From last Sunday’s WaPo.
Many conservatives in the pre-Civil War period opposed the abolition of slavery; many conservatives in the 1930s opposed Social Security; many conservatives in the 1960s opposed civil rights laws. But the justice of these measures became obvious over time, and the values behind them became part of the American way of life. In this moment, conservatives need to ponder whether 10, 20 or 50 years from now, Americans — including conservatives — will feel the same way about same-sex marriage or the guaranteed, universal availability of health insurance.
Even though conservatives tend to start the culture wars, liberals almost always win them. The “infidel” Jefferson and “papist” John Kennedy become president. Prohibition is repealed. Marijuana becomes legal. Gays and lesbians get marriage rights. Conservatives manage an occasional victory — on guns, for example. But in almost every arena where the contemporary culture wars have been fought, liberals now control the agenda.
In these histories, progressives are like the Harlem Globetrotters and conservatives are like the Washington Generals. It is a totally one-sided match-up, with the good guys always winning in the end.
In Prothero’s rendition, Prohibition was a culture war started by conservatives. I don’t remember that from my high school history textbook. Neither does Wikepedia, which writes,
It was promoted by the “dry” crusaders, a movement led by rural Protestants and social Progressives in the Democratic and Republican parties
In fact, when I read Dionne’s column, I started thinking of instances in which Progressives got things wrong. Wage and price controls as a cure for inflation. Eugenics. And I thought of Prohibition.
But that is not the way Progressives see things when they look in the mirror. Their self-image is such that if Prohibition turned out badly, then it must be the case that conservatives wanted it and progressives opposed it.
Because they believe that they have never been wrong in the past, Progressives are certain that they are right going forward. Prothero goes on to write,
Causes once labeled “liberal” become “American values,” embraced by liberals and conservatives alike. Same-sex marriage becomes just marriage. Islam is recognized as part of our shared Abrahamic tradition. We cease to view particular immigrant groups as threats — as “drug dealers,” “rapists” and terrorists — and instead appreciate their contributions to our society.
And we all sing, Kumbaya.
Social security? It’s not just the no true Scotsman problem, there is also an element of survivorship bias, and social security (for example) hasn’t survived yet. In fact it has died a couple time already.
And…
Mark Perry “The European Union as a group ($32,700 GDP (PPP) per capita in 2010) ranks below America’s poorest state, Mississippi ($32,764).”
Why didn’t progressives deliver same sex marriage 2 years ago? Or 50 for that matter. The issue here is so transparent they can’t even see it.
Besides stacking the deck by mis-classifying the warring parties (the Prohibition battles, for example) and failing to discussing battles progressives and non-conservatives did lose (Eugenics, for example), there is another issue. How many times have conservative opposition to change, resulted in a more durable evolution towards freedom? I am glad that there was a strain of “conservatism” in the American intellectual tradition at the time of the American revolution that French revolutionaries saw as too backwards or too slow…
Do newspapers no longer fact-check their writers? Abraham Lincoln was literally the first Republican president, and that party was founded by anti-slavery abolitionists. And research shows that Democrats were about as likely to vote against civil rights. Two strikes and you’re out, Mr Dionne. Social security is a tough one. Economists have long pointed out that it’s a ponzi scheme. And yet it seems to have helped many poor elderly. It is hard to say whether it is a good or bad thing, and no, the fact it is popular does not make it correct (Venezuelans loved 2 cent gasoline, too).
Prothero also glosses over facts. You need to be 21 to buy alcohol. Marijuana is not “legal” in the USA, and even in California many people have been arrested by Federal authorities. And as with abortion, gay marriage may be legal but it has a long way to go before being widely accepted (I have no strong opinion either way; I am a tired libertarian).
He didn’t say “Republican”; he said “conservative”.
“No man is good enough to govern another man without that man’s consent.” That’s Lincoln. Progressives don’t believe it. Democrats don’t believe it. Technocrats don’t believe it. Not Thomas Friedman or Ezekiel Emanuel or Cass Sunstein or Michael Bloomberg, to pick just the most outspoken examples.
Weren’t the Quakers biggest abolitionists? Especially in Great Britain.
William Wilberforce is reviled by Labour Party academics.
Instead of trying to take credit for all the ideas everyone agrees are good, progressives should be more like libertarians and try to take credit for the ideas everyone agrees are wrong.
