Progressives, like Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson, set the path
for the current batch of neo-progressives. As we have noted previously, the
progressives, old and new, fundamentally believe in a strong government
controlled by a small elite class of people who alone know how to eliminate the
"evils" of society as perceived by them. This clan also views any who
oppose them as evil incarnate, although they totally reject any religious
connotations.
Standing against this clan seeking to mold and control our
lives is a small batch o0f individualists. Individualism sprang forth in the
fourteenth century as a result of the battles with the Avignon Papacy. The
reality struck many who fought that apostate organ that people were not
subjects but citizens, that Christians were not the subjects of the Pope but
members of a religion wherein salvation was an individual achievement, not
something handed down by the Pope and his minions. Regrettably the introduction
of Calvinism and Luther which reintroduced the concept of the
"chosen" via some form of Augustinian pre-destination, via the construct
of "grace", obliterated the initial attempts to promulgate
individualism. In a sense these 16th century religious constructs
were the basis for progressive ideas of having a select mandate for the many.
But with the development of the United States in the 19th
century as noted by de Tocqueville, individualism returned on the Frontier,
with free "associations" between people, as they saw fit, not as
mandated by some group of the "select". Yet by the early 20th
century this concept was obliterated by the likes of Croly, Roosevelt and
Wilson. A rather strange collection of egos but all believing in their own
rights as a member of the "select"
Individualism is s simple construct. It assumes that all
people are equal, under the law, and that the sole purpose of the law is to
protect the rights of these individuals. The rights protected are those agreed
to under a constitution. Individualism is in abject opposition to Rawls and his
clan. The government under an individualistic society is prohibited of
prohibited from giving one group an advantage over another and in ensuring that
a "clan of the select" cannot "rule" any individual.
The ideas of individualism and progressives are in sharp
contrast. Unlike Republicans and Democrats, or Liberals and Conservatives, the
core concepts are a reflection of who rules, the people or the
"select". Burke was a Conservative, one who saw political evolution
in a slow and methodical fashion. Paine, his alter-ego if one might suggest,
was in some ways a Progressive, in others an Individualist. I have seen the latter
Paine's suggestions as Progressive in nature, yet his work in the early
Revolution as Individualistic. The latter work reflects his involvement with
the French Revolution, and perhaps the progressive bent is reflective of that
"progressive movement".
In the NY Times an author states[1]:
The basic premise of liberal politics, by contrast, is
the capacity of government to do good, especially in ameliorating economic
ills. Nothing structurally impedes compromise between conservatives, who hold
that the accumulated wisdom of tradition is a better guide than the
hypercharged rationality of the present, and liberals, because both
philosophies exist on a spectrum…..Where liberalism seeks to ameliorate
economic ills, progressivism’s goal is to eradicate them. Moynihan recognized
this difference between Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, which he always
supported — as exemplified by his opposition to Clinton-era welfare reform —
and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, which he sympathetically criticized. The
New Deal alleviated poverty by cutting checks, something government does
competently even if liberals and conservatives argued over the size of the
checks. The Great Society partook more of a progressive effort to remake
society by eradicating poverty’s causes. The result, Moynihan wrote, was the
diversion of resources from welfare and jobs to “community action” programs
that financed political activism….But neither liberalism nor conservatism
opposes rationality. Conservatism holds that accumulated tradition is a
likelier source of wisdom than the cleverest individual at any one moment. It
fears the tyranny of theory that cannot tolerate dissent. Liberalism defends
constitutionalism. One of the finest traditions of 20th-century liberalism was
the Cold War liberal who stood for social amelioration and against Soviet
Communism. This genus — including Moynihan, Senator Henry Jackson and the
longtime labor leader Lane Kirkland — was often maligned by progressives.
The author has some interesting points but I believe he
totally misses the Individualism construct. The most recent example of Progressive
"think" is Obamacare. Namely some small group determined how 20% of
the economy should be run. In a sense reminiscent to a Soviet Five Year Plan. Regrettably
there is no Individualism flag bearer, unless of course you count all of the
people making their own choices.
Posts
