Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump: Progressive or Anti-Progressive?
“Is ‘right-wing progressivism’ too much of an oxymoron?” one member recently asked. “Because that’s kind of how I see the Trump movement.” In response, another member said “In this case it is. There are quite a fair number of Trump supporters who are in that situation reluctantly, who are in no way progressives. Give credit to these people, they honestly see Hillary as worse, and putting them down for taking that view won’t persuade them otherwise.” Reluctant supporters strike me as quite different, though, from enthusiastic supporters. It’s not hard to argue that Trump is a “right wing” progressive. But Trump also strikes so many people as anti-progressive. Why is this?
“Progress” as such, beyond the bare minimum necessary to sustain a Christian worldview (the Christian story inevitably gives history some direction), is not something I really believe in. Sure, I call technological improvements “advancements” or “progress,” because that’s what everybody calls them. But the vision of history progressing toward some secular goal is not one I believe in. The idea that it’s the proper function of the State to promote this “progress” is one I believe in even less.
I don’t think Trump is an ideologue, but I think his very deep intuition is that the State, if run successfully, should be an instrument of “progress.” Not social-justice-warrior “progress,” but “real progress,” “successful progress,” “patriotic progress,” “American progress.” I don’t think Trump is capable of questioning this intuition, just as many of us have other intuitions we cannot, or do not, question.
But if what you hate about modern progressives isn’t bare-bones progressivism as such (the State facilitating this “progress” rather than standing aside so people can freely associate according to their own notions of “progress” or lack thereof), but something else, then I think it’s possible to see Trump as an anti-progressive.
If you think the worst thing about progressives is that they’re cry-bullies, and that it’s their cry-bullying — not their centralizing — that’s destroying America, then the fact that Trump can beat cry-bullies at their own game makes him anti-progressive.
If you think the worst thing about progressives is that they punish normalcy, masculinity, majority status, and success, and you think Trump champions normalcy, masculinity, majority status, and success, then Trump seems anti-progressive to you. And if you think the worst thing about progressives is their anti-Americanism, then Trump’s stated interest in making deals that put America first is also anti-progressive.
I think it’s possible for forms of progressivism to be anti-SJW, pro-virility, pro-normalcy, pro-majority, pro-success (though only for limited values of success, since it’s impossible to anticipate – thus encourage – success in all its forms), and pro-American. So if you see Trump as the avatar of all those things, I understand it, but that won’t convince me he’s not a progressive. After all, consider America’s own early progressives, like Teddy Roosevelt.
Many Americans admire Teddy Roosevelt, though. Once I was able to divorce awe for the man himself from his politics, I found I could not admire his politics. But it doesn’t surprise me that others can.
Given the options currently available, it’s perhaps not surprising that some who’d oppose even TR-style progressivism are supporting Trump. Some may support Trump because they believe his kind of progressivism as president would be so obnoxious that Americans would finally get serious about dismantling progressivism. Many more may believe that, once current progressive pieties are attacked, the rest of the progressive edifice will become more vulnerable. And many may have simply resigned themselves to the existence of the progressive edifice, believing all that is possible now is to remodel the edifice slightly so that it at least works better for regular Americans.
That people support Trump for anti-progressive reasons does not convince me that Trump is not a progressive. But neither does Trump’s progressivism mean that these anti-progressive reasons don’t exist.
Published in Politics
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that Progressivism, at its core, is about the state being the instrument of telos. That would explain drlorentz’s and my disagreement above.
Since I’m a Nicene Christian, I do believe there is telos in the cosmos. Perhaps unlike many Christians, I don’t expect to see unambiguous evidence of telos in this life – which may be why in arguments about evolution and so on, I often find myself on atheists’ and agnostics’ side (or, as I think of it, Job’s side). That is what I mean by “the bare minimum [of progress] necessary to sustain a Christian worldview” – not that I think living in primitive conditions without rule of law, functioning markets, or good sanitation is satisfactory because Christians used to put up with it without violating their faith.
I agree, though, that expecting the state to be the instrument of telos isn’t doing telos any favors, which may be about what you mean by “they are orthogonal”.
