Progressivism and Paternalism
by Joseph Rowlands

The political left is often viewed as a homogenous group sharing roughly the same vision of the proper role of government and valuing the same set of policies. While individuals will always vary, it often appears that there is little actual variance. However, there are really two entirely different worldviews that happen to coincide in their conclusions on political policies. One variant is the 'progressive' view of politics. The other is the paternalistic view.

The 'progressive' view gets its name from the basic premise of the worldview its members share. They believe that their moral system, altruism, can and should be practiced by everyone. They believe the reason the world is not a better place is because people have failed to live up to the moral standard. This flaw, however, is viewed as temporary. They believe in the moral perfectibility of mankind. They believe we will eventually progress until we are all capable of practicing altruism consistently.

The paternalism camp has a different view. While they fully accept that altruism should be practiced, they don't have a generous view of most of mankind. They don't think the masses will ever be good enough to practice it consistently. They don't believe there will be progress. Instead, they believe that a handful of people can achieve that moral greatness. These people are the moral elite, and they should make decisions for the rest of mankind. The common man cannot be trusted with acting altruistically. He would give into his selfish nature. But the moral elite are a better breed of human, and so they should rule on behalf of the rest. There's no need for everyone to achieve moral wisdom. Those who have can simply govern those that haven't.

The progressive view has a unique perspective on issues. They see various institutions as corrupting in nature. For instance, they might desire to get rid of money entirely, and with it the profit-motive. The motivation wouldn't be to create equality or help the poor. It would be because when people live their lives seeking personal gain, they form the habit of being selfish. Capitalism is bad, not because it is unequal or harmful to the poor, but because it instills and rewards bad morals. In order to progress towards a world of altruism, people shouldn't be rewarded for selfish actions.

The paternalistic camp doesn't see it the same way. They don't expect the masses to ever achieve moral stature, so they don't see capitalism as corrupting them. There criticisms are targeted more at the consequences. They are unhappy with inequality itself.

Both of these views see the government as the source of positive change. The progressive camp views government as a tool for the social engineering of society, to improve upon the human race. That kind of change has to come from outside of the daily choices people make. It needs to be pushed down from the top.

The paternalistic camp isn't concerned with the social engineering aspect, but still views the role of government as central to their moral vision. The moral elite must make decisions on behalf of others, and government provides this power. With that power, they can act towards their altruistic goals on a massive scale. If they are unhappy with some inequality, they can pass a law and redistribute wealth in order to remedy it.

Both camps hate private businesses and corporations. One hates them because they are selfish institutions, rewarding selfish behavior. The other hates them because they impede their attempts at controlling people. If they raise a tax, and people change their behavior to avoid the tax, they are undermining their goals. They view corporations as having power and influence that they can't control, and so see them as obstacles or rogue powers.

Both camps view themselves as acting on behalf of the larger population. The progressive camp believes they are creating a better, more moral world by changing the people. The paternalistic camp views themselves as acting on behalf of the others, providing morality where others are not strong enough to do for themselves. Both see themselves as bettering the world, and believe that the population should be grateful for their generous efforts.

The progressive camp tends to be more radical. To get the change they really desire requires uprooting all of the institutions that rewards selfish behavior, such as private property. There cannot be a compromise with free markets, as that would be simply utilizing selfish behavior for noble ends. The problem is that it might sanction the selfish behavior, allowing people to think of it as valuable.

The paternalist camp is more willing to compromise in order to get improvements. Each increase in redistribution of wealth, or concentration of power in the hands of the moral elite, is a victory. They're okay to some extent with harnessing the power of free markets, as long as they control or direct the results.

It might be surprising that two such radically different set of ideas can seem so indistinguishable in terms of conclusions and policies. There are a number of reasons why this might be true.

The progressives may not like the paternalists approach of shaping the economy, increasing taxes, etc. But they may view it as a stepping stone towards their own goals. Consider the ideas behind communism. Among many true believers, communism is intended to be a world without government, without private property, where mankind works together altruistically to support one another and share the benefits. When it came time to practice it, it was always implemented as a totalitarian regime that murdered and enslaved the people. The people weren't considered good enough for the institution, but it was thought that they would acclimate to it if they were forced into it, reeducated, and entire new generations were born under the new system. The progressives may see the paternalistic approach as a way of shaping the next generation of people. So they may not agree on the end goal, but each incremental policy may be accepted as a step in the right direction.

We can also see the paternalistic camp as seemingly compatible with the progressives. While they may not share the same goals, each step they take moves towards the progressive goal of equality, no private property, etc. The paternalists may not be thinking about where they are going. They may be only concerned with taking appropriate actions. Find a problem, fix the problem. The fact that they inevitably march towards a socialist regime is not necessarily intended.

This just means that the underlying morality, altruism, can lead different views of the perfectibility of mankind to the same conclusions or policies. Selfish gain is bad, and each step to punish it or remove it is a positive. The poor should be helped, so each step towards equality is a step in the right direction.

A different way of looking at it is that the two camps concentrate on different aspects of altruistic morality. The paternalistic camp views it in terms of appropriate means. The progressive camp views it in terms of appropriate ends. But they are consistent in their vision of what altruism means. This leads to surprising similar positions.

We can imagine that there are some places where they disagree. Progressives will tend to think of the paternalists as not radical enough, and too willing to compromise. Paternalists will see the progressives as too ideological, and not pragmatic enough. This appears to be an argument over how aggressive they should be in pursuing their shared goals, when in fact it is a disagreement on the goals themselves.

Discuss this Article (0 messages)