July 31, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:Item One I was not, not, NOT trying to imply that modern-day progressives are in some way linked to the more repulsive ideas of the original Progressive movement. The reverse, in fact. Given that the overwhelming majority of progressives are not racist WASPs with a heavy social-darwinist streak, why pick that name out of the dustbin of history for your rebranding? Conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, etc. have all been associated with some unlovely ideas in the past . . . but those who currently bear that label have the excuse that they have always worn it. Today's left is picking a new name, so why not one that doesn't have some ugly past associations? That is not the same thing as saying that progressives accept, or secretly endorse, Progressive errors; I think most of them aren't really familiar with the less nice parts of Progressivism. They tend to think of it as anti-trust and child labour laws, not forced sterilisation and anti-immigration laws.
This after Ezra's post, which assumes that I meant the same kind of silly ad hominem that one hears from many sides--conservatives were against birth control, the Democratic party favoured slavery, yada yada. I think that sort of thing is ridiculous. I was just pointing out that I think the rebranding might be better done, if it must be done, with a name that has fewer unsavoury overtones. Of course, it may only have those overtones for me, descended as I am from Irish Catholic political types, the kind that the Progressives thought needed to be Cleansed from The System.
Says Ezra:
[The progressives'] good goverment reforms (combined with the legal culture changes in the 1970s), are the reason that it takes about seventy years to get anything done at any level of government. My father likes to point out that had George Bush come into office saying "Shoring up the levees in New Orleans is my #1 priority" and proceeded to act on that, by the time Katrina hit the Army Corps of Engineers would probably have just about finished the Environmental Impact Analysis on the preliminary bids.If there had been no lawsuits, that is.
There are always lawsuits.
Does anyone actually believe this? Does Megan? Or does it just sound sort of cutting and droll?
And incidentally, her post, which is another in the genre of "the historical progressives had pretty wide streaks of racism and eugenetics running through their movement" strikes me as very, very weak. Conservatives -- and not just "historical" conservatives, but still living conservatives, like Bill Buckley -- fought to preserve segregation as the law of the land. Fought viciously for it. And then spent 45 years determinedly taking advantage of the passage of the Civil Rights Act to gain lots of votes among quiet racists.
But tell me again how the progressives had "streaks of racism." And tell me again how much conservatives suffer from not only those linguistic associations with their forebears, but their more contemporary attempts to eke a political advantage out of their party's legacy of racism.
A couple of things to untangle here. I'm not sure what that last is supposed to imply: assuming, arguendo, that it is in fact true that the Republicans made mileage off of racism in the 1990's, would that be a good strategy for the Democrats to replicate? If the word "Progressive" made people like the left more because they associated it with eugenics and keeping blacks out of unions, should the left embrace that?
I've responded to the "conservative" point above, but here again: any movement that is around long enough will end up with a legacy of things it used to support, but no longer does. It's silly to bring those up as if they represented current day policy; and you will never hear me, I hope, talk about how today's progressives are the same folks who egged on Margaret Sanger's less salutory instincts. However, it's not, I think, unreasonable or rude to point out that the name has unsalutory associations, when the topic is picking a name.
As for the meat of the question: does anyone really believe this? Damn straight, and not libertarians. That's an argument from the left, not the right; its main author is Phillip Howard, author of, among other things, The Death of Common Sense, which I commend to you all. I thought that it was obvious that I was bringing up a procedural, not a substantive, critique, but apparently not.
Mr Howard's argument is that the progressive transformation of the administrative culture, followed by the innovations in legal review that started in the 1950's but really blossomed in the 1960's and 1970's, has resulted in a sort of sclerosis that has drastically curtailed the scope of government. We have substituted rules and rights for bureaucratic discretion and legislative accountability, which sounds awesome in theory, but in practice means that it is tremendously hard to get anything done, and frequently that absurd results come out of the civil servant's inability to weigh competing public interests against each other.
Government contracting has gotten slower and more expensive with each passing year, as the bidding process and review become ever-more rulebound and complex. There is no particular reason that government projects should be slow (inefficient is another question for another time), but they now are, legendarily so. In emergencies, they can sometimes get it together, which is why Ground Zero was cleaned up so fast, and sometimes not, which is why New Orleans wasn't (and people who want to blame the latter solely on the Bush administration should note that AFAIK, Bush's FEMA handled both jobs: the best and the worst conducted disaster recovery in the nation's history.) But prospective projects are a whole other issue.
