What a bizarre response.
What’s the bizarre part? These aren’t conservative ideas? These haven’t failed? The list isn’t near endless?
Our UK members might be a bit taken aback by the idea that Monarchy has failed.
Also capitalism, much less unregulated capitalism was hardly a conservative idea, but rather quite radical.
Um…it has nothing to do with your OP nor with my response.
Came here to say eugenics and prohibition. If you really want to stretch your definitions of “progressive” and “not worked,” we can throw in bimetallism* and Reconstruction. Communism should count - Cuba is hardly a success and China has gutted the ideology in order to grow.
Labor unions are not a failure but they haven’t aged well. I don’t blame them for negotiating good contracts, but we ended up with things like the NYC rubber rooms and UAW jobs bank which aren’t optimal for society.
This deserves its own thread. I couldn’t find any with the search function. I’m still new here; can anyone say has GD had a thread specifically about the War on Poverty before?
I think it would be a stretch to characterize most of them as “conservative” ideas.
Of course monarchy has failed. Our UK members would be taking a collective dump in their pantaloons if it were possible for the lovable Windsor dolls (dress 'em up! see 'em wave!) to be given any responsibility in serious matters of state.
Unregulated capitalism might have been a radical idea back in the sixteenth century, but for the past half-millenium, it’s been a downright regressive idea.
Try entering the 1700s, Ibn–you might like it here!
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Of course monarchy has failed.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if you are going to take this tact, then I have to say that your idea of failed is interesting. Yeah, I suppose a case can be made that monarchy failed, though there are many monarchies still out there today, but, um, they had a good run. If any of the progressive ideas are still with us a couple thousand years from now (you expect Social Security to still be running then? :p) I’d be shocked…not least by the fact that I’d still be alive TOO be shocked.
How was it a failure? The modified capitalist system is still with us today, and is responsible for the greatest period of human wealth in history. You seem to be splitting hairs on the ‘unregulated’ part, but really, when was capitalism EVER completely unregulated…and why does it matter, since obviously the system has been able to change with the times. Sort of like all those progressive ideas (of which capitalism, regulated or unregulated, was one at the beginning). Name me one of the things you consider a successful progressive idea that has remained completely unchanged and unmodified…I can’t think of any off the top of my head.
It’s interesting the trajectory of this thread. You started off asking for progressive ideas that have failed. Then split hairs about the ones given you that were failures. Now you are hijacking your own thread by basically cherry picking supposed conservative ideas that have failed (with ‘failure’ and ‘conservative ideas’ being pretty broad and grain of salty).
You haven’t provided any evidence of monarchy being a proven failure, have shown profound ignorance of the British people, and have just admitted that unregulated capitalism was considered a very progressive idea.
For the record, it was also considered “progressive” or radical long after “the 1700s” had begun.
Plus that.
And that.
Bizarre.
The crackdown on illegal drugs was a progressive idea?
Sure, if we redefine Nixon as a progressive.
Maybe some of this is about the discord between what progressives and conservatives stood for in different eras. It’s quite possible that cracking down on illegal drugs was a progressive idea at the time Reefer Madness was made, but by the late 1960s, that movie was regarded by progressives as high comedy.
I’d propose this: if an idea was once a progressive idea, but has been espoused by right-wingers in nontrivial numbers since progressives abandoned it, or if some elements on both sides have favored a particular idea, but it has primarily been a conservative issue, then it’s not a progressive idea: the most recent ownership of it was on the other side of the spectrum. The War on Drugs is a good instance of this, assuming it was ever primarily a progressive idea in the first place.
But if the last espousal of an idea was by progressives before everybody abandoned it, then it’s a failed progressive idea. Ibn Warraq mentioned 1960s-style housing projects, which would be an excellent example of this.
This makes a world of sense to me. If the last time anyone thought of your idea as progressive was several hundred years ago, and it’s become an accepted part of the established culture for generation upon generation, and it doesn’t work anymore (except as a toothless vestige, in the case of the British monarchy), then–guess what? It’s failed, and it’s failed long after it ceased to be a progressive idea.
What, you’re going to argue that fire is a progressive concept because in the year 20,054 BC Ogg was thought to be a radical for coming up with it? Now, Wind power–that’s a progressive idea in 2012. Solar power–that’s a progressive idea in 2012. Fire, not so much.
How so? Those are self-evidently conservative ideas, all of which perpetuate privilege, that progressive forces have fought against for centuries.
In an unregulated, law-of-the-jungle environment, hardly any wealth trickles down from the top, and instead is handed down, along with power and privilege, from father to son. Note the gendered language.
Monarchs and other nobles hate the very idea of being regulated in any way, even by their near-peers, and will stop at nothing to prevent it. See the Magna Carta, and so much more.
The same is true of capitalists. JP Morgan said he could hire half the working class to kill the other half, and he meant it.
A critical fissure occurred, and occurs to today, when some on the Left are convinced that there can be such a thing as a state genuinely owned and controlled by the workers/peasants/etc. Cue the regimes mentioned above. Anti-authoritarian Leftists of all stripes reject this.
You do know Magna Carta resulted from a rebellion of King John’s nobles, right?
The foreign and trade policies of the major powers are an enormous, perhaps overwhelming, part of the problem. Depending on the particular case, the non-industrialized world was/is either hamstrung deliberately, to prevent competition, or as collateral damage. The rich world gives with one hand, but the other hand injures, kills, and takes away.
Exactly. That’s why I said “near-peers.” If the response is that grudging to a challenge from one’s nobles, just imagine how such people react to the prospect of a world of free and equal human beings.
Those with too much to lose, and unfortunately that can too often include the middle classes, always wish to perpetuate a state (or state of affairs) that intervenes massively in their favor. Welfare for the rich, free market discipline for everybody else. Feudalism was like that, and neoliberalism is the fancy modern version.
Progressive forces have always fought against this.
Progressive ideas are by their nature experiments, which means some are not going to work (unforeseen consequences).
Conservative ideas are by their nature an effort to cling to the past; whether this is a good or bad thing depends on what is being clung to, but they don’t have the same kind of trial-balloon trajectory as progressive ideas.
This was an interesting thread but it seems in danger of becoming another 4-legs-good 2-legs-bad bleating fest. Hope that doesn’t happen.
Recommended reading? I can’t imagine anyone saying this except as an empty pleasantry or to be a cheerleader for their left- or right-wing ideology.
And if anyone cares about my hidden agenda here (not much of an agenda, and not so carefully hidden), it’s that I don’t see much reason to believe that conservative or regressive forces have much power, over time, to resist the broad adoption of progressive ideas, functioning mainly to delay or perhaps to modify them, but not very effective at stopping them completely. If anyone has some good, convincing counter-examples for me to mull over, I’ll be interested in reading about them, though some suggestions here have baffled me. I was a NY State resident (and am again) when Rockefeller instituted his drug laws, and I was using a fair amount of drugs in those days, and I can assure you that the drug-using and drug-peddling community did not regard those laws as progressive, in any way, shape or form. LEGALIZING drugs, or reducing the jail time attached to holding or selling drugs–now, that would have been regarded as progressive, then and now. I completely fail to see how mandatory prison sentences constitute any part of a progressive idea. Is the suggestion that it’s a progressive idea because Rockefeller came up with it? Enlighten me, please.