According to Wikipedia, “Progressivism is a broad philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition”. According to one website called Dissident Voice, that describes itself as “a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice” Progressivism “is a term that encompasses a wide spectrum of social movements that include environmentalism, labor, agrarianism, anti-poverty, peace, anti-racism, civil rights, women’s rights, animal rights, social justice and political ideologies such as anarchism, communism, socialism, social democracy, and liberalism”. That’s a wide spectrum indeed but is more in keeping with how I have come to view progressivism.

The Wikipedia definition doesn’t say much - in fact it uses the word “progress” to define “Progressivism” - sort of like a tautology only it says the same thing twice using the same word. While I think it is safe to say that everyone believes that “advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization can improve the human condition”, the devil is in the details as to how we achieve those advances. A free market economy is the best way to get there. It’s the only option not listed above.

In fact, history shows that it was the progressives that ushered in prohibition - which proved to be an unmitigated social engineering disaster. Everyone is “anti-poverty”, but the progressive “war on poverty” hasn’t made much progress. And rather than being a force for peace, the record shows that for the most part, throughout the 20th century, while the US has been at war, there has been a progressive in the White House. Teddy Roosevelt, 26th US president, who put progressivism on the political map, had contempt for what he called “isolationists”. He called them lazy and cowardly; during the Woodrow Wilson presidency he agitated for US involvement in WWI.

So that’s ancient history. Let’s look at recent examples of progressive thought. As I made mention previously, noted progressive bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a primary architect of Obamacare, published an essay in the Atlantic in September called “Why I Hope to Die at 75”, where he advocates that human beings should not try to extend their lives beyond the age of 75. He asserts that the goal of modern medicine is not to increase or enhance life expectancy and in so many words says that once you reach that age you are no longer useful to society and are therefore not worth caring for.

Taking progress to the next level is Professor Eric Pianka of the University of Texas. According to Wikipedia, his textbook, Evolutionary Ecology, is a classic. Ironically, he is 75 years old. According to Dr. Emanuel, he’s outlived his usefulness. Back in 2006, Pianka had some things to say that are, well, somewhat shocking. Wikipedia says that “Pianka’s acceptance speech for the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist Award from the Texas Academy of Science resulted in a controversy in the popular press when the Forrest Mims, vice-chair of the Academy’s section on environmental science, claimed…that Pianka had ‘endorsed the elimination of 95 percent of the human population’ through a disease such as an airborne strain of the Ebola virus”. 

Wikipedia goes on to say that according to Mims, Pianka said the Earth would not survive unless its population was reduced by 95% suggesting that the planet would be “better off” if the human population were reduced and that a mutant strain of Ebola would be the most efficient means. Mims’ account was corroborated by a member of the Academy and that as a consequence of the controversy, according to Pianka, his life has been “turned upside-down by ‘right-wing fools’.” I’ll say this for him, Pianka has chutzpah.

Living shorter lives and reducing the population by 95% through disease and catastrophe is not my idea of progress or “improving the human condition”.

In light of recent events, Pianka’s words sound eerie; what you say can come back to haunt you. However, his ideology traces its roots to the work of Englishman Thomas Robert Malthus, who was born in the decade preceding the American Revolution. Malthus believed that human population would grow faster than the means to produce enough food to feed that growing population and would eventually lead to a “Malthusian Catastrophe”. In a manner of speaking, in his day he was the equivalent of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.

According to the predictions of Malthus, that catastrophe should have happened by now, but it hasn’t, although there are still true believers that believe that it’s coming. It’s just a matter of time. However, the reason that it hasn’t happened is that, as 20th century Danish economist Ester Boserup wrote, “Necessity is the mother of invention”. From the time of Malthus until today, human beings have figured out how to increase production in order to meet the need.

I’m an optimist - I believe that human beings can accomplish whatever necessity deems necessary. Provided we’re given the freedom as individuals to do so. That would be progress.