FDR’s administration is an interesting point in time for us, because there were elements (like race) on which his practices were positively retrogressive for the reasons Wesley Clark states but I don’t think anyone would argue that FDR’s policies were on the whole very progressive for their time. I would argue that some issues, such as race, he was a de facto conservative, recognizing his political indebtedness to the racist element in his party, but on some he was practically a socialist, due to his ties to the progressive wing of his party. None of this has anything to do with FDR’s party affiliation which remained (and which virtually defined) Democratic.
I would disagree with classifying the internment of the Japanese as being a “progressive” idea because it was supported by both Progressives and Conservatives, including such diverse groups as FDR, the Supreme Court which he butted heads with, and the National ACLU(though the California branch broke with them), German and Italian nationals(including many who were hardly pro-fascist) were locked up in large numbers, and even many who weren’t wound up being put under all sorts of restrictions, such as the parents of Joe Dimaggio.
That doesn’t of course mean that Japanese nationals weren’t discriminated against in much larger numbers, but it’s not like there wasn’t plenty of bigotry displayed against German and Italian Nationals during the “Brown scare”.
Beyond that, being “progressive” hardly means one can’t be racist as Jesse “hymietown” Jackson can testify to.
Good point. Anti-Korean and anti-Jewish sentiment are not uncommon among some ghettos.
Could I suggest that California’s Initiative, Referendum, and Recall are examples of a failed Progressive policy? Obviously, they still exist, and they did what they were intended to do (break the control of the railroads over California state government), but they’ve served to make the California Constitution a mess, and to encourage a schizophrenic and hysterical policy.
Piffle.
The suggestion to intern the entirety of the ethnic Japanese population of the Western states was proposed and championed by mossybacked, hidebound, racist reactionaries. It is to the shame of many progressives of the time that they allowed war fears to either silence them or lead them to go along with the internments, but it was never their idea. Earl Warren, who spent the last 20 years of his life being vilified by loons on the extreme Right for being “Left leaning,” (after being led astray by Douglas and Black and others, was picked by Eisenhower to be Chief Justice because he had such sterling conservative credentials.
The internment of Germans, Italians, Bulgarians,and similar folks was undertaken in a completely different way, based on individual examination and citizenship rather than membership in an ethnic group, so they are not really comparable. However, there was nothing “progressive” about those internments, either.
Claims that progressives were isolationists are on firmer ground, but even there one needs to pay attention to nuance. Right wing isolationists tended to oppose the sort of legacy that Wilson had tried to establish with his Fourteen Points and his efforts to shape the Treaty of Versailles, asserting that Europe and the World were none of our business. Left wing isolationists tended to look on the established governments as the enemy, regardless who controlled them, and felt that we should not be supporting any of those war-mongering states.
= = =
I’m not sure where you were going with your reference to Barbarossa. The American Communist Party lost over 75% of its membership within a few weeks of the publication of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, two years before the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. Having spent six+ years being told that the fascists were the enemy of all that was good, the membership was utterly disgusted when Papa Joe signed a non-agression treaty with Hitler.
True, whereas white liberals are never racist.
Nope, its awesome.
Warren was picked by Eisenhower to be Chief Justice because, during the convention, he didn’t release his delegates to Taft and supported the “Fair Play” proposal, in spite of his opposition to Richard Nixon, which made Eisenhower the candidate. His political views didn’t have much to do with it. And he didn’t have “sterling conservative credentials”. Warren had a reputation as a moderate and oftentimes liberal Republican, who, as governor, was most famous for raising taxes to fund educational and infrastructure programs.
The deinition of conservative may have shifted over time, but Warren was not a liberal and he was certainly not a progressive.
Has anyone mentioned NRA? A lot of the New Deal was trash. I think you could put welfare on the list as well given what we know now about the bad incentives it caused before the 1996 reform.
Progressives in general in the early part of the 20th century were pretty anti-liberty. There’s some overlap between modern liberalism and early 20th century progressivism, but most of the really severe anti-liberty stuff has been discarded.
A good example is Herbert Croly:
Croly called for the adoption of Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. To achieve this synthesis, however, Croly rejected Hamilton’s arguments for institutional checks on a pure national democracy, and Jefferson’s arguments for limited government. Croly rejected these limits because he saw them as too closely tied to the doctrine of individual rights. Croly wanted to transcend the doctrine of individual rights in order to create a national political community, one that would be forged by a strong but democratic national government. However, Croly failed to see the connection between Jefferson’s belief in democracy and his belief in limited government, and he failed to see the connection between Hamilton’s belief in a strong national government and his call for institutional checks on democracy. Thus, although many American reform movements have their roots in the rhetoric of Croly’s progressivism, to be effective they have had to accommodate the principles of liberal individualism that Croly wished to eradicate
By the standards of 1950s Republicans, he was fairly liberal, wasn’t he? Certainly he was a moderate Republican.
All this talk of political labels is getting us sidetracked. People, like FDR or Warren or Jesse Jackson, may be “liberal” or “conservative” or “progressive” overall during their careers, but it’s kind of silly for us to look at issues, and individuals’ positions on them at the time, and label the issues as “conservative” or “progressive” because of who supported them. I’m sure that Eleanor Roosevelt, the emblem of 20th century progressive thought, supported FDR’s administration overall despite her unwavering opposition to the racist base of his political success. You can easily say that she was a racist herself for tolerating and at times helping these racist pols in their political careers indirectly by supporting her husband, but you would be stupid-wrong. Why can’t we label her views on specific issues as “progressive” or whatever without definitive reference to what SHE was? Jackson’s intemperate comments on Hymietown were anything but progressive, whatever his overall position was.
You are picking and choosing what is progressive and what is not progressive based on whether you like it or not, not whether progressives actually believed in it. Eugenics and rascism were an integral part of Progressivism. They believed that it was governments responsibility to solve society’s problems and the best way to solve problems was to prevent them. Thus government had a responsibility to make sure only the correct people had kids, because if poverty was ameliorated than poor people would have more kids, flooding the country with unfit people. To them welfare treated the symptoms and eugenics treated the problem.
Modern liberalism has mostly discarded the rascism and eugenics of the progressive movement but there are a few issues where the legacy of progessive racism is still seen such as minimum wage laws and abortion rights.
Racial preferences as well. Liberals didn’t so much change on race, as much as change who they favored based on who their constituents were.
No, I’m really not. I do think that progressive thought is beneficial, but I’m sure we’ve had more than one serious, major fuck-up along the way. I’m just looking to find out which they were.
In that case, no. The fact that California didn’t get rid of those procedures when they were no longer needed doesn’t mean they failed.
I would be interested in a “What conservative ideas haven’t worked?” thread on ANY conservative site, and watch the crickets chirp.
That is the difference between conservatives and progressives, acknowleging fault and dealing with reality.
I didn’t know minimum wage was different for African Americans. And they don’t have the same right to abortion?
THAT’S RACIST!
Minimum wage legislation was originally passed so that white workers would not have to compete with workers of other races who were willing to work for less. Abortion was first advocated because as Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it there was “growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of”
Modern liberalism has kept the support for the policies but jetisoned the rascist rationale.
Are you sure it was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said that, not Margaret Sanger?