Media Criticism, Political Commentary

“Progressives”

59 Comments

Lileks finds an interesting quote from prohibition days:

There may be no clearer demonstration of the drys’ pragmatic acceptance of every variety of ally than a comment made by Mabel Willebrandt – a federal official, a feminist, a progressive – when she was asked about the faithfully dry Ku Klux Klan: “I have no objection to people dressing up in sheets, if they enjoy that sort of thing.”

I’m always amazed at how many “progressive” ideas (gun control, minimum wage, unionization) have their roots in racism (the fascist dictator Woodrow Wilson being a canonical example). People who want to call themselves “progressive” today (like Hillary Clinton) might be amazed too, if they knew their own intellectual history. Speaking of which, I loved this:

True story. A few years ago, when Katie first came to CBS News, I worked as the editor of her blog “Couric & Co.” One afternoon, I had a meeting with her in her office overlooking the CBS newsroom. Her suite of offices is gorgeous: white-on-white, with a marble desk and gorgeous black-and-white prints on the walls.

(Think “The Devil Wears Prada,” and you’ll get the picture. Staffers used to refer to it as “The White Palace” or, more derisively, “White Castle.”) On the back wall is a lovely, dramatic picture of Jackie Kennedy and her children. Other iconic women on the walls included Amelia Earhart, Eleanor Roosevelt, Audrey Hepburn. When Katie arrived for our meeting, I was admiring the pictures, but noticed one woman who was unfamiliar to me. “Who’s that?,” I asked.

“Margaret Sanger,” she replied.

So is Katie into eugenics, too? Is she a fascist, or an historically ignorant dolt?

59 thoughts on ““Progressives””

  1. I’d go for “historically ignorant dolt,” because in my experience (and I’ve had a lot of it, much of it up close and personal) that’s what most “liberals” are. However, I’d cut Katie some slack on this one because I think the way Sanger has always been presented is as simply a crusader for the right to use contraception. The eugenics part just went into that historical Phantom Zone where “liberals” shove aspects of their heroes they’re not too proud of. I’m a history buff and I didn’t even know about the eugenics part until I read LIBERAL FASCISM (much else of which–like Wilson’s racism, Progressive war-mongering, etc.–I did already know).

  2. I wonder what Obama would do if Planned Parenthood gave him one of their Margarete Sanger awards (the “Maggie”). Would he actually accept such a thing? The irony of the situation would be epic. Giving an award to a man that is named after a woman who would not have wanted him born in the first place. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

  3. Chris, he accepted the NObel, didn’t he? The fact it was previously given to Yasser Arafat and “History’s Greatest Monster” didn’t deter him in the least.

  4. So Rand, you have the same problem with Winston S Churchill I assume?

    Or do you reserve the “eugenics” card only for people for whom you disagree with the rest of their politics or the other good stuff they’ve done?

    For crying out loud, the hypocrisy is amazing.

  5. Daveon,

    I personally only use the eugenics (not sure why you put it quotes, there is no question that Sanger was a believer in such things) card for people who actually devoted their lives to the promotion of eugenics. That would be Sanger. Churchill not so much.

  6. Daveon’s gotcha, Rand! I’ve been reading this blog for years, and you’ve always let Churchill slide on that eugenics thing. One bright boy, that Daveon.

  7. not sure why you put it quotes, there is no question that Sanger was a believer in such things

    It’s in quotes because of how Rand and a few of you are using it rather than to question if she believed in it or not. She wasn’t alone. Churchill, HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw – it’s a really really long list of people who believed in and, especially during the 30s advocated it.

    That doesn’t, for a second, invalidate her work in Birth Control anymore than Hitler invalidates all painters.

  8. Nope, he just doesn’t mention it – like many many things Rand has blindspots which tend to be really and sadly predictable.

    I’m giving him a “by” on the rest of really really wrong stuff in his comments.

  9. Except of course that her work in birth control is connected to her belief in eugenics. The idea being that the wrong people were breeding so we should help them not breed. As far as I can tell, the Third Reich had very little to do with painting, aside from raiding the great art museums of Europe.

  10. Except of course that her work in birth control is connected to her belief in eugenics.

    So all that stuff she wrote about health of mothers and the like was just a front?

