A great democracy has got to be progressive or it will soon cease to be great or a democracy. —Theodore Roosevelt
Progressivism is a political philosophy for improvement of society, based on the idea ofprogress, which asserts that advancements inscience,technology,economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition.
Viewed from Mount Vernon Street, the problem of life was as simple as it was classic. Politics offered no difficulties, for there the moral law was a sure guide. Social perfection was also sure, because human nature worked for Good, and three instruments were all she asked — Suffrage, Common Schools, and Press. On these points doubt was forbidden. Education was divine, and man needed only a correct knowledge of facts to reach perfection.
For this new creation, born since 1900, a historian asked no longer to be teacher or even friend; he asked only to be a pupil, and promised to be docile, for once, even though trodden under foot; for he could see that the new American — the child of incalculable coal-power, chemical power, electric power, and radiating energy, as well as of new forces yet undetermined — must be a sort of God compared with any former creation of nature. At the rate of progress since 1800, every American who lived into the year 2000 would know how to control unlimited power. He would think in complexities unimaginable to an earlier mind. He would deal with problems altogether beyond the range of earlier society. To him the nineteenth century would stand on the same plane with the fourth — equally childlike — and he would only wonder how both of them, knowing so little, and so weak in force, should have done so much.
Henry Adams,The Education of Henry Adams (1918), ch. 34
At this moment, when the foundational values that defined the20th century are under stress and thesocial contract is undergoing unprecedented revisions, as ideas and ideals ofcitizenship,nations,democracy,justice, andfreedom are being redefined;civil society cannot sit on the side lines and remainneutral. It needs to reengage with communities and politics to play a central role in defending, deepening, and promoting the progressive ideals ofliberty,equality,fraternity, justice, and democracy.
Please make your full contribution to making this ancient civilization the most progressive and the most powerful. By progressive and powerful I do not mean the most dreaded. A dreaded society is not a civilized society. The most progressive and powerful society in the civilized sense, is a society which has recognized its ethos, and come to terms with the past and the present, withreligion andscience, withmodernism andmysticism, withmaterialism andspirituality; a society free of tension, a society rich inculture. Such a society cannot come with hocus-pocus formulas and with fraud. It has to flow from the depth of a divine search. In other words, a classless society has to emerge but not necessarily aMarxist society. The Marxist society has created its own class structure.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto,My Dearest Daughter: A Letter from the Death Cell (2007), p. 15
Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle.
G. K. Chesterton,What I Saw in America (1922), "Wells and the World State"
Progress whence and to what? We talk of progress because by an ingenious application of some scientific acquirements we have established a state of society which mistakes comfort for civilisation.
[National Socialism] was a progressive cause, embraced at the time by the progressives’ progressive,H. G. Wells.Marie Stopes, the great apostle ofcontraception in interwarBritain, was also—like many among the progressives of the time—a keeneugenicist.
Even the sober desire for progress is sustained by faith—faith in the intrinsic goodness of human nature and in the omnipotence of science. It is a defiant and blasphemous faith, not unlike that held by the men who set out to build a "city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven" and who believed that "nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."
Eric Hoffer,The True Believer (1951), pt. 1, ch. 1, sec. 3
The progressives of Theodore Roosevelt's day were a varied lot, and some of their disagreements would reverberate, often loudly, right through theNew Deal. But they shared a commitment, asWalter Lippmann had said, to substitute mastery for drift, or, asHoover might have put it, social planning forlaissez-faire: a commitment, in short, to use government as an agency of human welfare. Progressives of all persuasions believed that government must somehow superintend the phenomenal economic and social power that modernindustrialism wasconcentrating into fewer and fewer hands. No longer could the public interest simply be assumed to flow naturally from the competition of myriad private interests. Active governmental guidance was required.
David M. Kennedy,Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War 1929–1945 (1999), pp. 32–33
Europe's rise is written in the terms of Christianity and Monarchy, Europe's decay in the terms of Republicanism, "Progressivism," and Godlessness.
Neither are the progressivists, in present-day America, revolutionaries or enemies of the order.Being "radical" or "progressive" they merely want to continue with greater speed and determination along the established, wrong trail.
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn,The Menace of the Herd (1943), p. 281
Would you think I was joking if I said that you can put a clock back, and that if the clock is wrong it is often a very sensible thing to do? But I would rather get away from that whole idea of clocks. We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. We have all seen this when doing arithmetic. When I have started a sum the wrong way, the sooner I admit this and go back and start again, the faster I shall get on. There is nothing progressive about being pig-headed and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world it's pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We're on the wrong road. And if that is so we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.
Those mid-century liberals were not opposed tocapitalism and private enterprise. On the contrary, they thought that government programs and stronglabor unions made capitalist economies more productive and more equitable. They wanted to save capitalism from its own failures and excesses. Today, we call these people progressives. (Those on the right call themCommunists.)
Today,states don't need to directly control the means of production to control every aspect of the lives of individuals. With tools such as printingmoney,debt, subsidies, controlling theinterest rate,price controls, andregulations to correct so-calledmarket failures, they can control the lives and fates of millions of individuals. This is how we come to the point where, by using different names or guises, a good deal of the generally acceptedideologies in most Western countries arecollectivist variants, whether they proclaim to be openly communist,fascist,socialist,social democrats,national socialists,Christian democrats,neo-Keynesians, progressives,populists,nationalists orglobalists. Ultimately, there are no major differences. They all say that the state should steer all aspects of the lives of individuals. They all defend a model contrary to the one that led humanity to the most spectacular progress in its history.
