Progressivism and the Certainty of Ignorance

George Rebane

One of the unambiguous tenets of a conservetarian is that collectivism, in any of its forms, is a gateway to human suffering and eventual tyranny.  Collectivists, under whichever banner they assemble – progressive, liberal, national socialist, international socialist (communist), … - will first seek to silence their foes by whatever means they are able to muster, from public proscription, government censorship, and finally by marching them to the wall.

On the path to such draconian ends, much demonstrated during the 20th century, they will attempt to justify their attacks on ideas not suitable to their agenda, they will fashion their arguments and present them in the guise of scientism – the collection of convenient unscientific assertions disguised as science.  The birth of progressivism in America used scientism – specifically in what was then called eugenics - as a companion to their social justice apologetics.

America’s union schools have carefully obliterated the history of eugenics from the history of progressivism.  Their only mention of it today is to give the lie that it was a politically motivated error of the Right seeking to establish a ruling society of the Űbermenchen.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Amity Schlaes reminds us of the details in her ‘The Progressive History of Eugenics’ wherein she also reviews two recent books on the subject.  In it she writes about how the certitude of ideology driven scientism has been used by our central planners and social engineering elites –

And that’s the trouble with reformers. They are so sure, and so wrong. How often comes clear in two new books. The first, Adam Cohen’s compelling “Imbeciles,” focuses on Buck v. Bell, the 1927 case in which the Supreme Court upheld Virginia’s right to sterilize citizens it deemed mentally ill, somehow deficient or, indeed, shiftless. In the second book, “Illiberal Reformers,” Thomas C. Leonard also treats the horrifying rise of compulsory sterilization and, in a deft analysis, goes on to compare the thinking behind eugenics to other forms of supposedly enlightened policy.

Nowadays eugenics is portrayed as an unfortunate detail in the story of an otherwise glowing movement, Progressivism. What these two volumes, especially “Illiberal Reformers,” reveal is that eugenics served as a key tool of the Progressive policy makers of the 1920s. “Darwin’s ambiguity on the question of whether evolution resulted in progress or merely change left enough leeway for progressives to claim society must take charge of its own evolution,” Mr. Leonard notes. The consequences of Progressive Darwinism were policies as imprecise, superstitious and inhumane as any they superseded.

Eugenics was received by our polity as a gift from science the application of which to broad populations would immeasurably improve society.  Famous adherents of scientistic eugenics were thought leaders of the day like President Teddy Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, H.L. Mencken, Margaret Sanger, Helen Keller.  All of them celebrated the consensus of scientists that eugenics was the real deal.

(For completeness we must include Frances Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, in that list with an asterisk.  Crick decried the National Socialists’ (Nazis’) use of eugenics to justify the Holocaust and engineering humans.  Crick really saw how his discovery would lead to the new science of genomics which could use genetics to battle diseases (in- and ex-utero), benefit agriculture, and, yes, even provide designer babies.  We leave the discussion of society and genomics to another time.)

Today the Rosemary’s Baby of eugenics - the new scientism that has been introduced to compel the compliance of those lovable “poorly educated” in the sciences - is preventable global warming or climate change or some other fashionable label that histrionically calls for a controlled and massive global response that will be overseen by the progressive elites.

Comments

[Paul Emery]

On the other side of the coin the testament to the mental magnitude of Conservative thought and values is going is presenting us us with Donald Trump as their choice as the best American to guide this country. George, was this fruit of Conservative intellectualism also the product of Union schools?

[George Rebane]

PaulE 153pm - Nah, it is the revolt against Great Society progressivism as practiced over the decades by both Dems and Repubs.

[Paul Emery]

So then it's a revolt against Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes as well as the Republican dominated House and Senate of the last 20 years.

[Gregory]

Paul, Trump's triumphs are more related to the sort of political correctness and bias of the media (including you) and the desire of more and more rank and file Republicans to put someone in office to upset the apple cart.

Conservative thinkers have been pushing the likes of Cruz, Rubio and "Jeb!", choosing to hide the Bush name in a triumph of marketing a damaged brand rather than retiring it.

The relentless takeover of California's schools started when the first incarnation of Jerry Brown gave collective bargaining rights to public employee unions (circa 1979), including the current 600lb gorilla in Sacramento, the CTA. It's no surprise that California Millennials, educated since the Union takeover, think Bernie is the salvation of the country.

