It's in the first paragraph. I would consider a definition of 'progressivism' as "a collection of non-status-quo policies that are broadly considered to be more consistent with a utilitarian philosophy than the extant status quo" to be a fairly non-controversial definition. I question that definition on the grounds of the special interest politics problem inherent in progressivism, but I also think that it's extremely hard to argue that the special interest politics are a bigger problem than the broad opposition by the present right to what Samuelson had to say on anything other than adverse selection. They do love protecting their pet insurance interests.
Seeing how I was an infant in the late '70s, I didn't have the option. What I learned over the course of the 2000s was that, research into the validity of the 'welfare queen' argument aside, there are enormous structural problems in this country that tend to produce people (of all ethnicities, as it turns out) that are ill-suited to functioning at the level we would like them to function at. It doesn't really matter whether you got dealt a poor hand in the inner cities or rural America. You're going to end up a second-class citizen all the same, irrespective of ability, unless you have a great deal of fortune with respect to who you meet when.