Certain political terms, such as communist, Nazi, and even socialist, have become politically incorrect in the sense that they have been so successfully demonized that calling someone one of these terms is about equal to using the “n-word” or other derogatory ethnic terms. On the Internet, for example, if someone compares you with Nazis, you can declare yourself the winner of whatever debate you are in.
It is time for the progressive philosophy to join this list of politically unacceptable beliefs. At the moment, many people view “progressive” in a positive way that is not in keeping with its history or the beliefs of many of its current practitioners.
As the Antiplanner noted yesterday, it is ironic that the cities that have promoted policies that make housing unaffordable and push low-income people out like to call themselves progressive. This is only ironic because progressives love to pretend they care about minorities and low-income people. History, however, shows otherwise.
Take, for example, Woodrow Wilson, one of our most Progressive presidents, but also one who was, in many ways, far more oppressive than George Bush. As Cato scholar Gene Healy observes in his new book, The Cult of the Presidency, Wilson got us involved in an unnecessary war that aimed to spread democracy but actually resulted in some of the worst dictatorships in history. He imprisoned people who disagreed with the war, including a movie producer who dared make a movie that seemed to be critical of our allies, the British. (It was about the American Revolution.) He encouraged people to turn in their neighbors for saying anything bad about the government. He was an aggressive segregationist. Yet he was, and is, celebrated by the progressives.
Healy quotes The New Republic, that great progressive magazine, which wrote of Wilson’s administration in 1918:
“The whole issue hinges on local control. For forty years we have been widening the sphere of this control, subordinating the individual to the group and the group to the nation. Without such control, vastly magnified, we should not have been able to carry on the war. . . . We conscripted lives, property and service; we took over the railroads, telegraphs and other economic instruments. We fixed wages, prices, the quantity of coal, power, labor or transportation might command, and the quantity of food he might consume. . . . All this we did on the narrowest of legal bases, for no one dared question our power.”
Under FDR, much of the New Deal was about oppressing individual rights in favor of the common good. New Dealers prosecuted Jewish butchers for following kosher law when it conflicted with the government’s arbitrary codes. When New Dealer Rexford Tugwell built “new towns” for people to live in, he was so confident that his town designs were perfect that he forbade homebuyers from changing landscaping or making home improvements. To enforce his rules, he forced people to buy their homes with 40-year, no-advance-payment mortgages so he could evict anyone who he or his minions decided didn’t fit in.
Progressive Democrats like Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson did not hesitate to lie to Congress to get us involved in the Korean and Viet Nam wars. When Viet Nam led some progressives to become disillusioned with American efforts to spread democracy abroad, other progressives simply changed their name to “neoconservatives” and continued to promote those policies. Neoconservatives are anything but conservative; true conservatives, who call themselves paleoconservatives, are even more anti-war than today’s progressives. The paleos protested not only Iraq but Clinton’s incursions in the former Yugoslavia, which most progressives applauded or ignored.
Regardless of their foreign policies, today’s progressives are still willing to “subordinate the individual to the group and the group to the nation,” especially if the individuals and groups being subordinated are not members of the progressive elite.
Do progressives believe in democracy? Only when it suits them. In 2004, Oregon’s secretary of state, a progressive Democra, kept Ralph Nader off of the presidential ballot — even though Nader met all of the state’s requirements — because the secretary did not want Nader to take votes from Kerry. Progressives created the initiative petition processs at the turn of the 20th century. But in Oregon, initiatives have been used by conservatives to reduce taxes, so the state’s progressive leaders want to restrict initiatives that “threaten essential government services.”
So, they can offer you the best solutions for ED issue at a most reduced conceivable value so that our clients get significant reserve funds on their http://appalachianmagazine.com/2015/10/18/five-incredible-pictures-of-bridge-day-2015/ levitra online canada costs on pharmaceuticals. Thus, Ladygra is an indelible and infallible solution to this generic viagra issue. In different cases, oral medications may be required. free consultation cialis loved this This procedure is used to treat excessive blinking, generic cialis usa squinting, and pain that come from temporomandibular joint disorder. More generally, what do progressives believe today? One progressive recently noted that progressives think that:
1. “Health care is a basic human right.” In other words, they believe it is okay to confiscate your income to pay for someone else’s healthcare. If healthcare, then why not someone else’s housing, food, and other needs? As a matter of fact, progressives believe it is okay to confiscate your income to pay for those things too.
