Ralph Benko
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Possibly the most powerful, and dangerous, euphemism in
politics today is “progressive.”
This writer has many cherished progressive friends. He
considers them beautiful… but, often, misguided. Yet perhaps they are more
“guided” than he has supposed.
Perhaps progressives, many of them, are precision guided.
A pattern is emerging. That pattern is to assert government control over, well,
everything. Government control … in the name of social and economic justice, of
course.
There’s another word for this: totalitarian.
The New American Oxford Dictionary defines totalitarian
as:
of or relating to a system of government that is
centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state : a
totalitarian regime.
a person advocating such a system of government.
Might this be the progressives’ precision-guided purpose?
The progressive flagship magazine, The Progressive,
defines its mission:
winning back for the people the complete power over
government —national, state, and municipal—which has been lost to them.”
[LaFollette] attacked private greed in the form of corporate monopolies that
hoarded power. He championed the public interest, campaigning for social and
economic justice.
The stated ends (although by no means the means) of the
progressive mission are identical to those of classical liberals, libertarians
and principled conservatives: power of the people over government; opposition to
corporate monopolies; in favor of the public interest; social and economic
justice.
It was shrewd of the progressives to appropriate these
values and gain prestige thereby. Yet the means — and the real outcomes — are
as important as the stated ends. And the reigning progressive means now — one
hopes temporarily (in a center right America) — are becoming an Orwellian
creature.
The empirical progressive track record decidedly is
mixed. Progressives enjoyed some noble victories (from which they drew, and to
this day still draw, legitimacy). Foremost among these were securing women’s
right to vote.
Many progressives, though, according to historian James
H. Timberlake, supported Prohibition.
And, according to the scholarly Thomas C. Leonard, then
Lecturer in Economics at Princeton University, they advocated racist (and
anti-immigrant) eugenics.
Let us also count the “progressive” income tax. And the
Federal Reserve System. The empirical evidence persuades this columnist — and
many working and middle class Americans — that these have done, and do, far
more to create misery than progress.
The Progressive talks about … progress … and “winning
back for people the complete power over government.” Meanwhile it finesses, or
at least leaves implicit, another aspect of the progressive agenda: winning the
complete power of government over people. For “the people’s” own good, of
course. Complete power of government over people is, of course, totalitarian.
Public intellectuals Thomas G. West and William A.
Schambra address this, in measured tone, in a essay published in 2007 at
Heritage.org:
While the Progressives differed in their assessment of
the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view
that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms. The
existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic,
evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the
development of administrative bureaucracy.
“[G]overnment at every level must be actively involved
….” Heritage firmly resides in the sweet spot of the classical liberal
tradition. Its status as such does not distort this characterization.
Much of what appears baffling in American politics today
is more easily understood if one grasps the unspoken progressive axioms that
drive so much of our national conversation. Confusion comes because many axioms
that underpin many Democratic and left-wing claims are veiled. Unveiled, the
Democratic agenda begins to gain coherence. For classical liberals, that
coherence is ominous.
If governing progressive axioms, unveiled, are
totalitarian in substance it would explain the baffling assault by progressives
on the Constitution. There is an ongoing, relentless, assault aimed at the
governance structure of the Constitution, against the civil liberties
explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, and directed at those who take a
stand for the classical liberal, small-r republican, political order.
This fundamentally totalitarian assault on the
Constitution goes way back. As highlighted by West and Schambra: “’All that
progressives ask or desire,’ wrote Woodrow Wilson, ‘is permission — in an era
when development, evolution, is a scientific word — to interpret the
Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition
of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.’”
Thus, that favorite liberal trope, “the living
Constitution,” turns out to be a cunning demand to set government officials
free to ignore what the Constitution explicitly says. It is a plea to authorize
government officials to reinterpret the text, even beyond recognition, as they
deem best.
How candid, then, is the ur-Progressive Wilson’s
characterization: Darwinian. This suggests a ruthless “survival of the
fittest.”
The Constitution, explicitly, is the Supreme Law of the
Land. There is no other honest way to view a call for Darwinism other than as a
counsel of totalitarianism.
Many progressives, from many prestigious and influential
venues, currently are conducting open war on the Constitution. This was nicely
laid out by the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin in a recent column aggressively
entitled Our Broken Constitution. Toobin cleverly enlists a couple of
non-representative conservatives in his indictment to mask the entirely
progressive locus of the assault on the Constitution. Most classical liberals,
libertarians, and conservatives consider the Constitution to be just fine,
thank you. What they consider broken is a government that blithely ignores the
supreme law of the land.
Toobin, succinctly presenting the progressive (or
totalitarian) critique:
It’s often noted that the United States is governed by
the world’s oldest written constitution that is still in use. This is usually
stated as praise, though most other products of the eighteenth century, like
horse-borne travel and leech-based medical treatment, have been replaced by
improved models.
This makes absolutely no sense … unless of course, one
happens to be a totalitarian, or totalitarian sympathizer. To a totalitarian,
since “government at every level must be actively involved” in our lives,
anything that stands in government’s way — antique provisions such as checks
and balances, separation of powers, federalism, the Bill of Rights — is, ipso
facto, bad.
A totalitarian worldview is beginning to bleed through
the pores of the progressive movement.
Failure of the Senate majority to persuade and enlist
even a modest fraction of the minority party to support a nominee? Solution:
Repeal the (extra-Constitutional) filibuster! The filibuster rule is not a
protocol for consensus-building. It’s… leech-based medical treatment.
Congress refuses to pass anti-CO2 legislation — cap and
trade — that would have caused, as Obama once acknowledged (confirmed
by PolitiFact), our electricity rates to skyrocket? Solution: Have the EPA
redefine carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Enacting legislation is just so…
leech-based.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause?” United
States Senator Rand Paul Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
has been as harmful to American intelligence gather[ing] capabilities as leaker
Edward Snowden. ‘That Clapper is lying to Congress is probably more injurious
to our intelligen[ce] capabilities than anything Snowden did,’ Paul told CNN’s
Wolf Blitzer. … ‘I don’t know how you can have someone in charge over
intelligence who has known to lie in a public forum to Congress, to lie without
repercussions,’ reports Politico. Being meticulously honest with Congress
is just so … horse-borne.
Demand laws to restrict freedom of political speech (so
vilified by the left)? Check. Pass laws to restrict the free exercise of
religion by forcing religiously serious Christians to provide health insurance
policies that fund abortions antithetical to their religious values? Check.
Check. Check. Check.
The idea that putting government in charge —
totalitarianism — will cure our woes is a form of romantic Utopianism. The
world has had many romantic flirtations with totalitarianism. They all ended in
tears. Admittedly, our present crop of totalitarians, and
totalitarian-sympathizers, are much prettier, more stylish, more elegant, and,
probably, kinder, than were their predecessors. But totalitarianism is not
benign.
Let us take to heart what George Orwell wrote, in a
letter dated 18 May 1944, talking about the world situation:
the intellectuals are more totalitarian in outlook than
the common people. … Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods,
secret police, systematic falsification of history etc. so long as they feel
that it is on ‘our’ side.
“Progressive” is so much nicer a word than
“totalitarian.” Yet progressives are in danger of turning their brand into a
frighteningly Orwellian euphemism for totalitarianism. To the Ministry of Truth’s
“WAR IS PEACE,” “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH,” we now may be
required to add:
“TOTALITARIANISM IS PROGRESS.”
Big Brother is watching.
No comments:
Post a Comment