I'm not quite sure whose ideas are being presented here -- Terence Heath's, I suppose.
Ummmm, NO, he's all wrong. To be specific, he's way, way out of date.
There was a time, maybe 1900 or even 1920 -- think Teddy Roosevelt -- when conservativism meant conserving things because they were worthwhile and preferable (to and for whom?, we should ask) and progressives were interested in change to make things better (again, for whom?). This extended through all of life, not just politics. For example, conservatives wanted students to study Latin because it was good for them and a model for grammar, while progressives wanted their religion in a language they could understand. Or conservatives objected to women wearing trousers or smoking because they romanticized ladylike behavior (and sought to control women) while progressives wanted to get women out of that closet. There are many examples. Today we see that attitude in people who bemoan the end of the charming practice of letter writing and cannot see the power of email.
In politics, these classic conservatives sought to preserve the privileges that wealthy white males built into the Constitution and legal system (I'll limit my comments to this country) at a time when wealthy white males ruled the roost because the French Revolution and the Enlightenment had not yet fully taken hold. They were conserving what was good for them. They welcomed and invested in changes they could adopt, control and benefit from --- steamships, railroads, the cotton gin, machine-made textiles, sewers, fresh land to be cleared and farmed -- or at least (eventually) accepted and welcomed the white males who became wealthy through these welcome and productive changes. They participated fully in conquering the wilderness (and its natives), slaughtering the buffalo and settling this country because that was a profitable way for new generations to expand their family empires. Lots of poorer people also achieved success by helping to conquer the American wilderness. "Conservative" values pervaded and pervade today the agrarian countryside.
But conservatives also faced changes they could not control and found threatening -- freed slaves and the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, Darwinian evolution, liberal religion, socialism and communism, uppity behavior such as smoking and drinking by women in public, Elvis Presley's hips -- I could go on (gays out of the closet is near the recent-times extreme end of a long list). Here they dug in their heels and changed the meaning of "conservative". The new meaning is "denying and obstructing new ideas, no matter the value or cost".
Before the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, the word "progressives" could refer only to the rare rebels who fought the established feudal order. Robin Hood (I mean the myth) and the Marquis de Sade come to mind. They were (to the conservatives) thieves and perverted madmen. De Sade was in fact legally sent to a mental asylum.
The French Revolution and the Enlightenment brought new currents of thought that gave rise to a new class of activists and artists (some of them wealthy and educated) who actually thought that the new liberal ideas meant the world should change. If everyone was equal, had human rights and dignity, should their lives not reflect that? This led the early progressives, who fomented labor movements, women's suffrage, universal public education, public libraries, social welfare programs, public health measures, public parks, who painted radical murals (Diego Rivera) and wrote modern plays (Shaw, Noel Coward). Who sought and seek economic and political and social justice.
To conservatives, they were pretty much still thieves and mad perverts, rabble rousers and a danger to all -- conservatives. The French Revolution had not treated the nobility pleasantly nor humanely. Robert Moses bulldozed public highways and built the first state parks on land taken by eminent domain from wealthy estates.
Educators carried forward these new ideas and persuaded many of the educated of their value. Progressive ideas were and still are city ideas -- and cities had grown up on all parts of the conquered frontier to complement the old cities on the coasts. Students (and many professors) were often the radical leaders who promoted the new ideas. We find conservatives and progressives in all parts of the conquered wilderness that is now modern America.
By World War Two, progressives had made a lot of inroads and created a lot of change. Women won the vote (and the sky did not fall). Unions somehow increased the wealth of everybody in the industry. The rise of a large (white) middle class enriched everyone as well and changed the balance of class power (within strictly racial lines). Racial justice and the genuine integration of African cultures into the Melting Pot was (and is) still to come.
