Progressivism is the unquestioned assumption in today's Americaposted by MD
That is my take-away from this well-written, general audience column by Jonah Goldberg, in this day's USA Today. I'm not saying that the assumption of progressivism isn't questioned by anybody; certainly it is in various intellectual circles. But most people don't seem to question the assumptions of progressivism in public education, health care, economics, and government authority/bureaucracy. These seem either to be accepted or tolerated by the majority of people (this is my guess), or people aren't even aware that progressive assumptions have so taken root.
I write constantly in this blog about classical education, and that approach flies in the face of progressive assumptions about education. Frankly, the evidence is on the side of classical approaches to education, because public education in this country is failing our children. And of course I have written before, with the argument that contemporary liberalism (which is just progressivism with a new name) is dead as a generator of sustainable ideas for this country.
Anyway, here's a good kwote from Goldberg's column:
But the truth is we might be in another progressive moment in American politics, where both parties represent the same basic assumptions about the role of government, leaving conservatives out in the cold.
What is progressivism? For our purposes, let's just say it's the belief that the government "runs" the whole country, imposing its values on the group, the way a teacher runs a class or a drill sergeant runs a platoon (this actually describes the differences between Wilson and T.R. quite nicely).
Bush-haters — you know who you are — seem to think that Bushism is all about war. But they forget that Bush didn't initially become a war president by choice; 9/11 was thrust upon him. He was a "compassionate conservative" who didn't want to leave any children behind. The strategy that he and Karl Rove (a T.R. groupie) concocted was to create a GOP version of "feel your pain" Clintonism.
The 2000 GOP convention's theme was "Prosperity with a Purpose," and in Bush's acceptance speech he insisted that "American government was made for great purposes." In some ways, Bush was ripping off Sen. John McCain of Arizona, whose campaign was a homage to Teddy Roosevelt and the need for Americans to unite in a "cause greater than themselves."
And while the war gets most of the attention, it has hardly escaped notice that the president is a proud "big government conservative" championing everything from government-funded marriage counseling to a new prescription drug entitlement to the federal government's intrusion into education.
In 2003, Bush declared that "when somebody hurts, government has to move."
That last line is a fantastic nutshell of progressivism, and I believe its sentiment is a virus upon the body America.
But what, exactly, do I mean by "progressivism"? Certainly not — or not merely — the tinfoil-hattery that gets called "progressive" on the web and elsewhere. Progressivism has overlapping meanings. It refers both to the generic leftism we associate with the word "progressive" and to the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But both of these senses rely on a more metaphysical meaning. Progressivism was perhaps best summarized by Condorcet's declaration that there is "a science that can foresee the progress of humankind, direct it, and accelerate it." Progressivism takes it as a given that mankind, not God, is the pilot of Spaceship Earth. The good is measured in material terms — greater health, greater prosperity, greater comfort — and the social sciences are the disciplines that allow us to engineer society in ways that will maximize the good. Recall that the phrase "social engineering" didn't start out as an epithet; people once bragged that they were social engineers. Even if the term has fallen into disrepute, the practice is alive and well.
5 Comments:
By jwood |
9:16 PM i'm surprised you seem to come down entirely on one side of this issue. What do you say of the Reformation, the Enlightenment in general? Or are we now at the End of History? What of Africa now? needn't they some progressive movement...? These views seem so often confined to your borders, located precisely at your time in history, no context to explain arrival...
By CJ Smith |
10:24 PM MD,
This critique of progressivism would have more meats on its bones if it were applied were I've not seen you (nor Goldberg) take it.
i.e. The progressivism of the executive branch, which has aggregated powers to itself not envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. [Not just W. Bush by the way].
Big governmentism is not just in domestic policies. It would make the position more consistent.
By MD |
8:57 AM jwood,
Where I "come down" is that the assumption of progressivism ought be questioned more. Where that questioning would lead, I don't know. But, for example, in education, progressive educational methods (i.e. government schooling) simply isn't working, and is a complete failure.
Big governmentism is not just in domestic policies. It would make the position more consistent.
Actually, it is. By definition, progressivism, libertarianism, and the like are philosophies that are confined to matters between the State and its citizens. Not the State and other States, ever.
md
By jwood |
8:48 PM i completely agree with your education analysis (as an elementary school teacher myself). Which is why i'm particularly interested in your education work. What we have now is the opposite of what we need: progressive theories sans substance combined with conservative, unimaginitive curmudgeons mascarading as teachers. Futher to Paglia on Open Source last week, vibrant educators passing down Canons is our obvious wish. So, i've no problem with criticisms of the cult of progressivism, rather looking for that camel threading the needle. I liked Bill Clinton's remarks some years ago at the opening of his library. Something to the effect of combining the best of Conservatism, which draws lines that should never be crossed (like say the 10 commandments), with the best of progressivism, that tears down walls that have passed their date (ie. berlin literally) or should never have been erected in the first place (ie. civil rights). When I say 'come down' it's because it does feel like their is too much of the former, not enough of the latter. Is this a conscious over-correction?
RSS