Or just don’t take credit for ideas libertarians couldn’t convince them were right 30 years ago.
Why are we so taken with Wordsmiths (see, Nozick) as “intellectuals?
Perhaps it’s easier to read and nod than to think.
What has passed as “Progressive” (economic, social and political) has largely been the conceit of “How things *ought* to be.”
The “ought” is noted for a connection with morality; such as “how life *ought* to be lived.” [The Shield of Righteousness for all “Progressive” thinking]
Building on the initial conceit in determining HOW things ought to be, Progressiv – ism moves on to the conceit of assuming possession of knowledge, understanding and “reason,” to achieve or create the conditions that ought to be.
Actual “conservatism” in social orders would adjust changes in the social order to the changes in the relationships of its members that result from the ways in which they come to look upon, regard and understand one another.
Odd to see progressives claiming Jefferson as one of their own. Modern political categories don’t map onto those from 200+ years ago, of course, but Jefferson was a staunch supporter of states’ rights and floated the idea of state nullification long before Calhoun. I guess not being an evangelical (or the 18th century equivalent; congregationalist, maybe?) is enough to qualify someone as progressive.
Jefferson was against every kind of monopoly. He understood how competition works, and why central diktat doesn’t work, “that public works are much less advantageously managed than the same are by private hands,” that a free market in religion is no exception to the geometric logic of liberty. But in the Enlightenment that was the emphasis: Follow nature, be consistent. If Prothero actually read Jefferson, he’d despise him.
If same sex marriage is the progressives’ to be proud of, then it sure did take them long enough to “evolve” on the issue. What was it? Sometime conveniently after Nov 2012?
Heck, the libertarians were already there decades earlier.
“A 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office found 1,138 statutory provisions “in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving ‘benefits, rights, and privileges.'”
Now homosexuals get access to the central government’s distortions of marriage, and they get to get screwed just like everyone else by the dysfunctional divorce courts. Yay!
Progressive Heroes! But who actually evolved? Progress is 5 people on the Supreme Court not understanding democracy or Constitutional law or due process because the politicians couldn’t front run public opinion fast enough.
Prohibition mainly seems to have been:
1) An anti-Catholic, Anti-Urban thing
2) Wrapped up in women’s rights/suffrage.
If we replace “conservative” with “middle class WASP family interests” then prohibition makes sense as “conservative”.
1920s progressives were obviously right about eugenics, if they were wrong about the proper way to handle it. Their 1924 immigration bill was probably the best piece of legislation passed in the last century, and its repeal in 1964 a bit part of our problems today.
Most of the rest of the turn of the century progressive platform (education can solve all problems, elite “managers” should be able to re-order society, etc) are still a part of the progressive platform, and still a disaster.
Prohibition had multiple sources of support, but the people who identified with “Temperence” were trying to enact a large-scale social change. It was progressive in the usual way that term is used.
The connection to women’s suffrage is an interesting one in more than one way. Women who had long been saying alcohol needed to be suppressed suddenly found themselves with a larger influence on politics. They finally got what they’d been saying they wanted for over a century.
I believe the premise here is all change is progressive, even when the change is reversal, and that they learn from their mistakes. Flattering to conservatives though. Many haven’t moved nearly that far and I doubt if they will much more in the future, but some do.
You are half right, which is half over those guys who get paid to write their twaddle. They claim all progress that sticks as progressive. but they never learn anything, as evidenced by the fact they don’t even get your point. If you know those guys, can you tell them? They are embarrassing themselves.
The staunch right-winger FDR did make marijuana illegal. The main man in charge of enforcing this (under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy) Harry Anslinger famously stated: “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”
Liberals think they are right about everything, and have always been right about everything, because right now they largely control the media, the academic world and the entertainment industry and all of those sources confirm their delusions of perfection.
The thing is, I don’t even disagree with them on a lot of things. What I can’t stand about the elite left is the moral self-admiration, and the constant search for new ways to make ordinary people behave better.
I wonder how the future will look back on abortion.
Abortion is why I don’t think progressives were even wrong about eugenics, in hindsight. It isn’t even remotely about to be made illegal again. A de facto policy confirming the success of “positive eugenics” is firmly established, and isn’t attracting condemnation as racist despite it’s massively disproportional impact on black Americans. Meanwhile suggesting the black guy in the room might have an opinion about basketball is immediately considered suspect.
That’s cultural power the right can only dream of having.
Well said, Dain.