    Do you use a telephone? You’re not upset at using an invention by one of the pioneers in the American Eugenics movement?

    Or do you think the Telephone is slightly more important than his calls to sterilize the deaf?

  11. Again, Bell’s work on telephones is not connected to his beliefs. The telephone is not a very effect sterilizing device. In fact, it has probably contributed to a fair amount of breeding that Bell (and Sanger) might have found offensive.

  13. In fact, it has probably contributed to a fair amount of breeding that Bell (and Sanger) might have found offensive.

    Heh, Booty Call!

  14. I think Daveon’s a good argument for eugenics (let’s keep people who have trouble with logic from reproducing) of Idiocracy), but what bothers me about eugenics is that it’s almost always, to my knowledge, advocated as a State program, and that it’s advocates tended to be statists. (I don’t exempt Churchill from this classification: see Erik Von Kuehnnelt-Leddhin’s pioneering LEFTISM–which decades before Jonah Goldberg traced the socialistic roots of Italian and German fascism, as well as the scary history of American “Progressivism”–for the less attractive side of Churchillism.

  15. Please excuse the typo in the above. I was going to insert a comment about the movie IDIOCRACY, but edited it only partially out.)

  16. Didn’t Bell invent the telephone as part of his work on helping deaf people hear?

    The problem with eugenics is that it crossed ideological boundaries. Aristocratic conservatives believed in it, because it reinforced their beliefs in their own good breeding. Liberals supported it because they felt that science had “proven” its merits.

    At the end of the day, dismissing Sanger for believing in eugenics is equivalent to dismissing Newton because he believed in alchemy. Both people were mistaken, but despite their mistakes they did great and useful work.

  17. Even for you Chris, that was silly…

    Newton held a mistaken believe in a pseudo-science true…but that belief harmed nobody else, and Newton didn’t advocating harming anyone else as a result of this belief. Just as some silly people believe in astrology, as long as they don’t advocate the execution of all Libras, who really cares?

    Sanger, on the other hand, advocated the sterilization of entire groups based solely upon their ethnicity, with the explicit purpose of editing them out of the human race. Her support of eugenics was the MEANS to this end. Like so many others on both sides of the political spectrum (and I do not for one second deny that Churchill’s support for this reprehensible doctrine – along with his use of mustard gas on native populations in the 1920s – was a disgrace that shadows the rest of his many contributions), eugenics wasn’t a health issue, it was a race (or perhaps class) issue, and pretending otherwise is simply disingenuous.

    Sanger’s disgraceful life is whitewashed by those on the left who have turned abortion into a sacrement, a litmus test of political correctness which no inconvenient facts must tarnish. I myself am pro-choice, but I find the intellectual dishonesty of those in the pro-abortion camp beneath contempt. That was the point of Rand’s posting (if I may be presumptuous enough to interpet it)…

  18. Be that as it may* I don’t see that anything that has been raised refute the basic point of the post: that “liberal” and/or “Progressive” people are often ignorant) of their movement’s scummier side, and the more embarrassing aspects of their heroes. Ignorant, or in outright denial.

    Speaking of which, in college a history teacher who was big into Leftist revisionism (then the new “real hot item” in academia) and gleefully exposed the fascism and racism of the Wilson Administration, mentioned that when some IWW war-dissenters were lynched by a pro-war mob, a young FDR (then, I believe, Secretary of the Navy) praised the lynching as “an act of red-blooded American patriotism.” I’ve been trying to track down this story for decades and determine its veracity, or lack thereof. I figured Goldberg might mention it in his chapter on Wilson and the Great War, but he doesn’t. Anyone got any information on it?

    *”And I’m not sure that it does”–as Steve Allen liked to add.

  19. … but what bothers me about eugenics is that it’s almost always, to my knowledge, advocated as a State program …

    Face palm.

    And it would be alright if it was paid for by private enterprise?

    So Heinlein’s Howard Families are ok then?

  21. And it would be alright if it was paid for by private enterprise?

    Face palm.

    If it were paid for by private enterprise, it would be voluntary. And yes, it would be all right.

    So Heinlein’s Howard Families are ok then?

    Why not?

    We all engage in eugenics, on a voluntary basis, when we make individual decisions about with whom to procreate. It only becomes evil when the government does it, and determines who will and won’t procreate, and with whom.

