A shared contempt for liberty? (1 Viewer)

[nota bene]

Walter Williams asks why today’s progressives haven’t disavowed their racist predecessors. He references an NRO article by Paul Rahe occasioned by the 100[SUP]th[/SUP] anniversary of President Wilson segregating the civil service. He concludes that while they are not themselves racists, they share a contempt for liberty with President Wilson and the racists of his day.

Unasked and Unanswered Questions - Walter E. Williams - Page full

Here’s what Rahe says:

Today’s progressives eschew Social Darwinism and the pseudo-scientific racism espoused by their intellectual forebears, and they oppose racial segregation and the sterilization of criminals and the mentally retarded. But they are no less confident of their own righteousness than were the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and they have no more respect for the rights espoused in the Declaration of Independence, for limited government, and for constitutional forms than did their predecessors. On this day, the hundredth anniversary of Wilson’s segregation of the civil service, they ought to reflect on the terrible damage apt to be done by an unlimited government disdainful of the natural rights of man and dedicated to rational administration as envisaged by fallible men.
Progressive Racism | National Review Online

I admit to an embarrassing gap in my knowledge of American history. I had no idea that Wilson favored involuntary sterilization or segregation. For those interested, here’s page 1 of the Rahe article:

Progressive Racism | National Review Online

If Santayana is correct in saying that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, then perhaps Dr. Williams is right to ask progressives to take a look at their own roots and to ask themselves hard questions.

 

[sangha]

LOL! Wut?

Progressives are supposed to denounce Wilson for a policy they don't know he supported?

 

[ecofarm]

The problem with this? I mean, aside from the source.

Everyone was racist at the end of the 19th century.

 

[nota bene]

I'm impressed. You both managed to read two articles in 3 and 4 minutes respectively. Thanks. :roll:

 

[ChuckBerry]

Why read when you can REACT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[sangha]

I'm impressed. You both managed to read two articles in 3 and 4 minutes respectively. Thanks. :roll:

I read what *you* posted.

But I'm not surprised that you refuse to defend that

 

[nota bene]

I read what *you* posted.

But I'm not surprised that you refuse to defend that

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to this thread. While it's only a personal attack, at least you tried. :roll:

 

[sangha]

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to this thread. While it's only a personal attack, at least you tried. :roll:

Maybe you're too sensitive to realize it was a question


Progressives are supposed to denounce Wilson for a policy they don't know he supported?

 

[nota bene]

It's not about denouncing Wilson, sigh.

 

[sangha]

It's not about denouncing Wilson, sigh.

SO what is it about?

C'mon. Use your words. I know you can do it!

 

[Einzige]

If we're playing the guilt by vague pseudohistorical association game, should American anticommunists apologize for their association with the policy of Wilson's Attorney General, Andrew Mitchell Palmer, to forcibly deport American anarchists and socialists to Eastern Europe during World War One? Some five hundred leftists perished in feudal Russia alone as a result of being sent there after the Palmer Raids.

But this suggests that not all 'progressives' are created equal, as it were, and further that Wilson was not, in fact, a flaming Red (he was in fact the most conservative candidate in the 1912 election and by no means were all progressives sold on him - hence the existence of the, y'know, Progressive Party).

I'm not a Wilson fan at all. But I hate the historical butchery that so many modern Republicans are wont to engage in. And there's no doubt at all that, as a Southern anticommunist and military hawk, Wilson was the candidate of choice for huge numbers of the ancestors of those who today make up the Southern Republican base.

 

[tererun]

Walter Williams asks why today’s progressives haven’t disavowed their racist predecessors. He references an NRO article by Paul Rahe occasioned by the 100[SUP]th[/SUP] anniversary of President Wilson segregating the civil service. He concludes that while they are not themselves racists, they share a contempt for liberty with President Wilson and the racists of his day.

Unasked and Unanswered Questions - Walter E. Williams - Page full

Here’s what Rahe says:

Today’s progressives eschew Social Darwinism and the pseudo-scientific racism espoused by their intellectual forebears, and they oppose racial segregation and the sterilization of criminals and the mentally retarded. But they are no less confident of their own righteousness than were the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and they have no more respect for the rights espoused in the Declaration of Independence, for limited government, and for constitutional forms than did their predecessors. On this day, the hundredth anniversary of Wilson’s segregation of the civil service, they ought to reflect on the terrible damage apt to be done by an unlimited government disdainful of the natural rights of man and dedicated to rational administration as envisaged by fallible men.
Progressive Racism | National Review Online

I admit to an embarrassing gap in my knowledge of American history. I had no idea that Wilson favored involuntary sterilization or segregation. For those interested, here’s page 1 of the Rahe article:

Progressive Racism | National Review Online

If Santayana is correct in saying that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, then perhaps Dr. Williams is right to ask progressives to take a look at their own roots and to ask themselves hard questions.

You are making an assumption that long dead members are still dictating modern progressive attitudes. It is sort of like claiming because lincoln was republican that republicans are not racist. The movement changed over time. People evolved and grew up to recognize their failings. They did not cling desperately to failed and wrong policies as society realized they werre wrong. perhaps the conservatives should take a little lesson from this. They are wrong on a number of social issues like the drug war, SSM, and abortion/BC. Society's numbers are changing and they are fighting against diversity through immigration instead of embracing immigrants and trying to improve their lives. They cling bitterly to the racism that infected their party after the civil rights movement. Yes, they were on the right side of history duiring the civil rights movement and when lincoln was president, but that does not mean todays republicans are the freedom loving caring people they once were.

That being said democrats are just getting votes and are at least chasing down the rising demographics instead of the dying white demographic. The reality is both parties really want a powerful rich class over a large poor class they can control. That includes progressives, liberals, and conservatives. It is politics. There may be a few idealists in those groups who give a damn and think their ideas might actually help, but those people are not in positions of power. Your problem is you actually believe the rhetoric of one of the sides and don't recognize it is really all about getting votes and as people change their ideas movements have to change their rhetoric to get their votes.

 

[head of joaquin]

I denounce president Wilson's racism!

Now, will note bene denounce the racism of the present Republican Party?

By the way, what presidents ended segregation in the country? Come on, note, you can say it!

 

[StringBean]

I'll trade you the "Republicans inherited the southern racist Democrats so they are the party of racists" meme for the "Wilson was a eugenist so all Progressives are racist social engineers" meme

Let's just stop pretending those of us living today are responsible for what happened before we were born...