Progressives are always right...

[dudalb]

Hmmm.. was it a Progressive idea to support alcohol prohibition in order to try to suppress the black vote?

BS.
I have read quite a bit about Prohibition, and nowhere have I read that the surpession of the Black Vote was a major factor in the adaptation of Prohibition.
It is true that some rabid prohibitionist were racist (The KKK, for example),but I have never read anybody claiming that the surpression of the black vote was a major reason for prohibition.
I think it has already been demonstrated that you will continue with your ":Left:GOOD, Right:BAD" mentality no matter what.

 

[theprestige]

Reading this thread has been interesting. Some of the debate has fallen into the typical right vs left slugfest. But to reiterate, I'm not saying that progressives are always right in the sense that their ideas are always superior (this is usually a personal value assessment). Rather, I'm saying that progressive ideas usually bear fruit over time, whereas conservative issues tend to wither on the vine.

In some sense, this is a tautology: The names tell you all you need to know ... for things always change. But consider the evidence...

The workplace--better safety, better hours, compensation, family leave, etc.

Foreign policy--no more isolationism, World Court, United Nations, IMF.

Environment--tide turning against oil companies and against AGW deniers.
Alternative energy on the rise. Clean air, water, ozone, etc.

Health Care--Ever-increasing public (gov't) participation.

Personal Freedoms--took a blow after 9-11, but all trends of the last 300 years are towards liberty (end of slavery, woman's rights, gay rights, etc)

Economy-progressive taxation, EITC, welfare programs for the poor, etc. Trend toward increased regulation (30-year blip excepted).

To my eyes, conservatives have always acted as road blocks: Their only purpose is to slow down progress. Put it this way... Whatever a conservative believes today will be shameful fifty years hence. I'll let you do the thought experiment yourself. Pick any historical American political/societal issue ... (except Eugenics )

Since there is in fact vigorous debate about whether or not many of the ideas on your list actually constitute "progress", I think you're not so much supporting your claim as you are begging the question.

It's easy enough to conclude that your ideas are always right when you begin by assuming that none of your ideas are wrong.

 

[bynmdsue]

Perhaps NoScotsman can tell us what he thinks are conservative ideas ?

And do all progressive ideas involve laying the hand of government on problems to fix them?

Wouldn't that make all progressives statist?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Fair enough.

Please do.

So you did. And that's fine, as far as it goes...

... and for you, it seems to end up here: Define opposition to your good ideas as lunatic, and you're justified in imposing your good ideas by force.

Do you really want to go there? Mandatory seat belt laws make a major difference to accident survival rates, and the "loss of freedom" involved is absolutely trivial - you're sitting in the car anyway, you just have to make a tiny effort to affix the belt before you drive off.

I'm perfectly happy to call anyone who wants to let people die over the principle of the thing in this particular case a lunatic, and yes I'm perfectly happy to impose an idea that good on someone that stupid by force.

I apologize for implying statist progressivism is always wrong. I intended to point out that progressivism isn't so easily divided into "liberal" (mostly right) and "statist" (often wrong).

If you pointed out any liberal progressive policies that turned out to be bad ideas, I missed them. So I don't think you've "pointed this out" so much as asserted it.

Instead, it is more appropriately characterized as a social theory that values the destruction of existing institutions and the creation of new ones, by force if necessary, in the name of progress, and that this value system naturally leads progressives to statist solutions, wherever they believe such solutions are necessary to make progress. The question of progress towards what, exactly, is at the heart of the "progressives vs. conservatives" debate, I think, but we probably won't see that side of it discussed much in this thread.

It looks to me like you're just emotionally attached to tarring liberal progressivism with the brush of the worst excesses of statist progressivism, and that you're resisting any attempt to make useful distinctions because it would make it obvious that your tarring is irrational.

There's plenty of scope for debate within the progressive tent about what degree of paternalism is a good idea. It doesn't mean that all progressives endorse all forms of paternalism.

Which goes directly back to the OP's thesis: "Progressives are always right..."

Welcome to conservativism, brother.

Now all we need to do is agree on whether it's a nail that needs hammering, a board that needs planing, a complex system that needs fine-tuning, or a social order that needs upheaving. That, plus an agreement on "everyone" and "better off", will lead to an outcome that is likely to be not only "progress" but also "right".

Sounds good to me.

 

[Mark6]

Some progressive ideas that did not work out:

New Math in 1970's.
"No child ever lies about abuse" in 1980's -- that one turned out very badly indeed.
Very vague but influential conviction among psychiatrists in 1960's that punishment is outdated and all criminals can be cured -- which may end up true, but was way ahead of actual science at the time.

The above ideas were driven at least in part by desire for justice and fairness. But the science was terrible.

"Progressives always turn out be right" because when a conservative idea fails, it is remembered as "conservative". When a progressive idea fails, it is remembered as "nonsense" or "fad". Or, if it was inconsequential enough, just disappears from collective consciousness, and is not remembered at all.

