An excerpt from an essay (the original is much longer, and says much the same thing) on why the Constitution is incompatible with progressive ideals, written by a real, live progressive.
Very generally, the Constitution, incident to protecting the ideational, economic, and familial spheres of individual life against the intrusive effects of benign and malign legislative initiatives, protects that realm of private, intimate, social, and economic culture that creates and then perpetuates a spirit of intolerance toward, alienation from, and active hatred of subordinated persons. By so doing, the Constitution not only fails to protect against that subordination, but it also fails to exhibit neutrality toward it: it nurtures precisely those patterns and practices that are most injurious to the economic opportunities, the individual freedoms, the intimacies, and the fragile communities of those persons already most deprived in the unequal and unfree social world in which we live.
In other words, you can have individual freedom, or social equality, but you can’t have both.
Which do you want?
The supporting detail to the above is equally scary, e.g., freedom of religion is bad because major religions oppress women. The apparent conclusion — a (progressive) society should only allow those religions that promote equality of the sexes (as, no doubt, determined by the International Council on Goodthinking Religions) — is appalling.
(I don’t know that this is in keeping with the general progressive belief system, but at the very least, it serves as a reductio ad absurdem to some such arguments — though I don’t think the original author sees it that way.)
(via Ipse Dixit)
As always…there are good and bad things with every political movement. The Progressive Movement did a lot of good things for this country. Starting with TR and ending with FDR. The only blot on their record being prohibition.
And the real question to “individual freedom, or social equality” is why can’t you strive for a balance between the two. Currently, every “right” in this country has a boundary. Lines that if crossed will get you arrested. Is this right? Probably not…but that’s how human society works. The Balance between “individual freedom, or social equality” lies somewhere within that Boundary.
Also, in human nature is the impulse to punish those not like you. This country has had a long history of Minorities overcoming Majority Prejudice. Hell…I wasn’t even considered “White” when I was born. So things change, and life gets better for everybody in the Country.
One person does not speak for everybody that has Progressive ideals.
While you can say I prefer to be addressed as “X”, you cannot expect everyone to do so…one of the reasons that Hate speech laws are a bad thing. But, I have no problem with people who get the shit kicked out of those who do.
Also…IMHO Ipse and the Angry Clam are wingnut’s of the first degree.
I can see where that would be germane if I were actually quoting either of their opinions.
As to the rest, yes, there are bounds on individual liberty in society, and there were certainly laudible efforts by the progressive movement in the past to put some bounds on, essentially, social Darwinism.
That being said, the passage, as quoted (and in its longer version on Angry Clam’s page) strikes me as going way over the bounds of curbing the worst excesses of individual liberties, and into proto-gulag territory, a la the Cultural Revolution in China.
No…
In the longer version, I read it more as a statement of fact. The constitution is not a progressive document. It does not provide all of the Protections that the author wants, and it doesn’t even protect things that we take for granted today.
And yes, because that Constitution allows people to be people, bad things will happen to people that have no real power/say in things. And in reality there are two ends to the balance: Anarchy and Tyranny. In the big picture it really doesn’t matter if it is Tyranny of the State or Tyranny of the Individual.
And sorry, I did not see any argument against freedom of religion.
If I were like Angry Clam and Ipse I could make a statement that Libertarian’s really want this country to be an anarchic-kleptocracy.
The Federalist’s wanted to undo the excesses of the Articles of the Confederation. One of the main points was to protect the rights and privileges of the minority (wealthy land/property owners) from the Majority (everybody else).
And lastly, I agree with the following statements:
“What distinguishes progressives from liberals is that while liberals tend to view the dangers of an over-oppressive state as the most serious obstacle to the attainment of such a world, progressives, while agreeing that some obstacles emanate from the state, argue that for the most part the most serious impediments emanate from unjust concentrations of private power…
This difference between progressives and liberals largely accounts for the degree of conflict between their respective analyses and goals. For example, liberals and progressives generally agree, and lament, that the freedom of gays and lesbians to form and maintain nurturing intimate relationships is threatened by discriminatory state action. At the same time, progressives, far more than liberals, are sensitive to the degree to which that freedom is threatened by the continuing and seemingly unshakable hegemonic rage of an intolerant, abusive, and often violent minority of heterosexual private citizens. That hegemonic rage, not just state action, must somehow be challenged and transformed if gays and lesbians are to thrive.
