I always thought that the progressive movement never created a serious set of ethical standards for itself, and would always fall at the feet of whatever ideas or notions that become popular in the given era.
I mean, there is a conservative manifesto called Conscience of a Conservative. There are even neoconservative manifestos. There is a Communist Manifesto. There are a few libertarian manifestos.
There are no progressive manifestos, presumably because progressives, while ideological in their egalitarianism and democratism, are still too amoral and unprincipled to believe in law and order. Progress requires a road through laws and principles.
But there has been an attempt at creating a progressive philosophy.
http://beingism.org/community/?q=node/8
It's basically determinism, material monism, and scientism mixed up together. In short, the worst, outdated, and discarded philosophies that even the more enlightened socialists and neoconservatives would find feeble and easy to attack.
The online progressive community has done an excellent job in its mass movement and populism, and are one of the loudest antiwar voices. The problem is that progressives need to stop reading Huffington Post, ThinkProgress, and Alternet and start reading seriously for a change. None of the New York Times bestseller crap, but some serious classics and treatises on various fields. Stop all those editorials of Robert Scheer, Jim Hightower, and Alexander Cockburn, and find some serious brilliant writers. The lack of education among progressives is reflected in the fact that MSNBC would rather have Patrick Buchanan coming on their shows than any of the other progressive heroes.
this must be a joke thread
i mean, how could you never hear of amartya sen? or martha nussbaum? or john rawls?
to suggest that no one is considering the philosophical foundations of progressive policies must be an attempt at humor.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
John Rawls was a left-libertarian.
Amartya Sen is a purely amoral Leftist. I have read his Argumentative Indian, where he explains that India has had a tradition of the Lokayata sect, which is a purely materialistic and relativist set of beliefs. He claims to have had the inspiration of such beliefs, which fit in well with his already existing pro-Left atheist views. I don't think he has a non-utilitarian set of ethical standards.
Either way, do modern progressives read extensively? Do you think Arianna Huffington has read Rawls? Do you think Cenk Uighur has ever picked up a lengthy book on economics or political philosophy?
Nope. Today's progressivism is just a pop culture tabloid news mixed in with class warfare and rants against the rich.
No Rawls was a social democrat/modern liberal.
Left-libertarians = Mutualists or Georgists of the Vallentyne/Steiner variety. Rawls was a statist not a libertarian.
But I agree with the rest :D
Now, on further thought, yes academics these days include a large number of progressives, and it might indicate some learned people among progressives. But what are academics like these days?
R. Emmett Tyrell wrote:
What is your vision of a university? Is it the classic vision, with profs walking the ivy-clad pathways, their books under their arms? Perhaps they wear tweed coats and smoke pipes — not the lady profs, but the men. The ladies dress accordingly, and maybe they smoke pipes. All pore over their books for hours and impart their knowledge to a select body of students. Not the mob that today is forced — rather cruelly — to attend classes in remedial education to make up for what they missed in high school, very elementary things, such as reading and the rudiments of writing. No, not at all — the profs are indistinguishable from the students today. Most are disgruntled. Some are furious. In years gone by, they felt superior because of their learning. Today they feel superior because of their ontological existence and because they are tabernacles of certain mysteries.
Is it the classic vision, with profs walking the ivy-clad pathways, their books under their arms? Perhaps they wear tweed coats and smoke pipes — not the lady profs, but the men. The ladies dress accordingly, and maybe they smoke pipes. All pore over their books for hours and impart their knowledge to a select body of students. Not the mob that today is forced — rather cruelly — to attend classes in remedial education to make up for what they missed in high school, very elementary things, such as reading and the rudiments of writing.
No, not at all — the profs are indistinguishable from the students today. Most are disgruntled. Some are furious. In years gone by, they felt superior because of their learning. Today they feel superior because of their ontological existence and because they are tabernacles of certain mysteries.
so your impression of the progressive population is built on a sample of 2 bloggers: arianna huffington and cenk uighur.
i think that explains a lot.
I think you said in another thread Student, that "generalizations generally fail." I think that holds true here as well.
My thoughts would be, how could a progressive have a manifesto? Progressive = what does it take to advance us into a future society (usually involving some egalitarianism)? I mean, if that is capitalism, communism, mercantilism, or some as yet unknown economic system, whatevs.... at least that is how I would view it.
I don't think progressive is a political ideology, as much as it is a social philosophy. You can be a conservative progressive, if you think a better future will be built around conserving whatever it is you feel needs conserved; i.e. environmentalists.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
I'd like to think that Marxism has the biggest pull in the academic arena out of any of the more esoteric political philosophies, does it not? Anyway, most of academia seems extremely left-wing in poli sci. Maybe the reason there is nobody "at the forefront" is because of the sheer amount of them that are in the profession.
Anyway, what's wrong with materialism?
Student: this must be a joke thread i mean, how could you never hear of amartya sen? or martha nussbaum? or john rawls? to suggest that no one is considering the philosophical foundations of progressive policies must be an attempt at humor.
I was just as flabbergasted as you.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Prateek Sanjay:Today's progressivism is just a pop culture tabloid news mixed in with class warfare and rants against the rich.
Most political onlookers are absolutely idiotic, clinging to cable news channels like MSNBC or FOX News, browsing media from Glenn Beck University or DailyKos. This is all superbly explained by rational ignorance; of course, the reality of rational ignorance crumbles your snobbish implication that only leftists are infected with shallow thinking. Rush Limbaugh is a more popular media personality than Arianna Huffington, for instance.
There are serious economic reasons certain market imperfections (e.g., asymmetric information leading to adverse selection in health insurance) might theoretically demand government intervention; however, the right-wing populist backlash simply organizes Tea Parties to cry "Socialism!" without substantive reasoning.
As an anarchist, I tend to side with the public choice criticisms of politicians; that is, instead of acting as public-interested souls, politicians are all attempting to maximize their own utility, and that typically doesn't align with our social welfare. However, if this was an ideal world, I wouldn't mind Pigovian taxation and other government interventions. There is a nuance to these discussions that both sides of mainstream dicussion lack.