In the 1960s, American society turned to diverse, colorful liberalism and progressivism after experiencing the dark era of McCarthyism and conservatism. Revolting against the monochromatic social atmosphere of the 1950s, which Irving Howe labeled, “This Age of Conformity,” young Americans in the 1960s regarded themselves as liberals, progressives and the New Left.

In his insightful book, “Gates of Eden,” an analysis of the American sixties, Morris Dickstein defines the American 1960s as the age of liberalism and progressivism, both culturally and politically. He asserts that American young people thought that they were at the gates of Eden, verging on a new way of perceiving life, culture and politics. Many of those who were baptized by the liberalism and progressivism of the 1960s called themselves “the generation of new sensibilities,” indicating that they were different from the traditional Marxists of the 1930s.

A few weeks ago, I met a group of people discussing the American sixties. Our conversation drifted into the achievements and failures of the liberalism/progressivism of the 1960s.

“Rising in rebellion against the establishment, social institutions, and rightwing conservatism, American young people in the 1960s fostered new sensibilities in culture, arts and politics, with which thought they could change the world,” I argued. “Unfortunately, however, there were some side effects as well, such as drugs, sexual dissipation and high divorce rates.”

I continued, “Young people are inclined to liberalism and progressivism, but they seldom realize that those seemingly attractive, benign cultural movements, too, may have a dark side, when pushed to the extreme.”

While I was talking, a middle-aged woman abruptly intervened in anger, “You should differentiate American liberalism and Korean progressivism. American liberalism was proven problematic, but Korean progressivism is flawless. Besides, our progressivism has nothing to do with American liberalism.”

She seemed to be upset, thinking that I had insulted her cherished, “impeccable” Korean progressivism by comparing it to the “corrupt” American liberalism. The problem was that she mistakenly thought that progressivism and liberalism are two different things, and hopelessly confused liberalism with libertinism.

The angry woman’s protest evoked some fundamental questions. Is progressivism entirely different from liberalism? Can progressivism without the spirit of liberalism exist in the first place? What does progressivism minus liberalism equal anyways? If the elements of liberalism are eliminated from progressivism, it will ultimately turn into conservatism and can thus never become truly progressive.

I was momentarily baffled by her self-righteous assertion. Soon, however, it occurred to me that the self-appointed Korean progressives ironically dismiss anything that bears the name, “liberal” or “free,” such as Neo Liberalism, the free market economy and free trade agreements. It also occurred to me that our progressives want a stronger government that can regulate free trade, the market economy and big corporations, using a heavy hand. If it is true, however, it cannot be progressive, but regressive.

In fact, progressivism should be much more than simply pro-North Korean leftist ideology or social revolution; it should encompass the spirit of liberalism and its open-mindedness. That is to say, a progressive should be someone who is at the cutting edge of his or her own field, a forerunner who has a vision for the future. Therefore, progressivism without liberalism cannot be true progressivism.

In Korea, however, the definition of progressivism seems to be different from that of other countries. If you are not pro-North Korea, you are doomed to be labeled as a conservative, no matter how liberal you are. But such a classification is seriously flawed.

We want to see the rise of so-called New Leftists who have the sensibilities of the American youth in the 1960s that sought a third possibility, avoiding the two extremes. We want to see our progressives be more flexible and less dogmatic than conventional leftists. We want them to have the capacity of embracing their political foes, instead of blindly antagonizing them. We also want to see our New Leftists avoid the extremes and become truly progressive and moving toward the future, not infinitely regressive and retreating into the labyrinth of the past. We want to see our New Leftists be no longer self-righteous.

Our progressives constantly chant “social change” and yet, they themselves do not seem to change at all. Ten years ago, for example, they won the presidential election using text messages that could reach and touch young cell phone owners.

In 2012, however, that strategy did not work at all; so many older people came to own smartphones, and now spend just as much time on them as younger people. Not realizing such change had occurred and assuming that they were the only ones who could control SNS, our progressives were naively overconfident that they could win the elections, taking advantage of smartphones and the Internet once again.

As a result, they lost the elections they could have won. If our progressives stubbornly refuse to change, hopelessly clinging to an age-old, banal ideology, smartphones will strike back again five years from now, and they will lose the election once again.

By Kim Seong-kon

Kim Seong-kon is a professor of English at Seoul National University and president of the Literature Translation Institute of Korea. ― Ed.