I’m not very well versed on the distinctions of Liberals vs. Progressives. After reading the article and your posts, is it correct or fair to say that Progressives want to change the law by changing public opinion and Liberals want to change publice opinion by changing existing laws?
“Hegemonic rage”?
I need to go back and do some more reading before replying here. In general, though, I agree with your observations, while considering myself in this context more of a liberal than a progressive (something that’s probably changed with me over the years). While acknowledging that there is definitely a need for the state to curb excesses of individual liberty (at the expense of others), I’m inclined to see more danger from Tyranny of the State than Tyranny of Individual — though both tyrannies are dangerous.
More later.
Adam, the distinction drawn in the article seems to be that progressives believe public opinion is the thing which must be overcome (if not changed) by changing the law, whereas liberals (as defined by the article) would seem to believe that passing laws to suppress public opinion (minority or majority) is wrong.
Stan, the argument against freedom of religion is as follows (Ipse broke it out as its own paragraph; on AngryClam’s site it’s embedded in a larger paragraph):
[The Constitution] also clearly protects the individual’s right to practice religion, despite the demonstrable incompatibility of the religious tenets central to all three dominant mainstream religions with women’s full civic and political equality.
I.e., because (in the author’s opinion) the “dominant mainstream religions” are hostile to women’s “full civic and political equality,” the Constitution’s protection of individual religious practice actively promotes such hostility.
I disagree. And even if it were true, I think the potential harm of not having such protection is a far greater danger, since once you decide what the proper (or “progressive”) tenets of religion are (if one is to allow religion at all), it’s just as possible for others, less well-meaning (or perhaps just with their own view of “progress”) to take a similar course, leading to just as much potential for oppression of other groups.
Let me expand on the progressive/liberal thang a bit.
Progressives believe public opinion is the thing which must be overcome (if not changed) by changing the law, whereas liberals (as defined by the article) would seem to believe that passing laws to suppress public opinion (minority or majority) is wrong.
So in the case of gay rights, the liberal approach would be to remove laws that bar gays from the same rights as others. If some folks weren’t happy about that, the liberal would say, well, a difference of opinions makes a horse race; so long as that unhappiness doesn’t translate into actual action that infringes on gay liberties, it’s not meaningful.
The progressive approach (as I understand it) would be to pass laws forbidding anti-gay actions (e.g., hate crime laws), or take other affirmative action (sometimes literal “affirmative action”) through the law to overcome the “unshakable hegemonic rage of an intolerant, abusive, and often violent minority of heterosexual private citizens.”
(Note that we’re talking here about “classic” liberal, sometime translated these days into “libertarian,” though frankly just as there are progressive nuts, there are libertarian nuts as well — the sort of folks who, as Stan puts it, would prefer a Hobbesian “anarchic-kleptocracy” as the highest ideal.)
While we are on the Subject of “unshakable hegemonic rage of an intolerant, abusive, and often violent minority of heterosexual private citizens.”
Well, I don’t know if I’d call Robertson violent, but he’s clearly … well, intolerant, abusive, and possibly rageful.
He’s also a loon.
But I’m not sure I’m prepared to let anyone decide he’s enough of a loon to somehow stop him from spewing his vitriol.
(Does hegemonic rage mean rage directed toward hegemony, or rage which exercises hegemony over the rager?)
Ewww…
Ummm…
I would think that the Author means “rage directed toward hegemony”.
But thats just my best guess.
Very interesting. I’ve never thought of Robertson as violent, but he is, as Fred Sanford would say “A Big Dumby”. It’s odd that a group which identifies itself as Progressive seems to want to limit other peoples right to voice their opinion in order to advance their own opinions.