[Paul Emery]

So Gregory in your view the Trump triumph is the result of the Liberal media? How clever of them. Brilliant actually since his inevitable nomination will surely lead to a Democratic landslide in November. Thanks for pointing that out

[rl crabb]

George, you keep pointing to the belief in global climate change as an indicator of ignorance. What percentage of conservatives believe the world is six thousand years old, a giant ark saved the animals of the world, and that someday the faithful will be carried off to heaven in the rapture? I still maintain that both sides of the coin aren't worth a plug nickel.

[Gregory]

Regarding the "Republican dominated House and Senate of the past 20 years".

The Senate, over the last 20 years (including this one), has been a Democratic majority half the time.

The House, over the last 20 years, has had a DEM majority for four years, lost dramatically when the country saw what can happen with a Dem in the Presidency, as Speaker of the House, and Senate Majority leader.

Over the last 20 years there has also been a Democrat in the Big House for 12 years.

Your characterization of the last 20 years being Republican is borderline insane... here's a mandala for you to contemplate how we got to the present:

Only with the current House have the GOP even gotten close to the domination enjoyed by Democratic Speakers for the 40 years before the Gingrich revolution.

[Gregory]

Damn, large jpegs arent handled like they used to be. Here's the link to see the chart in a new browser window
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.png

[Paul Emery]

Your graphic peters out before it becomes contemporary. As I recall the Pubs controlled it all (house and Senate) from 94 to '06 when the dems took the Senate. The Dems controlled it all from '08 through '10 when the Pubs took the House and '12 when they took the Senate. This is from memory so I may be a little off. The Pubs controlled the Pres with Nixon for eight (including Ford) the Dems had it for four with Carter then Reagan Bush for 12, Clinton for eight then BushII for eight and Obama for eight. they are about to nominate Trump for the next round. Since Ike the Repubs have a 36-28 edge in the Presidency, You can check my math if you like

Ike-8
Kennedy-Johnson-8
Nixon, Ford-8
Carter 4
Reagan 8
Bush I 4
Clinton-8
BushII-8
Obama-8

[Gregory]

Paul, either right-click the jpeg on the page or follow the link in my 2:38 to check your math yourself.

When considering the degree of control, pay attention also to the number of seats in the plurality.

RL, the only modern belief that rivals ignorance due to religious beliefs is the ridiculous assertion that 97% of scientists believe in a coming CO2 catastrophe. The only true survey of thousands of scientists I'm aware of is by the American Meteorological Society's professional membership... 52% believe mankind is responsible for half the warming of the past century... from all causes. And as far as a real "consensus" goes, those in the consensus can't even agree on how much warming results from a doubling of CO2, and have not gotten closer to each other over the last 35 years. It ranges from 1.5C to 4.5C (or more in a positive feedback warming event, of which there have been ZERO in the last 540 million years) for a doubling.

Global Warming Alarmism is the modern nutcase religion, and they want their priesthood in charge of everything.

[Gregory]

Paul, your original claim was that the GOP dominated the House and the Senate for the last 20 years and the truth is that Dems dominated the Senate for half of the previous 20 years, the House for 4 of the past 20 years and have held the Presidency for 12 of the past 20 years.

In short, your original statement was complete bs.

Furthermore, the degree of the GOP control has been a fraction of the Democratic majorities enjoyed in their past, plus the 800lb gorilla dominating the budgets remain the untouchable New Deal programs that are the majority of the national debt and the tax load that is burdening the Millennial's futures.

That 40 year unbroken stretch of DEM control of the House is the source of much of our ills.

[Paul Emery]

So Gregory according to you there is no cause for alarm and it should be business as usual.

[Todd Juvinall]

I was talking to a very astute friend about politics. He went and watched two hours of YouTube's of Trump starting in 1972. He view is Trump is a "progressive" in the true sense. Not liberal or conservative. He is a mix. Anyway, my friend said Trump is a "rebel". When you actually listen to his policies and not the bombast you may agree.

I actually relate to this view for myself. I like the conservative positions on fiscal and smaller government less regulations etc. But am compassionate on social issues based in common sense. Teach them to fish etc.