2. “Human rights ought always to trump property rights.” What human rights are we talking about? Freedom of speech, religion, the press, and other rights in the Bill of Rights do not in any way conflict with property rights (which are also in the Bill of Rights). Only such “new” rights as health care.
3. “Think that as a society we have a collective obligation to provide everyone who is willing and able to work with a job that pays a living wage and offers dignity.” Does that mean that the government should make work — digging holes and filling them up — just to give people a job? What if digging holes is not “dignified” enough for them?
4. “Think that regulating big corporations isn’t enough, and that such corporations, if they are allowed to exist at all, must either serve the common good or be put into public receivership.” But whoever gets to define the “common good” effectively becomes dictator.
5. “Think it’s wrong to allow individuals to accumulate wealth without limits, and that the highest incomes should be capped well before they begin to threaten community and democracy.” Just how does Bill Gates or Warren Buffet threaten community and democracy?
The list goes on. Someone else might be able to distinguish between “progressivism” and “socialism,” but I can’t.
What all of these ideas fail to account for is human behavior. If I don’t have to earn a high income to get all the healthcare, food, shelter, and other things I want, why would I bother? If I did earn a high income, it would be confiscated by the progressives anyway.
More important, a government that has the power to redistribute income will attract all kinds of parasites seeking to have the income redistributed to them. Some of those parasites — economists call them “rent seekers” — will inevitably gain the ears of those who think they know the common good when they see it, and the result is a nomenklatura — an elite group that gets special privileges and exemptions from the rules everyone else must follow.
We see these things every day. A light-rail car manufacturer donates money to rail campaigns and in return gets no-bid contracts to build rail cars. A development company donates to the right people and gets its land rezoned or added to the urban-growth boundary. Progressives complain about the “big corporations” that do these things, when it was the progressives themselves that made government big enough for corporations to have this power.
Progressives do not understand how the world works, and their policies inevitably make it worse. Government planning — the idea that a trained elite can make better decisions about your land and resources than you can yourself — is just one of the many progressive ideas that have failed. It is time to reject these ideas and recognize that property rights and markets are better tools for solving complex problems.
Oh, I anticipate the lamentations…
We need the state to correct the outcomes of past subsidy.
We need the state to correct the settlement pattern developed under past patronage systems.
We need the state to compensate for the failings of human nature.
We need the state to make people free.
AP didn’t mention corrupt politician X or incompetent politician Y, so he is clearly a self-serving phony.
But big corporations really do cause harm. Really. I mean it. They’re bad.
We’re not an elite, we’re just smarter.
Free people make mistakes too!
Example N, from City O, shows that the state achieved an decent outcome with minimal suffering. AP’s argument is thereby totally refuted. Everyone must follow the “City O Modelâ€Â.
There, I just saved 50 posts on this thread. No charge. I’m writing on behalf of the common good.
Government planning  the idea that a trained elite can make better decisions about your land and resources than you can yourself
I hope people around here don’t (but suspect that they do) buy the Antiplanner’s notion that planners have the power to write and enforce “their” plans upon an unsuspecting and unsupportive public. Such a model is nowhere near the norm.
Take exclusionary zoning, for example. The Antiplanner would have us believe that residents of wealthy communities with large minimum lot sizes would love to welcome multi-family housing and lower income residents to their communities, if only planners would let them. “Those rascally planners impose their elitist large lot sizes on us, and keep those poor people from living right next door to me. It’s a real shame”, said Richie Rich, resident of Wealthy Community X. Sorry: not buying it. Planning regulations exist because some people (not all, obviously, but show me any law that every person supports) want them. It’s that simple. If you want to argue that not everyone supports planning laws, that’s a different issue, and one that applies to all (not just planning) laws.
Why do Antiplanners allow “trained elites” to decide for them that murdering, raping, stealing, trespassing, are wrong? When Antiplanners suffer a broken bone or contract cancer, do they treat themselves, or do they rely on “trained elites” to determine what course of treatment is best for them? Do Antiplanners build their own roads and bridges, or do they drive on roads and bridges built by “trained elites”?
Speed limits – the idea that a trained elite can make better decisions about your car and driving safety than you can yourself.
Poor Randal.
His own ideology can’t get out of the single digits, so what does he do? Does he get a new idea to lift this moribund worldview? Does he write a column for thinking about and examining why this is?
Nah, far better is to try to drag other ideologies down to his level by cherry-picking and logical fallacy.
Is there a fact in this series? Is there anything better than the hasty generalization fallacy and logical inconsistencies?