    Rand, seriously, this isn’t the dumbest thing you’ve posted but it’d make the Top 10.

    Oh noes. One of the dumbest commenters I have is accusing me of posting something dumb.

    [rolling eyes]

  22. I don’t know what “Face palm” means. Is it some hip Dumbest Generation slang, or some secret Cult of the State code?

    “And it would be alright if it [eugenics] was paid for by private enterprise?”

    I don’t know. Would it be some voluntary program? At least the funding part of it would be. It’s been decades since I’ve read Heinlein’s stories about the Howard family, so I don’t recall exactly what their prgoram consisted of but Heinlein being a libertarian I would assume aggressive force or the threat of aggressive force wouldn’t have been part of it. You know, unlike your philosophy.

  23. The Howard Family was a system to provide financial incentive for people who had long lived relatives to marry other people with long lived relatives. The idea being that their offspring would have longer lives. The system (in the story “Methuselah’s Children”) is completely voluntary.

  24. Thanks, Chris L. So to answer Daveon’s question: Yeah, I would be okay with it. (“Okay” in the sense that it’s no skin off my aristocratic, finely-formed nose.)

  25. Well, if voluntary eugenics is okay, then Sanger’s okay. She said racial regeneration like individual regeneration, must come “from within.” That is, it must be autonomous, self-directive, and not imposed from without. Further on in the same article: “Not until the parents of the world are thus given control over their reproductive faculties…”

    In short, her idea was that by allowing women to control their own bodies (a libertarian ideal) they would be able to decide whether or not to have children. In the US, she fought government at the state and Federal levels because they were interferring with the market (a libertarian concern) by blocking access to contraceptives. (See the “Comstock Act.”)

    In short, Sanger should be a libertarian hero.

  26. In short, Sanger should be a libertarian hero.

    She was still a racist. And a real one, like Woodrow Wilson, not just someone who disagrees with Barack Obama.

  27. Since Chris thinks racists should be “libertarian heros” he’s likely unaware of the fact that libertarians are sharply divided over the issue of abortion. Don’t let that stop his fevered imagination, though…

  28. So, when she worked with W.E.B. DuBois to set up clinics in the black parts of town, she was a racist? Or was that when, on the year of her death, her organization gave an award to Martin Luther King Jr?

    See, if you read King’s speech on accepting the award, it seems like he thought she was doing “the Negro race” a big favor.

    Google is a wonderful tool.

  32. You are aware that many contracepts (including the IUD which Sanger helped with) are abortifacients, right?

    Are you not able to access Google from your PC?

  33. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood was a full member of the American Eugenics Society. Her mentors, funders, and board were also into eugenics. Sanger gave speeches to the KLAN ! And today Planned Parenthood names their top award after this KLAN Speaker – OUTRAGEOUS ! There is MUCH MUCH More to Planned Parenthood’s ties to eugenics and even racism – and you can get all the awful truth in a fully documented film called: Maafa21. This film was well researched from the files of Margaret Sanger , her board, and those who worked for and founded Planned Parenthood. You will see that EUGENICS was huge with all of them and you will see the proof in the film: Maafa21

  34. …wait, why am I even talking to Chris? He’s been replaced by a “Chinese Room”, ‘cept it’s a “Google Room” — an autonomous “I’m Feeling Lucky” button which gives the most superficial response possible.

  35. I love the fact that you guys won’t let facts get in the way of your opinions.

    And Rand, dumbest commentator?

    I am touched you care so much to give me a label. And here I was thinking you didn’t care.

  36. “I’m Feeling Lucky” button which gives the most superficial response possible.

    Ok, Titus, some citations for her racism and belief in state mandated eugenic policies then. Shouldn’t be hard to counter Chris should it?

    I’ll admit I’ve done some Googling but most of my stuff tends to agree with him.

    I must have the Liberal Version of Google installed on my interwebs.

  37. Titus – Sanger apparently didn’t agree with your definition of abortifacient.

    Regarding Google – I’ll let you in on a little secret. I had no idea who Sanger was until my first post on this topic. I did a little Googling, found authoritative links written by Sanger or her contemporaries, and quickly discovered that Rand, et. al., were incorrect.

