Progressive vs Conservative vs Socialist and US Historical Context

This is the text of a post on the boardgamegeek site forums which was posted by user rayito2702. I do not entirely agree with everything that he says, but the core of what he says I agree with. Primarily that we need a happy medium between unbridled capitalism and full-blown socialism. We need a regulated free market with catch-up mechanisms in place to assist the poor.

I used to consider myself a conservative. But in an attempt to rationalize the conservative embrace of Trumpism, I went looking for any historical value conservatism might have. Here are some of my conclusions.

Throughout much of the first century of the existence of the US, political and economic policy can be considered predominantly conservative. Small federal government, minimal taxes and regulation, etc.

By the 1890s, however, this method of government had proven a failure. There were many reasons, but a primary one was that the American West had been "won". Up to this point western land represented easy access to wealth for the voting public. You don't like your current situation? Go west, claim land, enjoy a fairly equivalent quality of life to any other American. It served as a political and economic pressure valve, almost like a 19th century UBI.

However, once the West was won and wealth was no longer being handed out, the existing economic policies of the US created an efficient rich-get-richer snowballing of the economy. In this era, known as the Gilded Age, the US was literally ruled by oligarchs. Government at all levels was corrupt and owned by wealthy individuals and corporations. There were virtually no legal ways to counter this influence. Wealth disparity increased. The economy was increasingly urbanized -- over 70% of Americans in the 1780s were farmers, but by the 1890s it was down to 40% and dropping. To survive, most American families had to send parents and children into the workplace to work grueling hours. Options for economic progress beyond mere survival were slim.

Then came the Panic of 1893, the worst economic disaster in US history at that point, and only exceeded by the Great Depression.

In the face of this conservative disaster, there was a ready alternative in the form of socialism. Many Americans embraced this option as a way forward and the first "red scare" in the US occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Into this divide, the progressives pioneered a moderate path.

Progressives rejected the basic economic ideologies of socialism as contradicting American values. Instead, progressives embraced free markets, personal property rights, and capitalism.

However, progressives rejected the Jeffersonian individualism of conservatives. Instead they embraced the Constitutional mandate to "promote the general Welfare" -- a phrase that has given conservatives heart-burn since the Constitutional Convention.

Where conservatives were individualistic, progressives were collaborative. Where conservatives were traditionalists, progressives embraced concepts learned from the scientific community and preferred to analyze data and outcomes to optimize government policy. Where conservatives relentlessly exploited natural resources, progressives embraced environmentalism and sustainable economies. Where conservatives blamed the poor for their poverty, progressives sought to understand how environment and external forces contributed to poverty. Where conservatives sought to maintain the status quo, progressives advocated the expansion of democratic opportunities to ensure all voices were heard.

With this in mind, progressives expanded the scope of government to function as a regulatory body to ensure that individual freedoms didn't undermine general welfare. They believed democracy would be the ultimate restraint on tyranny and keep government from becoming bigger than necessary.

Theory is all fine and good, but does progressivism work? Oh, my, yes!

Now, progressivism has never been perfect. But the value it placed on analysis and outcomes allowed it to self-correct in ways that have eluded conservatives. In fact, progressivism worked so well, it's probably the most revolutionary thing to come out of the US besides the Revolution itself. It's what made America the most powerful, wealthiest, and technologically advanced country the world has ever known.

It's how we created public education, came out of the Great Depression, helped win WWII and the Cold War, sent human beings to the moon, created the American middle class, created national parks and the EPA, amplified entrepreneurial opportunities, made the US the foremost manufacturer in the world, and developed the infrastructure that became the internet. Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Ford (to a lesser degree), Carter, and Clinton -- presidents of both parties -- embraced progressive policies. The 20th century, for the US, was a progressive century. Progressives made America great.

---

To sum up: conservatives and socialists are the extremes. Progressives are moderates. The 20th century shows that progressivism is far better than those extremes.

This leads to some compelling questions: why, when progressivism has proved to be so valuable to the average American and for almost 100 years had broad-based bipartisan support, has it come to be seen as extremist and "leftist"? And why, when we've known since the 1890s that the inherent extremism of conservatism has repeatedly lead to disasters (see 1893, 1929, 2008 for some economic ones, but there are a host of non-economic ones as well), do we keep trying to accommodate it as though it were moderate, reasonable, and practical?

Source: BoardGameGeek RSP Forum