Is there anything other than tired dog-whistle phrases, strung together on an old shoelace and held up as if a precious pearl necklace that everyone should have? So an ideology is other-regarding and introspective, and yours is self-regarding and belittles introspection. Stop the presses.
Lastly, the jewel that has the best irony, when Randal writes condescendingly:
He fails to remind the reader that this scheme is exactly what he wants to enact when he praises deed restrictions to high heaven, as this is what deed restrictions do – give local control over to little Napoleons.
So the solutions Randal tries to marginalize are among the solution sets Randal wants more of.
DS
I fail to see how all government city planning is descended from progressive political and social philosophy. I understand having issues with progressive philosophy and even agree with many of the arguments against it mentioned. I am not a progressive. I’m a right-moderate libertarian. However, I am also a professional municipal planner, and I ASSIST property owners to SUCCEED in what they would like to do with their property, not dictate what they do or how they do it.
However, I am also a professional municipal planner, and I ASSIST property owners to SUCCEED in what they would like to do with their property, not dictate what they do or how they do it.
So when you’re trying to figure out what to do with a plot of land, all you do is ask the current inhabitant? You don’t take into consideration what his neighbors want? If all that matters is the property owner, then why do you need to exist at all? Can’t he just…do it? And once that person moves out, would you readily allow any development that the person who bought the house wants? If so, I ask again: what’s the point of your job, if all you do is say “yes”?
Government planning  the idea that a trained elite can make better decisions about your land and resources than you can yourself  is just one of the many progressive ideas that have failed. It is time to reject these ideas and recognize that property rights and markets are better tools for solving complex problems.
Do you believe in the rights of communities (or, better put, local zoning/land use boards) to tell property owners what they can build on their property? And if not, then how come I never see you praise the pro-property rights aspects of plans like urban growth boundaries (which generally add to the development rights of those living within the boundary)? You talk a nice talk, but when it comes to the things you choose to criticize and the things you choose to laud, your philosophy becomes a bit muddled.
I do the same thing as TO, and I’m an economic conservative and social liberal, although some Progressive platforms are fine with me too (such as calling out corporate media for being war enablers and being deferential to the gummint, or pointing out how the gummint tasered protesters of pesticides).
That is: the development community likes me because I’m not an impediment to their project. My code reforms always seek to increase flexibility and decrease review time while meeting community goals.
But I disagree with TO wrt where planning comes from, as the temperance movement , city beautiful movement, etc were nominally born from the Progressive movement, although the Progressives took the reins from the conservative religious groups that started the temperance movement, which arose out of the rapid urbanization post-Civil War and the rise of privatism and landlords refusing to obey housing codes.
DS
Building codes – the idea that a trained elite can make better decisions about how your house/building should be built than you can yourself.
A very tiresome article Randal. You should know better than to make such a cherry picked blog post. It is easy to mislead and create false impressions about certain terms to create a paradigm of opposition. It can be done with many so called terms, such as libertarian, ‘free market advocates,’ etc. Stick to the arguing on the topics instead of trying to create strawman.
thanks.
SBN
“Government planning  the idea that a trained elite can make better decisions about your land and resources than you can yourself  is just one of the many progressive ideas that have failed. It is time to reject these ideas and recognize that property rights and markets are better tools for solving complex problems.”
There has been a dichotomy set up on this blog that naturally pits planners against the antiplanners. Makes sense I suppose. But between these two polarities is a massive grey area. Planning doesn’t exist because an organized group of educated elites have decided to impose their will on the rest of humanity. Planning exist because people don’t trust one another to make good decisions. There is a whole hell of a lot of people out there that don’t advocate for planning, but like the idea of say… separation of uses, limitations on sexually oriented business, building codes etc.
I guess Randal is on a mission to show these people the errors of their ways, how we can all trust each other to make good decisions, and how the free market will naturally keep undesirable uses like the porno shop away from your kids’ school.
I also feel that progressive is well on its way to becoming as politically incorrect as regressive. Another interesting dichotomy.
Bill of Rights and Constitution: the idea that a trained elite can make better decisions about your land and resources than you can yourself.
DS
rationalitate:
You’re right. You got me. I do take into account what a property owner’s neighbors want. A great deal of municipal planning is mediating between different parties. It is a responsibility of my position to FACILITATE, not arbitrarily create on my own accord, MUTUAL goals between various persons who are shareholders/beneficiaries/affected in the well-being of our city or a certain project, and thereafter make those goals a reality using my “elite education” of city processes, law, design, engineering, and economics. Also keep in mind that the goals are constantly amenable to change and revision as the populations involved change and new ideas, desires, and personal development plans emerge from the changing populations.