There is a point in the history of society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining "punishment" and "being supposed to punish" hurts it, arouses fear in it. "Is it not enough to render himundangerous? Why still punish? Punishing itself is terrible." With this question, herd morality, the morality of timidity, draws its ultimate consequence.
I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, then Fascism and Communism, aided, unconsciously perhaps, by old-line Tory Republicanism, will grow in strength in our land.
In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded uponfour essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech, and expression—everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world. That is no vision of a distant millennium.
A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy.
Theodore Roosevelt, "The Nation and the States", speech before the Colorado Legislature (August 29, 1910)[2]
Oligarchies, throughout past history, have always thought more of their own advantage than of that of the rest of the community. It would be foolish to be morally indignant with them on this account; human nature, in the main and in the mass, is egoistic, and in most circumstances a fair dose of egoism is necessary for survival. It was revolt against the selfishness of past political oligarchies that produced the Liberal movement in favour of democracy, and it was revolt against economic oligarchies that produced Socialism. But although everybody who was in any degree progressive recognised the evils of oligarchy throughout the past history of mankind, many progressives were taken in by an argument for a new kind of oligarchy. "We, the progressives" — so runs the argument — "are the wise and good; we know what reforms the world needs; if we have power, we shall create a paradise." And so, narcissistically hypnotised by contemplation of their own wisdom and goodness, they proceeded to create a new tyranny, more drastic than any previously known.
The hatred that often passed for 'progressivism' in 'activist' circles was truly astounding, and I fell lock-stock-and-barrel for it. One was trained only to look for the negative in every nook and corner, and, if it didn't exist where one looked, to imagine and fervently believe that it did. One's whole life became one great protest. Protesting against real or imaginary injustice was almost the only respectable thing to do. It was as if there was nothing at all good in the world to celebrate, and even as if celebration and joy were themselves an 'unnecessary diversion' or a 'unaffordable luxury' that truly committed 'activists' had to carefully shun. That explained why many 'progressives' and 'radicals' were horrifically negative as human beings, many of them being irritatingly obnoxious, judgemental, cantankerous, dour and sullen. Their penchant for protest made them only more so. Believing themselves to be somehow morally superior to others because they had, so they thought, devoted themselves to the 'oppressed' made many of them painfully sanctimonious and proud. ... Negativism, then, was a defining feature of being 'progressive', and that's what I began to revel in. But such negativism was almost entirely one-sided in 'activist' circles, for to be counted as a 'real' 'social activist' it was simply unthinkable that the 'oppressed' could be faulted for almost anything at all. For a 'social activist' to even mention, leave alone condemn, the foibles of the 'oppressed communities'—gender injustice orcaste rivalries amongDalits or the obscurantism andmisogyny preached in manyMuslim madrasas or theterror attacks andkillings of innocents byNaxalites and radicalIslamists—was tantamount to nothing less thantreason.
He who is not sufficiently courageous to defend his soul — don't let him be proud of his "progressive" views, and don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people's artist, a distinguished figure or a general. Let him say to himself: I am a part of the herd and a coward. It's all the same to me as long as I'm fed and kept warm.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "Live Not By Lies" (Moscow, 12 February 1974), inThe Lying Game,vol. 33, no. 2 (April 2004), index on censorship 2, p. 207
Men reached themoon inJuly 1969, andWoodstock began three weeks later. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that this was when thehippies took over the country, and when the true cultural war over Progress was lost. Today's aged hippies no longer understand that there is a difference between the election ofa black president and the creation of cheapsolar energy; in their minds, the movement towards greatercivil rights parallels general progress everywhere. Because of these ideological conflations and commitments, the1960s ProgressiveLeft cannot ask whether things actually might be getting worse.
The crisis of publichealthcare systems has long been a widespread demand in several countries, particularly in the U.S. Surveys showed that even beforethis crisis,healthcare was among the main concerns of theU.S. population because ofthe debt it generates forfamilies and because 27.5 million people do not have any kind of coverage.Bernie Sanders has been attacked, not only byTrump but also by theDemocrats andBiden, because he calls forMedicare for All. All healthcare systems are organized around the profits of bigcorporations. The decline in public healthcare is not just caused byright-wing forces, but also by forces claiming to be "progressive" orcenter-left, as can be seen inLatin America where "progressive" governments have failed to change the structure of "first-rate" andprivate healthcare for therich while public healthcare for thepoor is absolutely backward.
These times are too progressive. Everything has changed too fast. Railroads and telegraphs and kerosene and coal stoves — they're good to have but the trouble is, folks get to depend on 'em.
Forever seeking Archimedean levers for prying the world in directions they prefer, progressives say they embrace high-speed rail for many reasons—to improve the climate, increase competitiveness, enhance national security, reduce congestion, and rationalize land use. The length of the list of reasons, and the flimsiness of each, points to this conclusion: the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.
.jpg)
Encyclopedic article onProgressivism on Wikipedia