It looks like Gregory and Paul Emery are playing tennis with the amount of time owned by R's and D's. It really doesn't matter. Big government got bigger under all. The on;y difference between them is Clinton was getting serviced in the Oval office. As he was screwing us. LOL!

[George Rebane]

PaulE 211pm - Paul, I'd give up revisiting your wild and erroneous assertions of Repub control of Congress. Where and when it counted to implement the disastrous Great Society programs, the Dems were in full charge with huge majorities in both houses. As Gregory's 238pm chart shows, the Repubs haven't had such a long stretch to put any of their programs in place. And always remember that Rebpubs have a good population of RINOs among them, the Dems are true blue socialists. That helps.

RLCrabb 234pm - Yes, there is a minority of fundamental Christians who call themselves Repubs, they are also joined by an equivalent set of Dems, especially blacks, who are so moved. A revealing chart is presented by Pew Research here.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/

The argument that only the Repubs are fundamentalist (or erroneously 'evangelical') is specious but effective for the lightly read. But those who believe in preventable global warming are predominantly the collectivists of all hues. It is ONLY from the Right that there is any significant pushback on that latest brand of scientistic hysteria.

And to put a bow on the asymmetrical First Amendment assault in our country referenced above, I repost my comment from the last Sandbox -

Yesterday's Daily Signal reported the ongoing and longstanding tenet of progressive belief - opposition voices are to be proscribed by force if necessary - on the CSULA campus. My conclusion is rapidly changing from their being simply stupid to 'stupid and evil'.

Student protesters swarmed California State University, Los Angeles to barricade the entrances of a theater where conservative commentator Ben Shapiro was set to deliver a speech about censorship and diversity on college campuses.

Led primarily by the school’s Black Student Union and Black Lives Matter chapter, the hundreds of demonstrators, including some professors, poured into the Student Union building Thursday afternoon to block other students from attending the event.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/26/campus-protesters-try-to-silence-conservative-speaker-demand-college-presidents-resignation/

[Gregory]

Todd, I believe it was William F. Buckley who famously determined that Democrats are Socialists and Republicans are reluctant Socialists. I left the Democratic Party when I realized the ghost of Jefferson was long gone, and have never been a Republican.

Democrats in power have been remarkably cohesive over the years with one anthem that unites them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-BYzaDwNoE

Paul, if you want to start a new discussion with another incorrect statement, please, end the last one by admitting your "20 year" claim was bull and taking your lumps. How long have you been the News Director of our local NPR affiliate?

[Gregory]

Paul, anticipating your mea culpa on the GOP with 20 year control issue, how about a statement of your beliefs...

Yes or no only: 97% of scientists believe in catastrophic global warming due to CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use.

[Paul Emery]

I don't have exact numbers Gregory but in my view there are significant reasons by large numbers of climate scholars to arouse concern. Am I right is assuming your opinion is that there is no problem and we should proceed with business as usual.

Can I carry the assumption that you believe that the inevitable nomination of Trump is the result of the Dems being in control for a majority of the time and that the Repub Presidents and elective have been unable to exert their influence resulting in much discouragement with the Republican mainstream, the resulting in the populist rebellion that will nominate Trump.

[Paul Emery]

More fuel from Fox to my argument that the Conservative movement is dead.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/31/america-youre-watching-beginning-end-republican-party.html

The beginning of the end of the Republican Party has started. On Friday, I told you the Republican Party is dying. Then, yesterday, Ross Douthat in the New York Times echoed my key point.

Mine was that the Republican leaders in Washington would see the decline of Donald Trump as proof that they need do nothing to change. Like the Bourbons of France, they’d forget nothing and learn nothing.

On Sunday, Douthat wrote, “In an unhealthy system, the kind I suspect we inhabit, the Republicans will find a way to crush Trump without adapting to his message. In which case the pressure the Donald has tapped will continue to build — and when it bursts, the G.O.P. as we know it may go with it.”

Yes, exactly. The Republican Party is dying because the GOP in DC has gone corporate and K Street. They attack any Republicans who dare hold them to their promises. They’ve gone to war against Heritage Action for America, Club For Growth, the Madison Project, etc. They’ve blackballed any political consultant who does work for outsiders.

