In the early 20th century, most progressives viewed as cutting-edge science what today looks like simple bigotry. “Eugenics and race science were not pseudosciences in the Gilded Age and Progressive Era,” Leonard emphasizes. “They were sciences,” supported by research laboratories and scholarly journals and promoted by professors at the country’s most prestigious universities.
While some socialists and conservatives also embraced them, Leonard argues, eugenics and scientific racism fit particularly well with progressive thought: “Eugenics was anti-individualistic; it promised efficiency; it required expertise, and it was founded on the authority of science.” Equally important, “biological ideas,” Leonard writes, gave progressive reformers “a conceptual scheme capable of accommodating the great contradiction at the heart of Progressive Era reform — its view of the poor as victims deserving state uplift and as threats requiring state restraint.” They could feel sorry for impoverished Americans while trying to restrict their influence and limit their numbers.
Know what else is “founded on the authority of science”? The war on the fossil-fuel industry, and the desire to control all aspects of our lives in the name of “saving the planet.”
In addition to restricting immigration, throwing people out of work with a minimum wage, and keeping blacks and other inferiors out of the job market, she could have also pointed out that gun control (another “progressive” idea) was traditionally intended to keep those inferior disarmed.
And nothing has changed. Accusations of “racism” against actual liberals by “progressives” remain, as with accusations of “hate,” and “violence,” and “ignorance,” psychological projection.
[Update a few minutes later]
How to get “progressive” students to understand the minimum wage:
When I get to the words “parasites,” I am aware that my tone of voice and demeanor are showing signs of disgust. They are disgusting sentiments, not easily read aloud to a classroom of students.
I think this is useful pedagogically for several reasons. First, it teaches students in political economy to carefully distinguish positive analysis from normative evaluation. By building this in early in the course, I find it easier to teach more difficult concepts like Coase and externalities. Second, it poses a striking challenge to students’ priors that good intentions lead to good policy. I use the opportunity to emphasize that economists judge policies by their outcomes, not the intentions behind them. Third, the example demonstrates the value of knowing something about the history of ideas and economic thought. It enriches their knowledge of both of the historical and contemporary debates and they remember it (I think). Fourth, the discussion invites a consideration of what values, views, and policies are consistent with their own normative positions. And finally, it is a powerful illustration of how ideas have consequences.
Yes. I wish that more teachers did this. But of course, too many of them are “progressives.”
to emphasize that economists judge policies by their outcomes, not the intentions behind them.
The problem is they believe lies regarding the outcomes that are predicated on the intentions.
The youth are encouraged to think this way so never have a chance at mature thought. As long as we allow teachers to think this way we deserve the results. Evil must be fought by real actions. These ‘teachers’ need to be forced into another line of work. The evidence is against the alternative that they actually do their jobs. By not being willing to fight for this we earn the result.
They certainly didn’t embrace economics, or logic. Still don’t, from what I can see. In fact, it seems to be the party line that economics and logic are products of the Hated White Male Patriarchy.
From the Progressive point of view, eugenics made perfect sense. If mankind is perfectable, what better way to do that then through selective breeding? It certainly had the smell of science, and that was good enough for those who saw themselves as our betters.
The current question: Why do present-day conservatives insist on keeping some of those policies (in particular, immigration control)?
Because as Milton Friedman explained many decades ago, you can have unrestricted immigration or you can have an expansive welfare state, but you can’t have both.
The reason is that an advanced country with an expansive welfare state would be a better place to live for virtually any non-productive third-world resident, and if immigration is unrestricted then they’d all immigrate to collect benefits, causing the original residents’ standard of living to drop. Europe is getting a hard course in this logic from Merkel’s open door policy.
Friedman, however, supported illegal immigraition because they’re coming to work and build a life, and says illegal immigration is beneficial as long as the illegals never gain welfare benefits.
In contrast, the progressives wanted to limit immigration to protect the gene pool and to protect themselves from actual competition from smarter people or harder workers.
Do you lock the doors on your house or do you welcome anyone who wants to move in with you at your expense?