On 7/21/2012 5:55 PM, Crmccann wrote:
> You seem to be using "conservative" as a pejorative

Not at all; I'm not sure where impression that is coming from.
My point is simply that we cannot separate progressives and
conservatives on the basis on their support for eugenics during
the progressive era.  In fact we know (from the Fortune survey)
that there was widespread support among social elites.


> An identifying trait of the "Progressive" is the adherence
> to a belief that society has an existence above and apart
> from the individuals of which it
> is comprised, a social ontology.

So ... only intellectuals are progressives?
Did Teddy Roosevelt take a stand on social ontology?
Why is it not more useful and accurate to say that an identifying
characteristic of the "Progressive" is that individual suffering
matters and should be ameliorated by government action?


> the term itself has been used more or less loosely to
> identify those advocating State interventions to the end
> of producing a more moral and ethical society.

Yes. (Understood as described above.)
And of course the use of the term defines it.


> Eugenics does not itself DEFINE Progressives, but merely
> provides one possible means to the advancement of the
> ultimate goal.  This is not to say
> that all Progressives were eugenicists.  Only that one
> cannot understand Progressivism without taking into
> account the desire of some of its adherents
> to utilize such measures to the end of the betterment of society

Eugenics does not itself DEFINE early 20th century
conservatives, but merely provides one possible means to the
advancement of their ultimate goals.  This is not to say
that all conservatives were eugenicists.  Only that one
cannot understand conservatism without taking into account
the desire of some of its adherents to utilize such measures
to the end of the betterment of society.

Eugenics does not itself DEFINE early 20th century social
elites, but merely provides one possible means to the
advancement of their ultimate goals.  This is not to say
that all social elites were eugenicists.  Only that one
cannot understand elite culture without taking into account
the desire of some of its adherents to utilize such measures
to the end of the betterment of society.


> As to Popenoe, you maintain he was a "conservative," but
> according to his son David, "Popenoe was a true child of
> the Progressive era, a combination of Darwinian scientist,
> William James pragmatist, and Teddy Roosevelt
> progressive."  In this case, the affinity is evident.  As
> to Fisher, I'll leave that to the Fisherians.

Of course he said that only of the *young* Popenoe, whose
later conservative alliances are well known (including James
Dobson).  And if you can make "progressive" capacious enough
to hold Fisher, then I suppose the term loses all meaning.

Cheers,
Alan Isaac