Government was a fundamental tool of progressive success -- notice how much of what we call progressive today (recall my list in the previous paragraph) is accomplished through governmental power. It was government that stood up to industrial monopolies -- the breakup of U.S. Steel was in 1912. A Constitutional Amendment brought women the right to vote. I mentioned eminent domain. The courts are well ahead of much of the population in finding same-sex marriage a necessity to overcome discrimination. Not all the new ideas were wise -- witness prohibition. But many were winners that changed the world very fundamentally and greatly reduced the domination of the wealthy few.
City governments were also centers of corruption. The progressive cause remains tainted by that to this day. My barber avers that all politicians are crooks and none are to be trusted, even as his well-being as a merchant and licensed technician is fundamentally in the hands of politicians -- and his real interests lie much more closely with the whole population than with the wealthy and powerful few.
By the time progressive changes came to maturity, American politics had frozen into the modern two-party system. Republicans began as liberals whose cause was to end slavery. But they were the winners when the Civil War ended and stayed (for the most part) in power for decades. We know what power does: The party evolved quickly into the representative of the wealthy and powerful few and of agrarian and small town society, where change was slowest and traditions (including religions traditions) strongest and most functional. They became the nay-sayers to change, determined to enter each new decade of progress only by being dragged. They "conserve" only the past. They do not conserve peace, land, clean water, wilderness habitats or wild species. Instead they exploit everything they can, because their focus is themselves and today. Their today is supposed to be like the yesterday that got them the privileges they enjoy. They fight to keep women from joining their all-male preserves, like the Augusta Golf Club.
Democrats had the cities as their power centers -- that is true to this day -- and immigration made the cities dynamic New cultures were repeatedly woven into a changing public social tapestry. Public education grew first and more deeply in the cities and made equality and social mixing common -- and privileged circles less dominant (although they did not go away).
Conservative came to mean obstructive and self-serving, wherein nothing of broad public / societal value is conserved. They hate government, because it alone has the power to wreak change upon them in the interests of the whole and against their narrow interests. Conservatives are the haves who do not value the whole.
Progressive meant change-embracing -- until prospective changes included threats to the benefits that the early progressives won. Then progressives showed a fatal tendency to behave like conservatives, keeping the ways of the (recent) past that benefit themselves while forgetting their original ideals. Newer industries tend not to unionize, because the labor movement, which once embraced so much that was truly progressive, is today (wrongly -- witness the UAW) seen as fossilized.
Most Americans, come in great numbers to prosperity, share conservative "give me mine, don't ask me to pay for his or hers or theirs" fixations and also have progressive views, favoring (successful) education, fairness and equality when they understand them. The words "conservative" and "progressive" are both corrupted and cheapened from their original meanings.
Terence Heath is talking about 1920, not today. No one who understands today rather than 1920 will understand him.
We need new words and new ideas, a fresh start.
Jefferson was right -- every twenty years a revolution!
Thanks for the history lesson!
Yes, the ideas I presented in my blog posting had their origin in Terrence Heath's blog. Some of them are from him and some of them are adapted from other sources. What you saw in my blog is my condensation of what Heath wrote. I hope my words did not change Heath's original meaning.
I say that because my sense of Heath's writing is quite different from that of my friend. I am aware that I have read a lot of what Heath has written and my friend's view of Heath's writing is through my reports of various essays.
I believe Heath is writing very much about today's conservatives, not those of 1920. Heath has written numerous times about conservative's narrow interests, how those interests are at odds with the welfare of the country and the world, and how destructive today's crop can be when they don't get their way.
Since my friend doesn't object to a particular passage I'm not sure what prompted his historical essay. I have a guess -- the definition of progressives as those "who cleared the forests, tamed the prairies, built heavier-than-air flying machines, and fought off fascism and communism." Other than that I see my condensation of Heath's definition of conservative to match my friend's definition: There are poor people, but I don't care. I have health care and you don't and while that's unfortunate I'm not going to let my money be spent on your health. The world may isn't perfect but it suits my needs just fine.
I am thankful to my friend for one particular insight: Today's conservatives hate government because it alone can wreak havoc with their plans. That explains a lot.
No comments:
Post a Comment