I am resurrecting this thread because of what I saw on LiveJournal few days ago. Some people were discussing why so much science fiction in 1960's and 70's featured sex/marriage/romance between teenage (or barely teenage) girls and much older men. Heinlein is best known for having such skeevy couples in his books, but he was far from the only one. Here is a very informative IMO post on that matter:

You may recall a little something from that era called the "sexual revolution." It was about more, much more, than The Pill. There was also, for example, a theme of reaction to the seriously outdated laws of the time. Depending on the jurisdiction in the US, sex outside of marriage was illegal, sex with your own gender was illegal, non PIV sex was illegal, and sex with children was illegal. However, it was legal for an adult male of any age to marry a girl of 12 or 14 with the parents' permission. Oh, and sex was dirty and nasty and should happen in the dark behind closed doors and never be spoken of or hinted at in public.

The response of the sexual revolutionaries to this set of restrictions and taboos was to declare that all sex was good except sex you didn't want to have. The only sex that was wrong was rape.

Combine this with a rather naive view of consent and with the concurrent movement for children's liberation (which took the view that kids should not be the property of their parents), and you get an approach to sexuality that yields (in SFF) everything from the sexually liberated futures of Varley, Delaney, Janet Morris, Octavia Butler, and so on, to (sadly) the Breendoggle.

Precisely what I called in my 2010 post "an idea which seemed progressive at the time, and now remembered as a stupid fad at best, or just forgotten".

 

[Eddie Dane]

I occurred to me recently that America's political system and constitution, icons of the American right, were in fact the subversive ideas of extremely left-winged intellectuals in pre-revolutionary France.

 

[Noztradamus]

I occurred to me recently that America's political system and constitution, icons of the American right, were in fact the subversive ideas of extremely left-winged intellectuals in pre-revolutionary France.

And you were mistaken

Jefferson cribbed the Declaration of Independence from Chapter 19 of John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (not many people know that), completed by 1690

That was a generation before those lefty French started winging

 

[Brainster]

It is dangerous to assume that either side is always right. To give just one example where progressives were wrong:

Progressives saw sterilization as having natural advantages over traditional methods of helping the poor, such as charity. Sterilization was “scientific” — its rationale could be found in the writings of Charles Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, who mused that superior people, like superior crops and farm animals, were the product of good breeding. The term “gene” had not yet been coined — among the surprises in Bruinius’ book is that the science and the word “genetics” were born of the pseudoscience eugenics, and not vice versa — but any well-read person could understand that if you wanted to rid the world of inferior people, you ought to stop them from passing on their characteristics to future generations. Whereas charity only prolonged and deepened the problem of poverty by allowing the “unfit” among us to survive and procreate, sterilization presented what you might call a permanent, final solution. Give a man a fish and he eats for one day; cut his mother’s fallopian tubes and you can be pretty certain not to need any fish, or fishing lessons, in the first place.

 

[quixotecoyote]

It is dangerous to assume that either side is always right. To give just one example where progressives were wrong:

Eugenics is a good example of progressives not being always right, since back in the day it enjoyed a good amount of support there, as near as I can tell as a 'solution' to preventing mental illness and hereditary disease, primarily.

On the other hand, it also enjoyed a good amount of support from conservatives too, mostly from the anti-immigrant and racist factions. So it's an issue that didn't really have the progressive/conservative lines drawn clearly across it.

And then Hitler.

 

[theprestige]

There was a time, before Adolf and his mustache ruined it for everybody, that fascism was seen as a progressive step forward from representative democracy, in the evolution of human societies. Progressives thought that Mussolini was leading the way forward, for example.

After the second world war, it became customary in the west to repudiate, in public at least, the idea of statist regimes where a properly-selected political elite provide the masses with a well-regulated society. There are dissenters, though. Thomas Friedman, for example, has written in the New York Times more than once about the advantages that would accrue to the USA if it adopted a Chinese model where the ruling party could impose Friedman's idea of "progress" by fiat, rather than leaving such issues as climate change, economic policy, etc. to the whim of the electorate.

 

[thaiboxerken]

There was a time, before Adolf and his mustache ruined it for everybody, that fascism was seen as a progressive step forward from representative democracy, in the evolution of human societies. Progressives thought that Mussolini was leading the way forward, for example.

And now it's conservatives that want to place corporations in charge. My how things change.

 

[Corsair 115]

And now it's conservatives that want to place corporations in charge.

Hey, it's not so bad if corporations take over. We'll at least get some Rollerball.

 

[stevea]

A progressive is someone who seeks to change the existing order from a liberal perspective.

So define "liberal perspective". Progressivism is antipathetic to personal liberty & rights. It's not liberal at all, except in the sense that it's favored groups gain new inequitable rights & privileges, sometimes/often at the expense of others, always at the expense of egalitarianism.

The fundamental notion of Progressivism is that society can be better based on the application of science & economics & new social organizations, modernism & leaving tradition aside. That concept seems great, except there is no common definition of "better", and in practice ...