I defined progress in my comment. It has a direction and a goal (more good stuff, less bad). This manifestly is a direction that all right-thinking people should embrace. Technological improvements are progress in that sense. Perhaps you are so repulsed by Progressives that you can’t stand any word contained within. I sympathize. But technological progress is progress with a direction. It does not aim to make life miserable. It is not random. It is driven by the human mind and informed by human values.
This why the analogy with biological evolution is… irrelevant. Human cultural evolution is not at all like biological evolution. Do not be confused by the use of the word evolution in both.
You overlooked the other part: “the bare minimum necessary to sustain a Christian worldview.” That minimum is a level most people would find unsatisfactory, probably you included. Unless, of course, you’re a fan of the bad things listed in my original comment and not a fan of the good things.
Yes, you gave your definition, and it was a cogent one. It just wasn’t the definition I had in mind when I was writing the OP – I was thinking of the Progressive notion of progress.
No I did not. I addressed that in comment 31, above.
“Progress” does have many cogent meanings other than, “History has only one direction, and we know what it is, and you’d better get on board,” but in American politics, when people want to impose “progress” on others – and especially when they expect the state to be the instrument of “progress” – that’s often what they mean. That’s why I kept putting “progress” in quotes in my OP.
This seems to me right. The man is a populist in the tradition of Andrew Jackson and William Jennings Bryan. He recognizes resentment and channels it brilliantly. He has attitudes, not ideas, and his instincts are otherwise those of a managerial progressive. He can make the trains run on time. So at least he thinks. And he can take advantage of the anger that is out there. Like populists everywhere and at all times, he is a demagogue.
But, as I suggested in an earlier post, Trump is also a narcissist. It is all about him. If elected, he will be reactive — guided neither by principles nor by plans. It will be ad hoc. I shudder when I consider the likelihoods. Then I shudder again when I think of what Hillary is likely to do.
We are living in a dark time.
^ This.
By contrast, I think a guy like Cruz recognized the resentment and wanted to channel it more-or-less Constitutionally, but for all his smarts and strategies, he could not do it brilliantly.
Dr Rahe, do you believe it possible to channel such resentment brilliantly and Constitutionally? I was hoping it might be, since resentment is understandably plentiful right now and it seems best to harness it for the best ends possible. But I’m also doubtful: the inherent difficulty of doing such a thing seems very high.
A question of clarification: What would distinguish a managerial progressive from other “types” of expansive attitudes towards political power, like King Louis XVI or a Roman Emperor?
Apologies, I missed that.
I remain in rebellion against the co-opting of the word “progress” by Progressives. There’s something Orwellian about their use of language since many of their policies are regressive, attempting to undo the progress humanity has achieved that I enumerated previously.
We are the true progressives in advocating increases in individual liberty that have been the wellspring of all the improvements in the human condition. That is genuine progress, as the word is commonly understood, with a definite goal. The “Progressives” are tribal; as such they seek to take us back to a far more primitive stage of human development.
In defense of the Left (please forgive me) I submit that many of them are sincere in believing that their reforms will lead to an improvement in the human condition. In this they are gravely mistaken. I learned from Milton Friedman that it is best to assume your adversaries in an argument are sincere and are of good will, even if this is not true of all of them. Hence, my position with respect to the Left is to assume they seek the best for their fellow man while pitying them for their poor judgement concerning the means and the specific ends in service of that goal. Of course, this sense of pity does not restrain me from vigorous disagreement. They are still just as wrong.
I totally understand this, and sympathize. Had I been writing a post that hadn’t been about Progressivism, I may well have not used the word “progress” on their terms, either. As it was, I dashed the OP off without wanting to get into weeds about whether I should simply accept the Progressive definition of “progress” in American politics.
A definite goal, but not a unitary one, if that makes sense. It’s a progress no one controls, since it’s whatever emerges from many different people pursuing their own notions of progress in an environment of ordered liberty.
I agree.
and agree.
Yes, it makes perfect sense. I finally get your meaning (correct me if I’m wrong): individuals pursuing their own ends, not centrally directed, results in progress of ever-improving conditions for humans.
