Progressivism

Walter Lippmann, The Good Society, 1937:

Nearly everywhere the mark of a progressive is that he relies at last upon the increased power of officials to improve the condition of men. Though the progressives prefer to move gradually and with consideration, by persuading majorities to consent, the only instrument of progress in which they have faith is the coercive agency of government. They can, it would seem, imagine no alternative, nor can they remember how much of what they cherish as progressive has come by emancipation from political dominion, by the limitation of power, by the release of personal energy from authority and collective coercion. For virtually all that now passes for progressivism in countries like England and the United States calls for the increasing ascendency of the state: always the cry is for more officials with more power over more and more of the activities of men.

The progressive response to this kind of critique is to point to instances and patterns of coercion in the private sphere, which have often required government action to remedy. Various civil rights and emancipation movements provide striking examples of people made more free by government. Even though such examples do not prove that government action was the only way that result could have been arrived at, the point has undeniable force, as far as it goes. What is false is the generalization that sees coercive domination as characteristic and typical of relations within society. In fact, any society like that would quickly disintegrate.

But if that false premise is accepted, then government surveillance and intervention must necessarily encompass every sort of human relationship. In Sweden, for example, corporal punishment of children by their parents is legally defined as criminal assault, including not only the mildest forms of physical reprimand, but also "mental abuse," such as ridicule. This law, which has wide public support, is described as the logical conclusion of an evolutionary process in which Swedish society has developed in an increasingly egalitarian and collective direction. Sweden is, after all, the the world model of progressivism. There, for all intents and purposes, the private sphere no longer exists; the Swedes have not been coerced, they have willingly given it up.

What to make of this? Swedish statistics show that by this government action many children have been freed from abuse and the threat of abuse, and that's certainly a very good thing. The bad things, I think, are two. First, taking this path means that the private sector has completely thrown in the towel and accepted the idea that only government can do anything effective. That seems excessively passive, a quick-and-dirty swap of private responsibility for the convenience of dumping the problem on government to handle. If responsibilities and rights are mutually dependent, this starts to look like a transition from being citizens to being subjects. Second, and this is just the flipside, as one after another formerly private sector function and responsibility is off-loaded to government, government becomes progressively more powerful. At some point, faith and trust in government must become effectively absolute, and history does not recommend that.

Byron