>But when we start conveniently attributing such to
individuals who  neither claim it nor provide substantive evidence
of such a philosophical  position (e.g., a lack of contradictory
views), then we tread dangerous  ground.
 
But they in fact DID hold such a position, that society held primacy over  
the individual.  See Charles Cooley, Edward Ross, et al.
 
As to Sanger, the suffering she was determined to end was the suffering of  
the "society," not the individual.  It is precisely predicated on a  notion 
of society as above the individual.  She states:
 
"The philosophy of Birth Control points out that as long as civilized  
COMMUNITIES [my caps] encourage unrestrained fecundity in the 'normal' members  
of the population ... and penalize every attempt to introduce the principle 
of  discrimination and responsibility in parenthood, they will be faced with 
the  ever-increasing problem of feeble-mindedness, that fertile parent of 
degeneracy,  crime, and pauperism" (Pivot, p.81).
 
Birth control seen as ethically necessary for "humanity" is a notion, as  
you rightly point, at the core of Progressivism, but this notion is  grounded 
on the belief that society has an end, a need, and a purpose which  trumps 
the rights of the individual.
 
Note Edward Ross:
 
 
"The only thing that can  enable society to dispense with control is some 
sort of favorable  selection.  The way to create a  short-clawed feline is 
not to trim the claws of successive generations of  kittens, but to pick out 
the shortest-clawed cats and to breed from them.  Similarly it is only 
certain happy  siftings that can shorten the claws of man.  Even in a primitive 
Boisé or Ballaret  the too aggressive [sic] man dies “with his boots on” in 
some barroom fracas or  street row.  Later the wiping out of  the rampant by 
private enterprise makes way for the social reaction that  converts the 
bully into the criminal and kills or jails him by constituted  agents.  It is 
processes like these,  affecting the relative birth-rates or death-rates of 
the social and the  anti-social classes, which solve the problem of order in 
such a manner that it  stays solved.  Mere control, on the other hand, is,  
like sustenation or defence, something that must go on in order that society 
may  live at all.  Men and women are  socialized once for all, but in time 
the socialized units die while new,  undisciplined persons keep swarming up 
on to the stage of action.  The equilibrium achieved is perpetually  
disturbed by changes in the personnel  of the group, and hence perpetually in need 
of being restored by the conscious,  intelligent efforts of society" (Social 
Control 1901,  pp.60-61).
 
 
 
As Charles Cooley maintained, 
 
"Thus all innovation is based on conformity, all heterodoxy on orthodoxy,  
all individuality on solidarity" (Social Organization, p.321).
 
"Whenever the question is raised between choice and mechanism, the  
advocates of the latter may justly claim that it saves energy, and may demand  
whether, in a given case, the results of choice justify its cost" (p.323).   And 
in the footnote, "I mean by mechanism anything in the way of habit,  
authority or formula that tends to dispense with choice."
 
 
Secondly, indeed, the conservatives to whom I referred are those for whom  
the name classical liberal would apply today, but the choice of term was 
meant  to avoid any confusion with the modern (and inappropriate) usage of the  
label "liberal."  But I will contend that "conservative" is a  label 
without sufficient meaning -- it can be applied to Edmund Burke  as readily as to 
James Fitzjames Stephen.  It generally implies that  one accepts the 
existence of moral absolutes -- see John Kekes, "A Case for  Conservatism."  Thus 
Ely and the Social Gospelers could be classed as  conservatives, while being 
within the camp of the Progressives!  And it is  used by some as a 
pejorative.  As to Hayek, his use of "liberal" was indeed  in the classical sense, 
and most assuredly did not apply to Progressives, who  only appropriated the 
name after "Progressive" became understood for what it was  -- a philosophy 
of individual restraint in the name of social order and social  control.  One 
cannot without resorting to unstoppable laughter  suggest that the 
Progressives rejected coercion, as it was part and parcel  of that philosophy.  And 
note that Hayek is said to have referred to  himself as a Burkean Whig, and 
thus his own understanding of conservatism  changed.  (See my "F. A. Hayek: 
The Liberal as Communitarian").
 
Finally, one can indeed identify as Progressive even if not accepting what  
you take as "core goals."  (Notably missing from your list is improvement  
of society through population control.)  That such goals exist is  
sufficient to identify one as Progressive, but not necessary, as other  attributes 
may allow one entry.
 
 
CM
 
As a post script, I find nothing to be gained from continuing this  
argument.  No opinions will be changed, nor does it seem anything will be  
resolved.  And my apologies to the Moderator for having taken such of his  valuable 
time in extending it.