While each person is pursuing an individual vision of happiness, that pursuit results in benefits more broadly. That is the genius of capitalism and its great success. Absent that success, I’d be less enthusiastic about it.
One can envision other systems with different incentives that allow people to pursue happiness for themselves but do not result in improvements: a stagnant society in which everyone is content, docile, and incurious. In comparison to the best conception of the American experiment, such a society would be decidedly inferior even though everyone could do their own thing. This idea of a society may be a chimera, though ironically advances in technology may make this come to pass. Anecdotally, I hear tell that a segment of our society has already embraced this approach to living.
I take issue with your assessment of the Christian worldview. You seem to be thinking about maybe the Amish worldview, no cars etc. I take issue with your assumption that the current far-leftist pope somehow expresses the Christian worldview.
The Christian worldview in my world centers around the love of God, the Son and the Holy Spirit; faith and belief in Jesus, his virgin birth and resurrection from the dead; loving one’s neighbor; and so on. None of this is anti-medicine; anti-automobiles; anti-markets; or any other of your negative descriptions.
In short, I find the description of the effects of your version of the Christian worldview to be uninformed and just plain indefensibly wrong.
The discussion about labels is interesting. Since Donald Trump is not consistent with any standard political philosophy, he is hard to label.
In general (although Ricochetti might be a strong exception), people don’t vote with their heads, but with their emotions. Donald Trump obviously has something appealing to lots of Republican voters, but it is not his labels, whether one describes him as progressive or anti-progressive.
Maybe the inability to label him is part of his appeal.
This could explain what we are seeing. I sense the country as a whole is politically center-right. Maybe Trump is right there. But he is not ideological as most of our people are not ideological. We do have many patriots, these are people who have grown up with a strong emotional and/or rational connection to where they permanently reside as well as those who have emigrated and have such feelings and thoughts. Most of the political candidates we have seen construct an ideological image to match some perceived and hoped for majority from which they are vying for votes. Trump won’t fit the traditional politician mold. I think he is tapping into the center and running to the right. He is both progressive and anti-progressive. Many on Ricochet will obviously have difficulty accepting the way Trump plays this.
My impression is the country can be center-right when it’s feeling confident, but when it’s not (and it’s not now), it’s center-left, even if that center-leftism retains “red tribe” trappings. I do think Trump is “right there” if “right there” is center-leftism with red tribe appeal.
Whereas I think Trump tapped into right-leaning frustrations, and is running to the left. I believe we’ve already seen the rightmost Trump, and it’s all leftwards from here.
But then, I still think of the right-left divide as some combination of a divide between liberty and statism and a divide between some form of personal virtue and vice. I concede that for those who see the divide more along identitarian lines (like the “red tribe” versus the “blue tribe”), anytime Trump signals he’s not beholden to the “left tribe”, he seems like an obvious weapon for the “right tribe” to exploit. And tribal thinking is primal:
Ideological or moral frameworks may be the more cogent way – the “better” way – of viewing the world, but even they depend on harnessing tribal instincts for survival.
If you review my comment again you will see I was referring specifically to three things: capitalism, private property, and the rule of law. I allowed that the last of these was connected to Christianity but not so much the first and second. Striving for wealth is often deprecated in Christian scripture. I made no reference to the other things you mention in connection with Christianity. Distinguish “minimum necessary to sustain” from an encompassing Christian world view
Take a moment to review my comments and the subsequent discussion in that light.
OK. Rereading it, I guess I have no idea what you mean by “minimum necessary to sustain a Christian worldview.” It surely sounds as if your are saying that a Christian worldview is only consistent with the bad things listed. But if you meant something else, I do not understand it.
You had best ask the author of the OP; I was quoting her. My understanding is that Christianity can flourish under conditions far more primitive that those that exist today. Given that she did not dispute that part of my comment, I’m guessing my interpretation wasn’t too far off. Also given that Christianity did indeed flourish during the Middle Ages, my reference to conditions that prevailed at that time seems reasonable. I hope she will correct me if that’s not accurate.
