

Tensions and disagreements

Contemporary progressivism may be seen as emphasising some dimensions of human wellbeing at the expense of others. Insights from evolutionary psychology, for example, suggest that human beings have deep-seated needs for belonging, stability, and social cohesion, which can be strained by rapid cultural and demographic change. Similarly, while identity-based approaches to justice have brought important issues to light, critics argue that they can encourage a focus on grievance or victimhood at the expense of personal agency and shared identity. There's also an ongoing debate about how the history and legacy of Western societies should be understood. While it's right to acknowledge injustice and exploitation, a fuller account should also recognise the development of institutions such as democracy, the rule of law, and individual liberty, which have contributed to human flourishing. Taken together, these considerations suggest that progress cannot be understood in purely ideological terms, but requires a broader and more balanced view of human needs and social goods.

Freedom of speech and cancel culture

A further area of concern, often associated with contemporary progressivism, is the tone and character of public debate. In recent times, and notably since the watershed year of 2016, there has been growing discussion of what is sometimes termed ‘cancel culture’ – a tendency, in certain contexts, to shut down disagreement through moral condemnation and shaming rather than engagement. Critics argue that a language of denunciation, in which opponents are readily labelled as far-right, racist, xenophobic, or otherwise beyond the pale, narrows the space for open and good-faith discussion. While such labels may at times be justified, their overuse risks discouraging dialogue, entrenching division, and undermining the humanist commitment to reasoned exchange and mutual understanding. A more constructive approach would seek to challenge ideas robustly while still recognising the dignity and moral agency of those with whom we disagree.

The intellectual virtues of humanism

From a humanist perspective, this points to the importance of intellectual virtues that sustain a healthy culture of disagreement. These include a willingness to listen, a readiness to question one’s own assumptions, and a commitment to engage with others in good faith. Humanism, at its best, recognises both the fallibility and the dignity of human beings: we are capable of error, but also of reason, growth, and moral development. This suggests an approach to public debate that combines clarity of conviction with humility, and that seeks not merely to win arguments but to understand and, where possible, to find common ground. In an age of polarisation, such virtues are not signs of weakness, but essential conditions for a more thoughtful and cohesive society. It is these habits of mind that a moderate and reflective progressivism would need to cultivate.

Moderate progressivism in practice

What, then, might a more moderate and humanist form of progressivism look like in practice? It would begin by affirming many of the core concerns of contemporary progressivism – reducing inequality, addressing injustice, and protecting the environment – while also recognising that these aims must be pursued in a way that is attentive to the full complexity of human life and social reality.

In relation to immigration, for example, a humanist approach would seek to balance economic factors and compassion with social cohesion. It would acknowledge the moral claims of asylum seekers, while also recognising that stable and flourishing societies depend on a degree of cultural continuity and shared norms. This includes respect for values such as equality between men and women, freedom of expression, and tolerance in matters of sexuality and belief. Border controls, in this context, are not an expression of hostility, but a means of sustaining the conditions under which a plural and diverse society can continue to function.

A moderate progressivism would place greater emphasis on personal agency alongside structural explanations of disadvantage. While recognising that discrimination and inequality remain real, it would resist the tendency to interpret all social outcomes solely through the lens of identity. A more balanced approach would seek to empower individuals as moral agents, capable of shaping their own lives, rather than casting them primarily as members of groups primarily defined by disadvantage.

It would also aim to restore a more measured and respectful tone to political life. The inflation of moral language – where opponents are readily described in extreme terms – can erode trust and make constructive dialogue increasingly difficult. A humanist politics of the common good would resist this tendency, seeking instead to engage seriously with differing viewpoints, both left and right, without resorting to caricature and dismissal.

A related area of contemporary concern is the question of misinformation and disinformation, which has become a prominent feature of political debate. It is often argued that major political outcomes – such as those following referendums and elections – have been shaped by false or misleading claims, and there is some truth in this. At the same time, the charge of ‘misinformation’ can itself become a rhetorical tool, used to dismiss opposing views rather than to engage with them. In highly contested political environments, competing sides frequently accuse one another of distorting the truth, and the boundary between genuine concern and partisan framing can become blurred. A humanist approach would recognise the importance of truth and evidence, while also exercising intellectual humility: being cautious about claims of certainty, open to questioning one’s own assumptions, and wary of reducing complex disagreements to questions of error or ignorance alone.

On environmental questions, a moderate progressivism would support the transition to more sustainable forms of energy, while remaining attentive to the practical and environmental trade-offs involved. It would favour a pragmatic and evidence-based approach, open to a range of solutions, including technological innovation and, where appropriate, the continued use of established energy sources during a period of transition.

International conflict

A similar need for balance and critical reflection arises in relation to international conflicts, such as that between Israel and the Palestinians. In some progressive circles, Israel is frequently presented in stark terms – as a colonial, apartheid and genocidal state – forming part of a broader critique of Western imperialism. While these perspectives reflect genuine moral concerns, they are also contested, and represent only one way of interpreting a complex and deeply rooted conflict. An alternative view emphasises the foundation of Israel as an expression of Jewish self-determination in a historic homeland, shaped by centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust. A moderate humanist approach would resist the pull of simplified or one-sided narratives, seeking instead to understand the historical, moral, and political complexities involved. It would aim to uphold universal human values, recognising the rights and dignity of both Israelis and Palestinians, while remaining open to revising its own assumptions in the light of evidence and reasoned argument.

A further area of tension concerns the global context in which liberal democratic values are situated. While humanism has often been associated with universal ideals – such as human rights, individual liberty, and democratic governance – it is also the case that these values are not shared uniformly across all societies. States such as China, Russia, and Iran reflect alternative political traditions, characterised by autocratic, theocratic and authoritarian forms of governance. For some, this raises questions about the limits of a cosmopolitan outlook, and the extent to which liberal democracies must remain attentive to issues of security, resilience, and cultural self-confidence. Critics of contemporary progressivism argue that an overly optimistic vision of global convergence, coupled with exaggerated criticism of Western history and culture, can underplay these realities, while others caution against framing international relations in overly adversarial terms. A moderate humanist approach would seek to hold these perspectives in balance, recognising both the aspiration to shared human values and the need for a clear-eyed understanding of geopolitical differences.

Conclusion

Underpinning all of this is a commitment to reason, balance, and intellectual humility. Rather than adopting a posture of ethical certainty, a humanist progressivism would recognise the limits of its own knowledge and the complexity of the problems it seeks to address. It would seek not to claim the moral high ground, but to foster a political culture in which disagreement is possible without enmity, and in which progress is understood not in terms of a fixed ideological programme, but as an ongoing, shared endeavour.

To situate oneself in this post-tribal middle ground is never easy. It requires a greater degree of critical thought, and far less of the emotional satisfaction that comes from denouncing or caricaturing one’s opponents. The temptations of polarisation are real, and many of us can feel their pull – whether towards a combative rejection of contemporary progressivism or an uncritical embrace of it. Yet a humanist approach demands something more demanding and, ultimately, more constructive. It calls us to engage our capacities for reason, reflection and self-restraint, rather than succumbing to the instincts that so often dominate public discourse. In an age of increasing division, this is not a retreat from moral seriousness, but a commitment to it. If humanism is to contribute meaningfully to the common good, it must resist being drawn into ideological camps and instead cultivate a space in which disagreement can be thoughtful, humane, and oriented towards shared understanding. That middle space – however difficult to sustain – is where humanism can make its most distinctive contribution to the building of a better world.