A Progressive Perspective

As proposed in my next to last column I want to investigate the nature of a possible progressive perspective. I hesitate to use the term ideology because it can imply dogmatism and a placing of thought before facts. Let us begin by considering what I think is wrong with the major isms.

It appears to me that the fundamental problem facing any would be concept of a society is how to relate the individual to society so that the individual can realize her/his potential and the society is seen as essential to that end. This means that the human being qua individual must be the continuing focus of whatever efforts the society makes to improve itself. The test for any policy or program is whether the individual is promoted in her/his development. Society should be seen as a vehicle for human self development.

Capitalism, socialism and its dictatorial variant communism have at least one thing in common; they are economic theories and assume all social and other human activities, capacities, etc, are derived from economic activity. The bottom line for these isms is that human products, not humans themselves, are the source of value. This to me is the fundamental flaw that any progressive ideology must address.

As a progressive alternative I propose that we return to the Enlightenment and specifically Thomas Jefferson for whom the human individual is the source of all value. For Jefferson economics ought to be a function of politics; that is the economic structure should support the individual’s independence, which he sees as the economic foundation of democracy and the proper goal of politics. For this reason he proposed a nation of small farmers whose farms made them economically and hence politically independent. This was in contrast to Alexander Hamilton who favored the industrial development of an America in which factory owners, etc. controlled the lives of others, The problem is that, unfortunately, we have the economic structure that Hamilton favored and have lost much of the individual independence that Jefferson sought. The progressive’s problem is how to reform society so that its economic activity is a function of its human values. As noted above, Jefferson hoped to achieve this as a natural consequence of the economic structure he proposed. We may not have such a relatively easy out, but, if I am correct, Jefferson’s view can give us the human platform upon which to build a progressive ideology.

That platform, by placing the individual’s realization of her/his potential as the central goal of society should first identify what practices are destructive of it and what practices are supportive of it. The platform should then begin developing policies to deter the former and promote the latter.

As an example, as Jefferson believed that a democratic society should provide each citizen the opportunity to realize her/his potential, so he also understood and feared the adverse impact that accumulated hereditary wealth would have on other citizens’ access to opportunity. In my judgment progressives need, therefore, to develop polices inhibiting the hereditary accumulation of wealth. In this particular case Kevin Phillips’ book Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich is very useful. I suggest as part of a progressive platform that all wealth accumulated in a lifetime be returned to society to be used in assuring equal access to opportunity by the succeeding generation. It is, of course, argued that people should be able to use their wealth as they please, including passing it on to their children. However, it is here, as in other places, necessary to consider the consequences for other humans in this exercise of freedom. If we believe that the limit of individual freedom is the freedom to dominate others and if accumulated wealth allows an individual to do this, then it is more necessary to a democratic society that accumulated wealth be made available to provide equal opportunity for those of the next generation, Thus the recycling of wealth is beneficial for democracy and for its ultimate concern, the individual. This is but one example of developing a progressive policy from a foundational approach based on the individual’s potential self realization through society. The important thing is to create a conceptual foundation for progressivism that will support its values in a cohesive manner.

Among the more relevant presentations I have found of this notion of progressivism is a speech given in 1940 as the University of California’s Charter Day address by James Conant, the famous President of Harvard University, titled Education for a Classless Society. By “classless” Conant means equal opportunity to realize their potential and he does mean equal, not the glossed over, grotesque, parody that term currently denotes. This document can be found at http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95sep/ets/edcla.htm. Another source worth pondering is Henry George’s Progress and Poverty, published in 1879. It presented a once very influential economic theory that is concerned to eliminate the great disparity in wealth that capitalism produces without resorting to an all powerful state. Indeed, Henry George was closely associated with the progressives of his day. The Henry George Foundation is carrying on George’s economic analysis program. As they say “The Henry George Foundation has the aim of putting people at the heart of economics.” The Foundation’s web site can be found at http://www.henrygeorgefoundation.org/.

I hope that the foregoing has given some indication why Progressivism needs to toughly think out its intellectually responsible posture in the world of ideas. It is not enough to seek social change without having thoroughly thought out what society would look like if those changes all obtained. As capitalism and communism have indicated, the unintended social consequence can be calamitous.

Bob Newhard