I’m admittedly a teleologist, as one of my professors used the term, meaning that I think progress is being made generally. I’m a radical progressive, meaning that I think that new and radical solutions to many problems exist, and that people are generally absurdly conservative and reluctant to try out new ways of solving problems.
That confessed, I want to hear some progressive ideas that have been tried and tested yet just failed to work. Admittedly, I’m skeptical of some claims–when I’m told that “Communism didn’t work,” I question the accuracy of how Communism was tested: the Soviet Union was a tyrannical bureaucracy run by ideologues who applied non-Marxian policies to circumstances. It may well be that Communism, to continue with this example, is too hard to pin down to tell whether it can be tested. Certainly, I’d concede that Communism as tried in the Soviet Union was a failure, but there are other types of Communism (China, Cuba) that are still ongoing. Still and all, if you want to argue that Communism in general is a huge failure, I’ll concede the point for argument’s sake.
But what other progressive ideas have dead-ended in failure? I look at the main body of progressive ideas of the twentieth century that were derided as the death of civilization by conservatives–progressive taxation, women’s suffrage, social security, civil rights, all highly controversial in their time–and now they’re commonplace elements in our society, grudgingly accepted as done deals by hard-core conservatives, and as successful principles. Without going into Communism, what progressive ideas have been tried and tested and failed?
I’d suggest eugenics as a failed idea, at least as it was practiced at the time. If it comes about, it’ll be through the availability of genetic engineering, not social engineering.
The Suffragettes who promoted it certainly thought it was.
I’d add to the list the Rockefeller drug laws created by Nelson Rockefeller to the list.
I also think housing projects, as done in the 60s and 70s proved to be a disaster and we would have been vastly better off going with small town houses.
The problem with the word ‘progressive’ is that people will assign it to things they approve of, and deny association of it with things they disapprove of. It’s a slippery term, and I try to avoid using it. I predict this thread become entangled in debates over a) people disowning a policy as progressive, or claiming it as progressive, and b) disputing what was ‘successful’.
What’s more, progressive ideas tend over time to become conservative.
Ironically, many of the most successful (depending on ones definition of that, and ones perspective) ‘progressive’ ideas and programs came from such radical liberals as Teddy Roosevelt.
As I remember my history, it was also promoted by Bible-belters who would certainly be classified as hard right conservatives today. I think prohibition failed because it was too extreme in its application, outlawing a product that is safe when used moderately, but some of its goals as espoused by progressive groups as MADD have been successfully mainstreamed into modern culture. A progressive idea is to restrict who has access to alcohol, to make impaired people legally responsible for their actions, to negate alcohol use as a valid excuse for behaviors the suffragettes opposed (like wife-beating), etc. While prohibition was a complete failure, I question if the law was more progressive or more conservative in nature, and I think some ideas that have come out of it in modified form are progressive.
I agree. Some, like Prohibition, are mixed. Failure/success, however, is a little easier: like it or no, Social Security is here to stay, though as late as the 1960s Goldwater Republicans were still denouncing it as essentially a Communistic element in an otherwise capitalist society. Today, not so much.
It was definitely progressive, and not conservative in it’s day. It was a break from the status quo. Same went for the crack down on prostitution and illegal drugs. All of that came out of progressive thinking. You seem to be trying to go back and forth here by putting some things in terms of today’s conservatism (with stuff you obviously don’t approve of) while retaining the stuff you like as obvious (modern) liberal thought. It doesn’t work that way.
Social Security is certainly here to stay…as long as they can keep the program solvent and running. I don’t believe anyone in this thread brought this up as a failure, though.
ETA: But I think it’s going to be harder than you think to agree on what was or wasn’t a success/failure. But most of the stuff in the Wiki article I’d say are pretty safe to call successes, aside from the ones already mentioned as failure. Trust Busting™ is going to be one of those gray areas…was it a success? Was it a failure? Depends on ones view point, I think.
I read your link and it specifies that prohibition was supported by mainly rural progressives, the Bible-belters I’m describing, not anyone who would be thought of as “progressive” by anyone’s definition today. You’re right in claiming that the changes in values and definitions have a muddying effect on the question of what ideas are progressive–I’m certainly willing to keep this discussion going, because I feel no stake in defending progressive ideas. If progressives have made some errors, I’m willing to own them–in fact, that’s the basis of this thread.
I think what happened in this case is that Progressives thought has disowned a lot of the hard-core moralistic Bible belters, or a lot of them have abandoned Progressive thought once they came to realize who they were in bed with. To the extent that prohibition is a progressive idea, a lot of its appeal came from support from people who joined us but who lacked progressive ideas in general.
Well, yes, as Ronald Reagan used to say. As a matter of fact, when Ronnie was accused of having been opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he would self-righteously defend his position by claiming to have supported a different way of achieving equal rights for all. The problem is that Reagan’s way of supporting equal rights for all involved moving much, much, much,much more slowly towards that goal (to give him all the benefit of the doubt) which is what his critics were claiming. IOW, after he lost that battle and civil rights became a no-brainer, Ronnie claimed to have been for it. But if we use our heads here, we can all see that he stood as an obstacle to progressive thinking in this regard.
I think you are reading too much into that ‘rural progressives’ line there. Remember, that this was a movement with enough horsepower to change the Constitution. This wasn’t some 2 bit backwoods bible thumper types, but groups like the women’s movement, which is a progressive group by anyone’s definition. I’d say this one has to be included in obvious failures of progressive ideas.
Just keep in mind that times change, and that our current political compass is a hell of a lot different than it was at the turn of the last century. The entire definition of what is liberal or conservative has shifted multiple times during that span.
Based on PRR’s reasoning the Abolitionist movement was a “hard right conservative” movement.
Similarly Populist movement calling for direct election of US Senators, the 40 hour work week and a number of similar measures was a “hard right conservative” movement.
I’ve always understood it to be both; not really that uncommon, especially before conservatism in the US became so narrow, rabid, and prone to “whatever you support, we support the opposite” thinking. The “progressives” supported it because they thought it would make society better, especially for women; the conservatives supported it because drinking was Sin.
Mao was to “Progressive” what the Aztecs were to Father Bob and his soup kitchen.