What’s the difference between a “progressive,” and a “liberal”?
I agree that so called “progressives” are bad. So why are you supporting Barak “god damn America” Obama?
So why are you supporting Barak “god damn America†Obama?
More importantly, why does the Antiplanner participate in electing a trained elite to make decisions on his behalf?
It is a responsibility of my position to FACILITATE, not arbitrarily create on my own accord, MUTUAL goals between various persons
Yes, although this will fall on deaf ears here. To reiterate:
1. In most places, the city is open to lawsuit if the planners arbitrarily create conditions for developers/permit applicants to follow (that is: requirements that are not in the code/standards).
2. Planners can suggest code/standards revisions, but the various commissions and Council must approve.
Yes – that’s right: planners don’t wield god-like (or god junior-like) power.
DS
Planners can suggest code/standards revisions, but the various commissions and Council must approve.
I think in this blog, “planner” isn’t used literally to mean someone with a degree in planning, but rather anyone who makes those decision – be they an unelected bureaucrat (like TO), or elected representatives (the “Council”).
“And if not, then how come I never see you praise the pro-property rights aspects of plans like urban growth boundaries (which generally add to the development rights of those living within the boundary)?”
How does a UDB actually add to the rights of those lucky enough or politically connected enough to be in the UGB?
And why would you call it “pro-property rights” when for the vast majority of people it restricts their property rights?
In fact, how is any central government planning “pro-property”? By it’s very nature it will always have individuals who are on the losing end. And in a society that has a constitution so heavily directed at protecting the rights of an individual, how is having individuals that lose out acceptable?
In fact, how is any central government planning “pro-property� By it’s very nature it will always have individuals who are on the losing end. And in a society that has a constitution so heavily directed at protecting the rights of an individual, how is having individuals that lose out acceptable?
Are we to believe that there would be no “losers” under anarchy?
What’s the difference between a “progressive,†and a “liberal�
In the context of political science,
A Progressive is a movement that promotes ‘progress’ (contrast ‘status quo’), or ‘reform’ in the context of social justice. The ‘reform’ is usu. by th’ regalayshun or changing of th’ regalayshun, which is what prompts the knee-jerk reaction, then the marginalization and the cherry-picking to support it. For example, on the link Randal used, they want reform in the media to stop being corporate lackeys, and they want to reform police power to stop intimidating certain individuals who belong to particular groups.
Ironically, and what weakens “Randal’s” “argument”, is that Progressives wanted housing reform and esp. more opportunities for the poor to get decent affordable housing in cities.
A Liberal (philosophically) generally wants the same things as progressives (philosophically) but aren’t beholden to all tenets of a particular movement, and is more tolerant of other movements. Politically, liberals are more likely to favor some sort of market liberalization than progressives.
In a nutshell, though, the Progressive movement hasn’t had great political power since WWI ended so who knows what Randal is railing about, unless he is against change and reform in the present system. He might as well rail against potlatches.
DS
rationalitate wrote:
I think in this blog, “planner†isn’t used literally to mean someone with a degree in planning, but rather anyone who makes those decision – be they an unelected bureaucrat…or elected representatives…
Right. This is a deliberate conflation and is the inherent weakness in the argumentation. It is simply a puerile distinction from ‘government’ to have play, IME.
There is either planning or not-planning. Randal’s contradiction when he whines that no one can have enough information to plan ‘properly’, but then laments that someone didn’t use rational planning is telling in this regard.
DS
rationalitate: I can’t make any decisions without express action from elected bodies.
That aside, I think there’s a great misunderstanding in this blog of what exactly planners do (especially those in local governments). This blog seems to take what private sector planners and urban designers do, like design neighborhoods and master developments, and think we madate similar things or do these same things for the general public. That may happen in some places where state legislation has granted cities the authority to do such things, but most municipal planning departments do not have that authority unless obtaining express permission through contract with a private developer to assist them, and even then it’s done through the elected body who makes the ultimate decision and provides direction for staff’s work. The city cannot force a developer or owner into such a public/private partnership. The only unilateral power I can think of that most municipalities have is annexation, and even that is still (most often) at the direction and discretion of the elected bodies. Municipal planners, ultimately, are coordinators. We work with everyone and everything involved in the development of our city to make sure mutual goals are facilitated, adopted and subsequently enforced and kept up-to-date.