Look at the Second Avenue Subway. It has been in the works since the mid-1990s. The final EIS was approved in spring of 2004, IIRC. The bond offering shot through the political system like a greased pig, being approved by voters a mere eighteen months later. Just eighteen months after that, in spring of 2007, ground was broken, though there were then delays because of arguments about contracts and financing. But if all goes well, it should still finish on schedule. Phase 1 will be complete by 2014, and by 2020 the whole thing should be done. Just about 25 years, start to finish.
In the first 30 years of the last century, New York built pretty much all of its 722 miles of subway. The original IRT line, which, if I'm doing my math right, was longer than this line, was completed in under four years. And yes, before you ask, it was constructed through inhabited neighbourhoods where streets had to be inconveniently opened, or tunnels expensively dug.
I'm not aware of any reasonable person who even questions the notion that the length of time it takes to complete government projects has steadily lengthened ever since the Progressives kicked out politicians like Jimmy Walker and replaced them with a well-protected, rule-bound civil service. Until now, I wasn't aware that other people were unaware that there is a serious literature wondering how good a deal all that was.
Do I buy that literature? In part. Accountability is good, but we're supposed to get that from the electoral system. One of the tenets of public choice theory is that politicians attempt to lock in their preferences by making it hard to change the system later on. My sense is that this happened twice in the twentieth century: by the Progressive civil service reforms in the 1920's-1940's; and by the legal reforms of the 1960's, which conferred legal rights where there had previously been administrative discretion. Both groups thought they were doing God's work, so they made it very difficult to undo; now that the costs are apparent, the system is nearly impossible to reform. Yes, libertarians like things slowed down, but progressives don't, so I'd think they'd want to at least consider the notion that this wasn't such a terrific idea.
On the other hand, corruption and abuse of power are real problems; in the developing world, they're crippling problems. It may well be true that the direct cost of battling the corruption of the machine politicians exceeds the direct amount they cost the cities; especially since much of the money that went through those machines was used for coalition building that now has to be bought with more legal forms of bribery, like boondoggle construction projects in their neighbourhoods. But the indirect cost of a cultural loss of trust, and barriers to innovation and business creation, should not be underestimated.
At any rate, do I believe that it takes longer to do things now because Progressives thought that there was no project that couldn't be improved by a really awesome committee full of smart, well meaning people thinking Big Thoughts about The Future? Yup, I do. I really do. And I invite anyone who does not think this to go sit through a public hearing on some trivial change to a valve in the sewer system, and then tell me with a straight face that I am wrong.
Posted by Jane Galt at July 31, 2007 12:32 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksIf you
1) aren't "progressive" by the plain-English meaning (how many progressives support the anti-progress precautionary principle, after all?),
2) you aren't progressive by the historically established political meaning, and
3) you can't demonstrate a historical continuity from people who were progressives in senses one or two,
then, isn't it, you know, an falsehood to call yourself "progressive"?
Oh, well. I guess it's about "branding", "narrative" and poll numbers, not clarity, reality, and honesty.
Given that the overwhelming majority of progressives are not racist WASPs with a heavy social-darwinist streak
Given? Really? Do you not know any progressives? That "given" gives up the whole of my, and history's, experience with them.
A visit to a Kos thread about WalMart, with the actual demographics of its customers in mind, might cure you of this peculiar delusion.
Well I guess everyone can agree that there is a lot of confusion about these political labels. Luckily, everyone uses the label 'libertarian' completely onsistently and there is no confusion about what that term implies, even among the clear, real, and honest.
alwsdad - great non sequitor. No one said that the libertarian label is sacrosanct, nor does it affect the message of her blog post.
But I suppose if you just want to get snippy, it's easier to make up some reason, instead of finding a meaningful critique of her post.
I was really referring to the first comment above, which implies that anyone using 'progressive' as a generic term for 'liberal' is somehow being dishonest. And also pointing out that any debate about these terms is inherently kind of pointless, because there is widespread confusion or disagreement about what all of them mean.
I'm sure Jane knows exactly what she is talking about, as does Warmongering Lunatic. I'm sure I'm not as smart as either of them, but I have no idea what the "anti-progress precautionary principle" is. And yet, in the wider culture, the word 'progressive' has come to mean 'forward looking liberal', generically, no eugenics required. So if I use that term with that meaning in mind, it seems pretty clear, realistic, and honest to me.
