Fashionable Progressivism: Getting old and Unusual

“This not who we are,” President Obama utilised to say when some thing unbecoming to his progressivism occurred. Several caught the statement’s colossal presumptuousness, casually arrogating progressivism’s pieties to America’s larger feeling of self. “So diffuse and pervasive is the progressive outlook,” wrote the critic George Scialabba in 1991, “that merely to articulate it is an accomplishment.”

In 2020, progressivism seems hale. Will the hordes elect a revanchist president? For each Martin Luther King’s formulation—also invoked by Obama—the justice-certain “arc of the ethical universe is very long.” In the meantime, allow a million garden-symptoms bloom, proclaiming fidelity to progressive catechisms and injunctions to “Resist!” (as if Emma Goldman and not some account government or corporate VP resides in).

Still it’s also demonstrating signs of don. Progressivism is more and more unhinged in its policing of discourse, confounded by the recrudescence of forces like nationalism—supposedly consigned to the garbage can marked “wrong side of history”—and estranged from working-class constituents. The ideology by itself has grow to be tangled in conflicting ethical imperatives and its perplexed jumble of triggers, the two in pursuit of chimerical aims and mired in glum introspection. The maximum point out to which quite a few progressives aspire looks to be self-consciousness of their individual privilege (though they’re conveniently obtuse to the position conferred by flaunting their exquisitely modulated penitence).

“Late capitalism” is a phrase du jour, but what about “late progressivism”? A different Brahmin gloss on our instances is the Trump administration as “hyperreal” spectacle—a Kremlin/Fox News-inflected gilded simulacrum of actuality. But how does some variant of this not also implement to modern day progressivism, with its conspiratorial claims of Russian skullduggery and unfalsifiable assertions of pervasive discrimination? Or the histrionics of media impeachment coverage, played out right before a bored, listless public gallery?

Then there’s a resurgent desire in the performs of Christopher Lasch with their astringent critique of progressivism and disinterring of “communitarian” traditions.

All of this is converging on a feeling of progressivism as one among the, as the English philosopher John Grey set it a short while ago, “plural and contending” worth methods, subject to its individual folkways, mythos, weltanschauung, and prejudices.

♦♦♦

Bradley C. S. Watson’s Progressivism: The Unusual Historical past of a Radical Concept experienced me with the phrase “strange.” Progressivism these days is bizarre. Meanwhile, Trump’s election has spawned a shelf of histories and ethnographies about the white working class: how refreshing to see progressivism occur in for equivalent treatment method. And presumably Watson, a political science professor at Pennsylvania’s Saint Vincent University, did not have to repair service to Appalachian Ohio to conduct his fieldwork.

Wrong assembly. In fact, Watson’s Progressivism is a record of the histories—refracted via the exigencies of the provides in which they had been written—by which received knowledge about early 20th-century progressivism came down to us, and the revisionism underway since the 1980s. Due to the fact that time, acolytes of the German émigré scholar Leo Strauss have grow to be connected with the “Claremont University,” a colony of constitutional conservative political researchers, and coalesced at California’s Claremont Schools, Watson among the them.

Historical depictions of progressivism served to cultivate the motion, he writes, emphasizing, variously, its congruence with prior U.S. history, diffuse non-doctrinaire populist character, smaller-bore mother nature (rooted in the “status anxiety” of its intended center-class tribunes) and—mediated by the New Left—essentially conservative solid as a resource of major enterprise.

The conservative counter-narrative holds that these accounts, oblivious to their very own editorializing, resoundingly undersold progressivism. It posits that progressivism—imbued with social Darwinism, pragmatism, Hegel’s exaltation of the state and “social gospel” Christianity—was deeply transgressive of the founders’ Constitution. The older custom was recast from transcendent holy writ to historical artifact belonging to an previously, and hence significantly less-progressed, era—a lifeless letter straitjacketing the Prometheus of authorities amid the crucial to reform the social ills attending industrialization and urbanization. Extolling an infinitely extensible “living Constitution” and conceiving of man as “morally perfectible” within a Whiggish teleology trending towards ever a lot more “freedom, justice, and real truth,” progressivism represented a “pivot point” in U.S. historical past. It sanctioned the projection of state authority into what had hitherto been thought of the maintain of civil society (recast as a redoubt of corruption) and non-public conscience, elevating a proto-administrative condition of technocrats. At the exact same time, the progressives ushered in today’s heroic conception of the presidency as a seat of enlightened ethical agency, as it judiciously marshals “popular will” and the forces of record.

Fixated on the figure of Woodrow Wilson (with his glinting pince-nez, priggish Victorian Father mien, and anti-suffrage segregationist views, a suitably unambiguous villain), this is the mistaken-turn narrative espoused in the Tea Get together-era pedagogy of Glenn Beck. And Watson’s Progressivism is in aspect an account of the lecturers doing the job upstream of Beck and his chalkboard. But it is also a chronicle of the Straussian reckoning with progressivism: a cadre of scholars, ruled by the conviction that “moral-political understandings” can transcend “time and spot,” who accorded progressivism’s architects the dignity of taking them at their term, rather than reflexively discounting this as a item of self-intrigued historical actors’ “false consciousness.” It is a reminder of one of progressivism’s blind spots—in English soccer parlance, its inclination to engage in the person, not the ball.

Numerous of Watson’s historic observations about germinal-stage progressivism could have been created of its present kind. He remarks on the juxtaposition involving its eyes-on-the-prize objective orientation and disdain for attaining well-liked assent to its reform agenda, witnessed in Wilson’s withering condescension towards “public criticism” as a “clumsy nuisance, a rustic handling sensitive machinery.” And he draws a throughline from the God-bothering messianism of early progressives like Walter Rauschenbusch to sanctimonious social-justice activists.

But how far is today’s progressivism truly descended from the 1900s model? University of Virginia political scientist James Ceaser has described the previous as a compound of unique progressivism, multiculturalism, and postmodernism, with an admixture of countercultural emphasis on personalized growth. Still, Watson crystalizes an inalienable part to progressivism earlier and present: its protean, remorselessly acquisitive mother nature, ever on the lookout for the next ethical advancement task (and the political customers this yields).

♦♦♦

Progressivism is an uneven book. Claremont Critique of Publications editor Charles R. Kesler contributes a foreword and figures in an exploration of the intellectual genealogy of the conservative challenge to the liberal consensus on progressivism, but excerpts from Kesler’s book, I Am the Improve, materialize in the text as if sent from on superior, sending the reader to the endnotes for their provenance. A single learns significantly from Watson’s survey of the literature about the historiography of progressivism, but quickly wises up to his modus operandi of arraigning its works—finding each and every in mistake for slighting progressivism’s subversion of the Structure. And Watson’s otherwise felicitous prose is marred by occasional archaic locutions. The obscure Latinate “in fine” is desired to “in shorter,” and I imagined “desuetude” experienced handed into…desuetude. The Dwight Macdonald line about a operate getting “enriched my vocabulary, or, far more accurately, added to it,” arrives to thoughts.

But ultimately Progressivism is insightful and satisfying. And Watson owns the prejudices of his cohort, referring to the “deep attachment to the Structure and to the routine that is seasoned by the revisionists.”

This is much more than can be said for progressives with their avowals that their creed is actuality alone. “[I]n real truth,” Watson writes, “liberalism was all about idea from the pretty commencing.”  

Stephen Phillips has reviewed a lot of publications for The Spectator, Economist, Weekly Normal, Wall Street Journal, and Occasions Literary Complement.