I got only so far as the phrase “good Progressivism”….
You often have thought-provoking and insightful things to say, but that phrase is an oxymoron. Best to define terms. I’ll read the rest, but have trouble with the assumptions.
Progressivism is about useful as a term these days as populism (trump, for example, is hardly a populist). Most progressives, though, can recognize what is progressive and what isn’t.
David, thanks for the comments and sorry for the delayed response. To me, Progressivism (especially in the classic definition below) remains useful in its tension with libertarianism. How much do we want governments to run things and how much do we leave to markets? (We're all somewhere in the middle; an interesting current example would be Mamdani's municipal supermarkets.) To me, the problem is that there's a parallel tension between elitism and populism. To what extent are Progressive policies created by elites for their own benefit? Here, I think Trump is a better populist than a libertarian. His efforts, which I abhor, to decimate "elitist" (progressive) institutions such as the NIH, NEH, and Park Service -- if Jon hadn't warned me about the dangers of this construction, I might even call that "good populism." :)
I was thinking of a definition akin to the generic Wikipedia one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism. Note that it has a subcategory "public land." To me, the founding of the National Park Service, at the 1916 height of the original Progressive movement, is a good example of good Progressivism.
Again sticking to the original movement, my examples would be Prohibition and eugenics.
If you'd be willing to consider moderating the "oxymoron" claim, I'd be willing to admit that “good Progressivism” may have been a poor choice of words in this context. I was trying to say "projects that Progressives believe in." Instead I substituted what I thought was a clever way to shorten that idea. If I make that change, would that allow us to avoid a tedious debate? :)
A true story: I am standing behind the counter at a Yellowstone Visitor Center. Its not a particularly busy day, barely a line. But suddenly a young woman came spiraling in the door, right through the lines of folks waiting to buy a fishing license or ask where to stop if they only have two hours. She was bawling and shouting, waving a phone. The other rangers backed away. I asked how I could help. She wanted to know why there was no free Wi-Fi. At that time, the staff at Grant Village barely had service. Our cell phones worked (maybe) if we walked to exactly the right spot outside the showers in employee housing. Visitors could buy access at the lodge. None of my skills in dealing with the distraught were needed, though, because she wove her way back outside, crying and shouting, before I could say another word.
Since then I've wondered if Yellowstone and the other large parks shouldn't be refuges from life on-line and even from cell phones. The NPS will cite the needs of employees and administration in arguing for it, but I am old enough to remember when people sent postcards and wrote letters about their adventures. I've been a guide and wilderness ranger where cumbersome radios seemed adequate. Like John, I do not remember a decision that tech should dominate in any space, much less in the sacred space of a national park.
I quoted Christine Rosen's suggestion that perhaps there should be "emotional impact statements" detailing the pros and cons of these technology before they are adopted in my newsletter several weeks ago. We are past that, of course, without a voice in the relentless spread (I was about to say 'advance,' but that might have implied approval) of an electronic reality. I guess its my fault, not taking it for granted, but it seems to me that Abundance implies a lack of agency for anyone who doesn't want more of everything.
Of course, we live in both a republic and a democracy.
Thanks for engaging! Words matter. I’d add the League of Nations to your negative examples. Appreciate the opportunity. Peace!
Thanks for holding me to a high standard! :)
I got only so far as the phrase “good Progressivism”….
You often have thought-provoking and insightful things to say, but that phrase is an oxymoron. Best to define terms. I’ll read the rest, but have trouble with the assumptions.
Progressivism is about useful as a term these days as populism (trump, for example, is hardly a populist). Most progressives, though, can recognize what is progressive and what isn’t.
David, thanks for the comments and sorry for the delayed response. To me, Progressivism (especially in the classic definition below) remains useful in its tension with libertarianism. How much do we want governments to run things and how much do we leave to markets? (We're all somewhere in the middle; an interesting current example would be Mamdani's municipal supermarkets.) To me, the problem is that there's a parallel tension between elitism and populism. To what extent are Progressive policies created by elites for their own benefit? Here, I think Trump is a better populist than a libertarian. His efforts, which I abhor, to decimate "elitist" (progressive) institutions such as the NIH, NEH, and Park Service -- if Jon hadn't warned me about the dangers of this construction, I might even call that "good populism." :)
I was thinking of a definition akin to the generic Wikipedia one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism. Note that it has a subcategory "public land." To me, the founding of the National Park Service, at the 1916 height of the original Progressive movement, is a good example of good Progressivism.
Thank you. That helps. What would be your definition of “bad” progressivism?
Again sticking to the original movement, my examples would be Prohibition and eugenics.
If you'd be willing to consider moderating the "oxymoron" claim, I'd be willing to admit that “good Progressivism” may have been a poor choice of words in this context. I was trying to say "projects that Progressives believe in." Instead I substituted what I thought was a clever way to shorten that idea. If I make that change, would that allow us to avoid a tedious debate? :)
Timely topic.
A true story: I am standing behind the counter at a Yellowstone Visitor Center. Its not a particularly busy day, barely a line. But suddenly a young woman came spiraling in the door, right through the lines of folks waiting to buy a fishing license or ask where to stop if they only have two hours. She was bawling and shouting, waving a phone. The other rangers backed away. I asked how I could help. She wanted to know why there was no free Wi-Fi. At that time, the staff at Grant Village barely had service. Our cell phones worked (maybe) if we walked to exactly the right spot outside the showers in employee housing. Visitors could buy access at the lodge. None of my skills in dealing with the distraught were needed, though, because she wove her way back outside, crying and shouting, before I could say another word.
Since then I've wondered if Yellowstone and the other large parks shouldn't be refuges from life on-line and even from cell phones. The NPS will cite the needs of employees and administration in arguing for it, but I am old enough to remember when people sent postcards and wrote letters about their adventures. I've been a guide and wilderness ranger where cumbersome radios seemed adequate. Like John, I do not remember a decision that tech should dominate in any space, much less in the sacred space of a national park.
I quoted Christine Rosen's suggestion that perhaps there should be "emotional impact statements" detailing the pros and cons of these technology before they are adopted in my newsletter several weeks ago. We are past that, of course, without a voice in the relentless spread (I was about to say 'advance,' but that might have implied approval) of an electronic reality. I guess its my fault, not taking it for granted, but it seems to me that Abundance implies a lack of agency for anyone who doesn't want more of everything.