The general lack of consistency among users of political labels is the underlying problem, and not one that will be solved any time soon.
Of course, meeting just one of my three criteria would not result in consistent or non-confusing use. For example, "liberal" is hardly used consistently or nonconfusingly, as we can see by considering the lack of overlap between "Ted Kennedy liberal" and "neoliberalism". I know a Ted Kennedy liberal of my acquaintance, unfamiliar with the latter term, who assumed it was a construction intended to be used by conservatives as a parallel to "neoconservative" as an all-purpose insult. But, however confusing, either use of liberal in the modern era is consistent with an established body of use; neither constitutes an effort at deceptive public relations.
"Progressive", on the other hand, is being used as a synonym for (Kennedy) liberal, adopted because "liberal" polls poorly. When combined with the fact that it is a novel use of the label, adhering to no established form, it constitutes a deliberate deception. Of course, as they are neither evil Big Business nor evil right-wingers, the liberals who call themselves progressives are perfectly entitled to engage in deception. After all, they are the good guys, and entitled to use any means to trick the unwashed masses into enacting enlightened policies. If they are called on it, it is perfectly appropriate to throw chaff by deliberately claiming a naturally-evolved lack of clarity is no different than deliberate deception.
One glaring error: the Second Avenue Subway has been "in the works" since the 1920s, and certainly since 1951, when the voters paid for it.
So we clearly have completely different ideas about what the term 'progressive' means. Yours is no doubt historically accurate (I have no idea), but I maintain that 90% of the people using the term currently are unaware of the deception you percieve. Which brings me back to my original point, which is that all of these labels have multiple meanings and any kind of in-depth debate just results in people talking past each other.
I maintain that 90% of the people using the term currently are unaware of the deception you percieve.
Isn't being unaware of it a key goal of deception? Or has deception also had its meaning changed?
Jane says: You guys might not want to call yourselves progressives. The people who used to be called it did some bad stuff.
new progressives: But we don't do bad stuff!
sigh... I mean this isn't exactly a very hard to follow argument Jane is making.
Not to go all Godwin on this thread, but if there was a group of people who where both nationalist and socialist, they wouldn't have to think long to figure out that calling themselves that might not be a good idea for historical reasons.
AT, I know that; I brought it up at Ezra's. But this incarnation has been in the works since the late 1990s, and it isn't quite the route proposed in 1929.
I find the whole idea behind the "rebranding" exercise hilarious. It's not as though the public has forgotten it's distaste for LBJ-era policies, and that if you just tag them with a different name then all will be well.
The left is enjoying a blip in support because of the war. When that's over, the long-term secular trends against it will be back in force, probably with an extra helping of backlash. Changing the name isn't going to do anything to stop that.
If someone ever brings up Katrina again, mention that there were Army Corps of Engineers plans to put in a big seawall/dam structure (with floodgates that were to be closed for hurricanes) across the Lake Ponchartrain/Gulf of Mexico border. In the 1970s.
It was, of course, stopped by environmentalists.
If someone complains about the levees, mention that a big chunk of Corps cash was taken for other projects. Like $5 million for earthquake-proofing a historic greenhouse in San Francisco at the behest of a certain Democratic politico.
Most of the comments at Ezra's place were, of course, out of bone-deep ignorance of how things work, but they're dead certain it's all your fault...
Megan: your comments over at Ezra's would have a lot more credibility if you demonstrated some actual knowledge about the statutes at issue by calling things by their correct names.
Under NEPA, federal agencies must prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), which then lead to an agency action set forth in a Record of Decision (ROD).
NEPA is a purely procedural statute, unlike the California equivalent, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which contains a substantive component.
Only the federal government can afford the cost of building levees on the Mississippi River. So the question is whether the Corps will build levees without doing an environmental analysis (pre-1970s) or with one (current law).
Even though NEPA has been in place over 30 years, certain federal agencies are really bad about obeying the law. The Forest Service and the Corps come to mind. The only reason that enviromentalists contain to win lawsuits against those agencies is their continued refusal to comply with NEPA and their underlying organic formation legislation.