How does a UDB actually add to the rights of those lucky enough or politically connected enough to be in the UGB?
Uh. Before the UGB, there were regulations that mandated low density. After the UGB, these restrictions were loosened within the boundary. So, those within the boundary have gained rights. What about this don’t you understand?
And why would you call it “pro-property rights†when for the vast majority of people it restricts their property rights?
I didn’t say the UGB on the whole was pro-property rights, I said that what it does for people within the boundary is pro-property rights, and what it does for people outside the boundary is anti-property rights. But, how are you so sure that “for the vast majority of the people” it’s a negative? (I never claimed anything one way or the other, because I know better than to claim that I know what the net result of the arrangement is.) Do you have some figures that you’d like to share with the class on how many people live within the boundary, and how many people live outside of it? Or are you just making an assumption without any evidence to back you up?
In fact, how is any central government planning “pro-property�
If the government planning loosens previous government-imposed restrictions (which is demonstrably true for those who live within the UGB), then isn’t it pro-property rights? Note that I’m talking specifically about what happens within the UGB – you’re not going to find me defending what the UGB does to property outside of the boundary. (And next time anyone claims that I am defending the actions of UGBs on those outside the boundaries, I’d like to see a quote.)
And in a society that has a constitution so heavily directed at protecting the rights of an individual, how is having individuals that lose out acceptable?
It’s absolutely not acceptable, and I challenge you to find somewhere where I said otherwise. What you will find me saying, though (about fifteen million fucking times!), is that the UGB does have some pro-market elements to it, and that the Antiplanner is not being very nuanced in opposing the entirety of the UGB plan without recognizing the pro-property rights effects for those within the UGB. If the Antiplanner wanted to be logically consistent, he’d support what happens within the UGB (that is, the government gives back development rights), while opposing what happens outside of the boundary (that is, the government taking further restricting development rights). However, this isn’t what he says – instead he bashes the whole scheme, which leads me to believe that he doesn’t actually believe that the people within the UGB (notice I didn’t say only those within the UGB) ought to have their development rights back under any circumstances.
If the Antiplanner wanted to be logically consistent, he’d support what happens within the UGB (that is, the government gives back development rights), while opposing what happens outside of the boundary (that is, the government taking further restricting development rights).
I have only followed the blog for a couple of months but I have not seen AP rant about property owners being granted more liberal rights to use of their property, even inside the UGB. I do not support mandated minimum densities, but, wrong as they may be, it is a contract under which people bought houses and thus have come to expect that it will be honored. Hence the practical dilemma in changing it.
It’s like social security. I don’t want to participate, but if I’m forced to, when I retire I expect the promised benefits to be paid.
Besides, if some scheme took away your stock options and gave them to somebody else, should I support the portion of the scheme that gives? I insist it is a transfer of development rights not a giving.
When did the antiplanner become one of the PC police, anyway. Isnt it enough that we have government planners telling us what to do, now the AP wants bureacrats telling us what we can and cannot say. Political correctness is just a cover for the “velvet fascists.” Sheeesh!
Thanks, y’all. I’ve learned something:
It’s very easy to overestimate the intelligence of the planning faithful. I should have known, I mean, they do it all the time…
Seems relevant that a blog focused on ending government planning is implicitly focused on limiting government, and exploring how we arrive at agreement of the legitimate uses of state force. Remember, the beef is not with planning, but with GOVERNMENT planning.
All those building codes, for example, held as examples of the importance of elites, are a recent invention. The matter was formerly settled privately, by insurers. People don’t need bureaucrats to solve problems.
Perhaps Slobbering Dan can offer us the definitional difference between anarchy and chaos?
Perhaps Slobbering Dan can offer us the definitional difference between anarchy and chaos?
No. I don’t suffer certain deficiencies (ôурðúi) very well, so I’ll turn back on the [killfile] instead.
DS
[killfile]
Dan, I love you, and wish you didn’t have to suffer deficiencies, either. Please don’t kill yourself.
I hope people around here don’t (but suspect that they do) buy the Antiplanner’s notion that planners have the power to write and enforce “their†plans upon an unsuspecting and unsupportive public. Such a model is nowhere near the norm.
Well, glad you threw out that last sentence, here I thought it was nowhere to be found. Anywhere.
BTW: The AP made a post in Feb 2008 in which he links urban planning to Nazi tactics. I must say that you retoric pisses me off Randal. Why don’t you follow your own rules and walk the walk.
Pingback: » The Antiplanner