Marxism is the Progressive economic scheme that failed massively. And let's not just account for the economic failures of the USSR & the old Chinese managed markets that kept ppl in needless poverty. We must also account for the violent regime changes and mass murders necessary to eliminate opposition. ~85-100 million in the last century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

Margaret Sangers & Adolph Hilters views on eugenics & human superiority/inferiority - the view that the 'race' can be improved by selectively eliminating ppl from the breeding population, or entirely is a purely Progressive idea. Anyone interested should read the enthusiastic support from English, US & French Progressives for the Nazi movement & Italian Fascists generally. So let's chalk up another ~35million dead and the destruction of Western Europe as a failure of Progressivism. The victims of eugenic sterilization programs in the US & Europe seem an important addenda to this tally.

On to less violent topics.

League of Nations - fail.

UN - a gentleman's C-. (useful at uncontroversial low cost issues like eliminating disease, otherwise a debate society for dictators that has done little to prevent wars or assert human rights).

Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, Welfare - too early to judge. Certainly there are obvious short term gains to the indigent, but what have these programs done to social cohesion, to family cohesion, to the reduction in charity Are these programs financially sustainable ?

------

I see several common themes in Progressivism.

/ It is intolerant of dissent or pluralism, and is therefore anti-scientific. This varies from shouting "denialist" or "racist" thoughtlessly at any dissenter, up to sending people off to ovens or killing fields b/c they fail to fit into the brave new vision of the better future. They don't see the massive irony in "the science is settled"; but should instead be saying "our minds are closed".

/ It is elitist and anti-liberal. "We elite know best for all" is a strong theme. This is used as a rationalization to use force to impose a new regime. There is a strong element of "appeal to authority" fallacy in many progressive causes (we knoww the thruth b/c some trusted source said so). I can't count how many times I've been lectured on the "fact" of "proven climate problem" by ppl who can't demonstrate a basic understanding of thermodynamics. About as convincing as listening to a parrot.

/ It tends to be driven by zealotry rather than rational, temperate and judicious thought. Marx economics was wrong in many fundamental ways that were well understood even 25 years later. His projections of the future were proven massively wrong. Perhaps a more circumspect and better studied and less violently & immoral scheme could have worked. Genetic testing & giving parents some options at abortion is an example of a less violent and more tempered approach vs involuntary sterilization of "undesirables". I suspect the current approach to climate change management is similarly ill-understood, haphazard - an pointless rush along a wrong path.

/ Progressivism appears to be strongly subject to demagoguery. For every social revision that is proposed there is certain to be political and financial winners & losers. For this reason imprudent ideas are politically promoted by panderers seeking power or money or both. Good ideas don't need pandering ,advertising is sufficient.

=====

I'm very much in favor of improving society by the application of well founded knowledge & science & the use of reason, however I am vehemently against forcing others to concur with my (or your) view of what is better. This generally means that government force should not be used, but rather voluntary agreement by individuals.

 

[deverett]

Democracy
voting right for women
universal healthcare

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

And now it's conservatives that want to place corporations in charge. My how things change.

Actually they had far more backing from the anti-democratic right, such as the Catholic Church.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

Hmmm.. was it a Progressive idea to support alcohol prohibition in order to try to suppress the black vote?

Not quite. There were multiple reasons why people, left, right, and center, supported prohibition. from the left there was the idea that workers were wasting money on alcohol that should be spent on their families, which they blamed on what today we'd call "Big Booze." There was also support for prohibition as a political reform because it was commonly believed that crooked politicians got the black vote (where it still existed) by offering free drinks to those who showed up and voted the "correct" ticket.

Probably of greatest importance was the idea of improving the environment (which would improve the citizenry) by banning the saloon which was tied to political corruption (bribes), police corruption (bribes), poverty (spending the paycheck at the bar), sexual issues (prostitution), violence against women (drunk abusive husbands), and so on. There was some truth to these, but only some. For example, prostitutes did often look for customers in saloons, but most saloons did not tolerate this. Alcoholism was a problem, but most people who drank were not alcoholics, and so on.

Other issues won support from prohibition from different parts of the political spectrum as it existed then..

race (black men get drunk and rape white women)
immigration (foreigners drink more than Americans)
religion (drunken Catholics!) (Alcohol is sinful) (Jews sell alcohol)
Law and Order (saloons harbor criminals)
Medical/Health (alcohol is poison)

and so on. Dry laws won the majority of both major parties by 1917 and from all over the political spectrum. By 1932, however, it was strongest on the political right although it still had some support on the left and some of the biggest opponents were on the hard right (as a personal liberty issue).

 

[Manopolus]

No.

Progressives are always left.

I'm sorry if someone already told that joke (a possibility), but I didn't feel like looking through all the pages just to tell a dumb joke.

Oh, and it's in more ways than one... (former) progressives are always what's left after all the older people die. Leftist views tend to come from a younger population than conservative ones.