Why Progressivism Will Win?

[Sanguine]

Understanding Progressivism and the Progressive Era is one of the most important tasks for intellectual defenders of ordered liberty. In just under two generations, Progressivism captured the minds of the American intellectual class, which then transformed traditional governance institutions into the modern bureaucratic-administrative state. As Thomas C. Leonard shows in his new book, Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economists in the Progressive Era, economists played a crucial role in this transition. Educated abroad under the influence of the German Historical School, American economists returned home asserting the non-existence of universal economic law. Instead, they believed society’s institutions of governance, and in particular the State, could be used to engineer desired social outcomes. ....The age of federalism and checks and balances had passed; centralization and bureaucratic administration was the new reality.

Given the importance of constitutional republicanism in the civic religion of the time, that this change happened so quickly is extraordinary. Why did this happen? ...

It is plausible, whatever the truth of Progressives’ various claims, that Progressivism also outcompetes other claims these other margins. Almost by definition, Progressivism promises power, wealth, and prestige to its adherents. This gives it a competitive edge when compared with traditionalist conservatism or classical liberalism which disperse these goods in much smaller quantities. For example, applied Progressivism can result in high-status appointments to important offices within Academy, State, or both. Furthermore, creating and staffing these positions, ostensibly in the service of larger social goals, is directly implied by Progressive ideas for implementing reform. Traditionalist conservatism and classical liberalism, almost always hostile to the bureaucratic-administrative state and skeptical of academic theories of social control, cannot promise similar rewards to their proponents.

...

This cycle is only stable if it can secure the resources necessary to propagate it. The key is the state’s ability to raise funds through non-voluntary means. Thus the state is not subject to the familiar competitive pressures that govern voluntary associations. The Academy-State cycle, symbiotic for Progressives and parasitic for others, can continue despite hostility from the populace and without regard for the truth value of its doctrines.

... Public enchantment with constitutionalism and federalism is today nowhere near where it was in the 1980s, which means the prospects for the People to short the circuit are negligible.

In closing, as I said previously, none of the above depends on whether the ideas inherent to, or that result from, Progressivism are true or false. Everything Progressives say could be true, and the dynamics would be unchanged. But given that the Academy-State cycle that we call Progressivism has a strong competitive advantage irrespective of truth, we should be especially skeptical of its claims.

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/06/why-progressivism-will-win.html

Very thought provoking.

[LMAO]

Perhaps for a while.

But, like all progressive intentions, math, the law of economics, and human nature bring it to an ugly end at some point. And it ends up destroying more people than the number of people it tried to help.

Two plus two will always equal four. Good intentions will never change that

[INVAR]

Leftism will always "win" when you have two Leftists running for the top spot from supposedly opposite parties.

Especially this cycle.

Both "candidates" have discussed using the state to empower, punish, prohibit and pacify selected targets they have chosen with no regard to individual liberty or the consequences their policies will have, without any discussion of shrinking or limiting the power of the state.

We used to know that as tyranny - and BOTH Trump and The Mao Pantsuit preach the same catechism.