So, it appears we have one alternative of having corrupt/incompetent federal agencies that approve projects which are then done wrong (old Corps -- inadequate engineering of levees); or a second alternative of having corrupt/incompetent federal agencies having their approved projects stopped in court (new Corps).
At least in the second alternative the federal agency has the opportunity to correct its mistakes.
The 'racist WASPs' comment is a little hard to take. This is the great punching bag of the Left, and some Libertarians. Of course, you do realize there are many, many Libertarians who are racist WASPS, even a great number of Catholic ones (of course, they're probably all just Italians who hate other ethnic groups, or those Catholic thugs in ireland who conspire with the rest of the anarchist terrorists of the world, yes?).
If either of those statements don't bother you, and you belong to them, then you're further up on the enlightened scale than I am. I feel things very basic and to the core. When my higher order brain parts catch up to my dominant medulla oblongata, maybe I can just ignore the throwing around of weighted words meant to show how bright we are.
Cirby: As I recall, you are right, as well as over 100 million additional dollars of redirected money from the COE that was meant for levee strengthening and redesign over a 12 year period...you've got to keep those Murtha-Schumer pork projects funded instead of spending it on those dam Engineers!
I keep seeing Katrina used as an example of FEMA mismanagement but I've since read a couple of comparisons that show that FEMA's response to Katrina was on par with responses to previous hurricanes. While this doesn't prove incompetence, it does show that Katrina was not unusual or some kind of reflection on Bush.
Also, local government was to blame for many of the Katrina problems. As was the fact that a big hurricane hit a city built below sea level in the middle of a swamp on a the banks of a huge river right next to a big lake.
Liberals/Leftists/Progressives are only socially progressive... They aren't really liberal in any meaningful sense. Conservatives are socially conservative but probably more technologically/economically progressive.
Given it's history, it's hard to argue that socialism is a step forward...
EI
note that AFAIK, Bush's FEMA handled both jobs
When you say "as far as I know", do you mean that you looked into the matter and the evidence you found seems to point that way, or that you didn't bother looking?
According to a recent NY Times article, the 9-11 cleanup was handled by a local NYC agency:
Despite the presence of those federal experts, Mr. Giuliani assigned the ground zero cleanup to a largely unknown city agency, the Department of Design and Construction. Kenneth Holden, the department’s commissioner until January 2004, said in a deposition in the federal lawsuit against the city that he initially expected FEMA or the Army Corps to try to take over the cleanup operation. Mr. Giuliani never let them.
In emergencies, they can sometimes get it together, which is why Ground Zero was cleaned up so fast, and sometimes not, which is why New Orleans wasn't
Well, part of it is also the size of the cleanup. One square block and change vs. an entire city.
The former in the middle of New York City, otherwise undamaged; the latter rather harder to get to, especially following massive hurricane damage to the entire region.
Even a thoroughly competent agency (which FEMA admittedly isn't!) would have had a very hard time rapidly "cleaning up" New Orleans.
The left is enjoying a blip in support because of the war. When that's over, the long-term secular trends against it will be back in force, probably with an extra helping of backlash. Changing the name isn't going to do anything to stop that.
Umm, you really think so, Dave? I think the right got a "temporary blip" thanks to 9/11, and the 2006 election brought us back to the long-term trend.
Umm, you really think so, Dave? I think the right got a "temporary blip" thanks to 9/11, and the 2006 election brought us back to the long-term trend.
Your time horizon is too short. The Dems have been slowly losing Congressional votes since about 1976. People self-identifying "conservative" versus "liberal" has been climbing since something like 1968, and still doesn't seem to have peaked. Census guesstimates have the Rs regaining the House after the next redistricting, even if nothing else changes, just based on population shift. Don't confuse a bull market with brains, and don't confuse a off-year electoral win with popularity.
The Democrats have lost the conservative southern white vote. They went from being one wing of the Democratic party to being the core. There are more of them than ever before. It's just a smaller coalition without the conservative southern whites.
This happened when the Republicans made it very clear to the conservative southern whites that they supported very high spending on defence, police, and farmers.
Are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing? In any case, the "there are more of them than ever" doesn't match the self-identification as "liberal" or "conservative" trends. The southern strategy was important, but any dems who think it's more than a partial explanation of the decline are fooling themselves.
I think that the “them” wkwillis was referring to in "there are more of them than ever" was “conservative southern whites.”
Comments are Closed.