>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.