Progress is generally defined historically, as landmarks achieved in society, law and democracy... Giving women the vote, for example. I read a Danny Finkelstein article yesterday that pointed out just how often these particular measures broke down party lines, with very prominent historical figures, Cons, Libs and Labs, turning up on the side you would least have expected. Like George Washington being a **** of a slave owner.
It's also ridiculous to superimpose partisanship on everybody. The overall shape of British politics has consistently been towards what is academically termed Liberalism, for as long as anyone can remember. One theory of the present discontent with politics is that people grew tired of the supposedly indifferent options presented by two parties and politicians who as their prominent trait, embodied pragmatism. Pragmatism is NOT a partisan belief. It describes the tendancy to value results over adherence to ideology, identity, loyalty. If we took pragmatism to it's ultimate, it would be politicians who said; Any ideology will do. Any alliance will do. As long as we get the results (be they politically selfish, or entirely altruistic goals to benefit society, such as increasing skilled employment). But the point is, pragmatism in itself is not a fixed label. It has been shown to be inherently beneficial be pragmatic to demonstrate lasting loyalty in public - and to be known for keeping your promises towards others. It works in game theory and other social theories.
At least, these were the theories. But when someone like Trump comes along, and says, ok, there's a lot of goodwill and trust built up there, no-one can stop me from burning through it, and breaking rules... people stop looking at history and past success, and the media driven political narrative quickly shifts so that ideological opponents become the loudest voices.