[drivebyposter]

"More fuel from Fox to my argument that the Conservative movement is dead."
P. Emery

I think it's too strong to say that it's dead (although it's certainly useful as an argument causing device), but you can argue that it's being redefined.

No biggie. The 'Conservative' movement, as it's commonly thought of, isn't all that old anyway. Neither are so call 'progressive' philosophies. It's worth looking into the big deal political controversies of the 19th and early 20th C. and see how much things have changed in a relatively small time period.

My gut feeling is that most people sign up for one side or the other due to a kind of instinctive tribal feeling they have. Most of the speechifying and ballyhoo is just a pleasing and musical flow of words to the crowd.

[Bill Tozer]

We are herd animals. Social needs and all that.

[George Rebane]

drivebyposter 542pm - FYI, the progressive movement as such and that we know today started in the 1890s in the US. The conservative movement we know today started in 1960 with William F. Buckley Jr.

[Gregory]

"I don't have exact numbers Gregory but in my view there are significant reasons by large numbers of climate scholars to arouse concern."

Paul, approximate numbers and where you got them would do fine, you know, the sort of verification that a real newshound would insist upon before publishing a story.

[drivebyposter]

gr at 6:20

Thus late 19th C and early 20th, although I can't say there's a very clear birth for these things. Given the minuscule size of the fedgov from, let's say, pre WWI, comparing the modern era with any earlier period becomes as much chalk vs. cheese as anything I'd say.

It's funny to think of progressive notions being pushed into place by bastions of liberalism like Otto von Bismarck.

My main point is that there's no permanence in these things, except for perhaps the underlayment of human nature.

[drivebyposter]

"We are herd animals. Social needs and all that."

-Sr. Tozer

Well, I should hope so. If you don't belong to a herd, the herd next door will wander over and steal all the gold and good looking women.

[George Rebane]

drivebyposter 648pm - No claim of permanence is made. Progressivism, like all other isms, evolves with the times. But the isms evolve within what is technically known as 'analytical continuity' which says that no one on the morrow could detect a noticeable difference in his or anyone's ism from the last night's sunset.

Since the start of the Cold War western progressivism (socialism) today is disjoint from the reality of 'complete socialism' being the dominant governance of a country. We have had the pleasure of dabbling in various weaker forms of socialism because America's momentum of freedom and enterprise is not yet spent. But never fear, them socialists, they'se a'comin', bet the ranch.

[Bill Tozer]

Modern day progressivism:

http://patriotpost.us/articles/40907

https://www.facebook.com/RowdyConservatives/photos/a.217983685002343.55586.217926015008110/801486833318689/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/RowdyConservatives/photos/pb.217926015008110.-2207520000.1456717458./801420819991957/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/RowdyConservatives/photos/a.217983685002343.55586.217926015008110/801338890000150/?type=3&theater

[Bill Tozer]

More visual aides

https://www.facebook.com/girls4gunslingers/photos/a.300286756733040.66584.274105099351206/977407765687599/?type=3&theater

Progressive's just cannot wrap their heads that Americans are pissed about ILLEGAL immigrants. Progressives lump all immigrants together, leaving out the word Illegal. Few are opposed to immigration provided it is done lawfully and in a good orderly manner. I opposed illegal immigration and consider them law breakers with ZERO right to break into and live this country...or any country they are found to have trampled athe process of legal immigration. Thus, I am a racist.

Hope this does not turn into "breaking up families". Just another non-violent offender, not hurting anybody.

http://fox43.com/2016/02/26/illegal-alien-charged-with-ninth-dui-in-lancaster-county/

[George Rebane]

BillT 802pm - Mr Tozer, you know how picky I am with all that 'immigrant' imbroglio. I do know your feeling about illegal immigrants as illegal aliens. But, if I recall, you have similar feelings for illegal entrants (you know, the ones who cross the border surreptitiously), and you did not include them in your denouncement of people in our country illegally.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/05/the-porous-borders-and-amnesty-act.html

[fish]

Actually rather "On Topic"!

"A couple of years ago, the then minister of education admitted that the aim of the regime’s policies was “not to take the people out of poverty so they become middle class and then turn into escuálidos” (a derogatory term to denote opposition members). In other words, the government wanted grateful, dependent voters, not prosperous Venezuelans."

Honesty from a "socialista".....remarkable!

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2016/03/elsewhere-190.html