    Since I so easily discovered this error, forgive me if the next time somebody on this blog makes a claim without any backing I assess that finding as “probably not valid.” Especially if said claim has political advantages for the claimant.

    Going back to the abortion / libertarian issue, I admit to being confused. What is more “private property” then one’s own body? If there is an absolute right to refuse to admit a customer into a business, why isn’t there at least a limited right for a woman to not get pregnant?

  39. If there is an absolute right to refuse to admit a customer into a business, why isn’t there at least a limited right for a woman to not get pregnant?

    As far as I’m concerned, there is a completely unlimited right to not get pregnant, as long as she doesn’t do it by killing an embryo.

  40. Aw. “One of” then, I’m still touched.

    Still, I must say thanks for giving me something to research today. Your ability to make reference to subjects that you obviously know next to nothing about where your conclusions are obviously drawn from faulty 3rd parties once more astounds me.

    Rather than an Olberman like “worst person” award. You can have my Most Obvious Dunning-Kruger Effect Blog Post of the Day award.

    Congrats!

  41. Rand – so contraception is fine, yes? But since the police can forceably expel a trespasser from private property, why can’t (at least until some point in the pregnancy) a woman forceably expel an embryo?

  42. As far as I’m concerned, there is a completely unlimited right to not get pregnant, as long as she doesn’t do it by killing an embryo.

    So you reject most forms of the contraceptive pill, all “morning after” treatments and all UIDs then?

    I just want to make sure I understand your position correctly.

    I wouldn’t want to misunderstand you on this topic either.

    Or do you consider pregnancy and conception to be different things?

  43. It says,

    Ok, Titus, some citations for her racism and belief in state mandated eugenic policies then. Shouldn’t be hard to counter Chris should it?

    It is confusing my point with other commenters’. Classic!

    Chris says,

    Sanger apparently didn’t agree with your definition of abortifacient.

    If by that you mean Sanger didn’t understand reproductive medicine the way we do today, you may be onto something, but that’s hardly a reason for those libertarians who oppose abortion to exalt her as a hero, even if we ignore the fact that Planned Parenthood performs, you know, abortions.

    If there is an absolute right to refuse to admit a customer into a business, why isn’t there at least a limited right for a woman to not get pregnant?

    A woman has every right to not allow her eggs to be fertilized. After fertilization, it’s a different story. The more apt analogy is willfully pushing someone overboard at sea — you have a duty to save that person. Given that most fertilizations do not involve rape, and that most abortions are performed strictly for convenience, the anti-abortion libertarians have a strong argument for their viewpoint.

  44. It is confusing my point with other commenters’. Classic!

    So you don’t think she was a racist then?

    As for the other stuff, and just to be clear, you are also against IUDs, most contraceptive pills and “morning after” treatments?

  45. So you reject most forms of the contraceptive pill, all “morning after” treatments and all UIDs then?

    I didn’t say I “reject” anything.

  46. Rand Simberg: As far as I’m concerned, there is a completely unlimited right to not get pregnant, as long as she doesn’t do it by killing an embryo.

    Given that the way that IUDs, most pills and so forth work is through blocking implantation, they are effectively killing an embryo.

    So could you clarify what you are saying here?

  47. No need for clarification. I said what I said — her right to not get pregnant by not killing an embryo is unlimited. I had nothing to say about what other rights she may or may not have. I was simply responding to Chris’ question, which was actually not even on topic, since the topic was abortion, and if you don’t get pregnant, there is no need for it.

    And most birth-control pills work by preventing ovulation, so no embryo is created.

  48. Titus – not sure the “strictly for convenience” thing flies. I mean, it’s strictly a matter of convenience to deny a customer access to your business, or any other property for that matter.

    Rand – Sanger’s position on abortion, as I have documented extensively here, was exactly the same as yours. You have shown no evidence she was a racist or in any way in favor of forced / governmental eugenics. I have shown that she was supported by various civil rights leaders, exactly the opposite of a racist.

    So tell me again why it would be a bad thing to have a picture of Margaret Sanger in your office?

  49. Titus – not sure the “strictly for convenience” thing flies.

    If you deliberately push me off a ship, you are morally not allowed to walk away strictly for your convenience. We call that murder.

Comments are closed.