Mischaracterizing progressive thought
By: Chris Maisano
Issue date: 5/11/07 Section: Ed-Op
Originally published: 5/11/07 at 3:08 AM EST
Last update: 5/11/07 at 3:08 AM EST
Originally published: 5/11/07 at 3:08 AM EST
Last update: 5/11/07 at 3:08 AM EST
William Mulgrew's commentary, "Progressives and Conservatives," published in the last issue of The Triangle is marred by straw-man arguments, historical inaccuracies and half-truths. Let's address some of the particularly egregious examples and establish what people who consider themselves to be "progressive" actually believe.
Mulgrew accuses progressives of cleaving to a na've view of history and society in which the human condition inexorably improves over time. This is simply not true and hasn't been since at least the early 20th century when World War I knocked the positivism right out of most people in the West regardless of their political proclivities. Nor do I or any progressive that I have ever met think that human nature is malleable or perfectible; this is a position that was abandoned long ago by progressives and everyone else for that matter. I also don't know anyone who wants to discard social institutions just because they are old; if a social arrangement produces good outcomes, obviously it should be conserved. I don't think anyone argues with that.
Most progressives would also not quarrel with Mulgrew's observation that humans are not born independent and require socialization and support from other individuals and social institutions. That's why we reject an individualistic conception of the economy and society and support institutions and public policies that promote community and solidarity such as progressive taxation, universal health insurance, trade unions and public education. It's true that government intervention to promote the goals we seek can potentially reduce the vigor of the intermediate social forces that Mulgrew refers to (community, civic and religious organizations) and modern social welfare initiatives should incorporate some aspects of decentralization and community involvement. But if you want to denounce taxation and government intervention in support of solidarity and shared prosperity as simply "plunder" and rely solely on community-based charity to solve social problems, I suggest you read a Dickens novel to see what such a society would look like.
Mulgrew accuses progressives of cleaving to a na've view of history and society in which the human condition inexorably improves over time. This is simply not true and hasn't been since at least the early 20th century when World War I knocked the positivism right out of most people in the West regardless of their political proclivities. Nor do I or any progressive that I have ever met think that human nature is malleable or perfectible; this is a position that was abandoned long ago by progressives and everyone else for that matter. I also don't know anyone who wants to discard social institutions just because they are old; if a social arrangement produces good outcomes, obviously it should be conserved. I don't think anyone argues with that.
Most progressives would also not quarrel with Mulgrew's observation that humans are not born independent and require socialization and support from other individuals and social institutions. That's why we reject an individualistic conception of the economy and society and support institutions and public policies that promote community and solidarity such as progressive taxation, universal health insurance, trade unions and public education. It's true that government intervention to promote the goals we seek can potentially reduce the vigor of the intermediate social forces that Mulgrew refers to (community, civic and religious organizations) and modern social welfare initiatives should incorporate some aspects of decentralization and community involvement. But if you want to denounce taxation and government intervention in support of solidarity and shared prosperity as simply "plunder" and rely solely on community-based charity to solve social problems, I suggest you read a Dickens novel to see what such a society would look like.
Ken
posted 5/11/07 @ 8:42 AM EST
So laissez-faire capitalism, the concept that two parties can enter into an agreement that is mutually beneficial as THEY define "fair", is based on coercion. (Continued…)