I’d urge upon you a more careful reading of the post and the subsequent exchange between the author of the post and me before commenting further. In your cursory readings thus far you’ve overlooked salient points.
Well, yes, it was far off, but since we agreed on all the other stuff, it did not seem to matter that it was. As I said earlier, I used “progress” (in quotes for a reason) in a very specific (and admittedly confusing) way in my OP. Quoting myself:
“Progress” in this sense has zilch to do with technological development. It is only about claiming that history does in fact have a direction which right-thinking people should cooperate with. The Christian story is the story of salvation unfolding in history: creation, incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and ultimately some (literal or metaphorical) apocalyptic recreation. Obviously, Christians must believe this salvific direction in history exists and should be cooperated with.
Many Christians seem to believe that, because this salvific direction exists, we can see evidence of it in our lives. I do not – or at least I do not believe we see unambiguous evidence of it. I’m with Job rather than Job’s friends. In that sense, I am a minimalist – I believe in the minimum “progress” (salvific direction of history) necessary to maintain a Christian worldview (a worldview that must necessarily include some belief in the salvific direction of history).
So my phrase was all about a (perhaps obscure) metaphysical point, and had nothing to do with technology at all.
I read your response to me in this comment and went back to read the OP again. I hope I’m getting some of what you mean to convey, that Trump is a statist in his belief that the state can guide progress in society, a kind of managerial notion that most on the right, particularly small government conservatives, see as inherently foolish. I think he believes this as do many of our elected Republicans. I don’t see him as a ‘progressive’ of the ideological type that thinks the proper treatment of humanity completely controlled by the state can weed out evil behavior, i.e. those who deny humans have a human nature and think we can ‘progress’ to utopia. This, in my view, is not Trump. We do have many Republicans who believe like him and choose the government to try to solve problems instead of getting out of the way.
Right. I should have been more clear. My interpretation of the phrase was clear from my comment, that I was referring to the mate rial state not a spiritual one. Of course it is true that Christianity flourished in these earlier times to which I alluded. Somehow this was misunderstood to mean that Christianity required or preferred such primitive material development (like the Amish). I implied no such thing.
I read the OP and other comments. My objection is not to the bare words of the OP “minimum necessary to sustain a Christian worldview,” but your nonsensical addition of “means no cars, no effective medication, poor housing, almost everyone living in abject poverty, very little individual liberty, high infant mortality, and average life expectancy of about 30 years….”
I tried to explain the distinction here and here. I’ll quote myself:
I don’t think I can make it any clearer than that. Is there some part of that quote don’t understand or agree with? If so, please point it out.
You have now made clear is what you did not mean, but it remains unclear what you did mean. However, since you did not mean to imply that “Christianity required or preferred such primitive material development (like the Amish),” (which is how I read it), what you actually meant is immaterial if you did not mean it to be insulting to the faith. Thanks for the clarification such as it is.
I agree many Republicans are managerial progressives. These days, though, I think most can at least be shamed into paying lip-service to admonitions against The Fatal Conceit. I doubt Trump can be, though.
Trump’s life as a real-estate developer revolved around making sales pitches to central planning authorities of various sorts. In turn, Trump served as a kind of central planning authority himself: he wasn’t the architect, the contractor, or investor in his real-estate deals; instead, he was the central coordinator. When Trump wasn’t busy making sales pitches to others, they were busy making sales pitches to him. It seems natural, then, that Trump should see government not as providing a framework for free action and then getting out of the way, but as the ultimate planning authority, to whom all businesses should direct their sales pitches, a planning authority with the right and duty to grant special permission to businesses whose sales pitches are “worthy” because they can “make a good deal” with the American people – the American people as represented by government functionaries.
This to me is a considerably more progressive view of the world than even most managerial-progressive Republicans hold.
True, it is not utopian, but then several of the self-identified (and very left-leaning) progressives I know can’t really be described as utopian, either. They don’t think of man as perfectible. They don’t think life will be perfect when the central authority acts aggressively to keep markets in check, they only genuinely believe life will be less bad.