Like many people, I was taught in school that the early progressive movement, from which today's progressivism descends, was a movement of reform against political corruption.  Its proponents opposed urban political “machines” because they wanted to “take the politics out of government” and make it “clean.”  For example, instead of cronyism and patronage, they wanted a nonpartisan civil service.  The rule of experts would replace the rule of corrupt ward bosses – and the power of the government would be increased so that it could to do more good.

Although these words corresponded to the progressive self-description, they are misleading.  Progressivism wasn’t against class government, as you might think; it was all about class government.  The supporters of the machines were mostly recent immigrants and working-class folk, but the experts represented the views of the professional class, who have now morphed into technocrats.  They were highly political in their own way, but had different political ideas, and their supposedly neutral administrative state invented its own forms of cronyism, patronage, and corruption.  Under progressive rule, the power of the central government is wielded largely to do harm in the name of good.

Progressives want progress, but to measure progress one would need a fixed standard, and progressives reject fixed standards.  The dominant philosophy of the progressive movement was, and is, what is called pragmatism, the glittery philosophy that truth is “whatever works.”  Since the definition of “works” is up for grabs, this has come to mean that truth is “whatever I have to say to bring about what people like me want to happen – and to retain the power to go on making it happen.”  In courts, this approach is sometimes called “results-based jurisprudence,” which is not really jurisprudence at all.  It is not an attempt to follow the law, but a redefinition of law as whatever we want people to follow.  Instead of being an instrument of fairness and predictability, as it ought to be, due process becomes a continuation of political war by other means – a wax nose to be twisted in the shape of the outcome the progressive desires.

To progressives, such tactics don’t seem cynical, because in their view, the idea that law has a meaning independent of what one desires is a naïve mystification.  Since law can’t speak for itself, you see, jurists can’t be interpreters, and have to be ventriloquists instead.

Even knowing these things, some things about progressivism are surprising. For example, when progressive elites are caught making obviously terrible policies, as with open borders, they don’t change them – they dig in.  Why?

In the case of open borders, part of the reason is that the purpose never was to make good policy.  Open borders were supposed to bring in a trove of voters who were vulnerable enough to be manipulated.  That turns out to be another aspect of “what works” -- although in fact, it hasn’t worked even on its own terms.  First-generation citizens tend to be no fonder of open borders than their fellow citizens are.

But another reason is symbolic.  Every defeat on a major policy discredits the rule of experts, and threatens to bring the regime into question.

It is not a nice position to be in.  Even when wrong, one has to be right.

Related:

What Kind of Progress Does Progressivism Want?

Come on, Man!  The President as an Ethical Theorist