@blatham,
You amply demonstrate my point about the moral defects of most progressives in demanding that they (alone) be judged on the goodness of their intentions as opposed to the results they actually achieve. The vast expenditures of Lyndon Johnson's deceptively named "great society" programs achieved very little in eliminating either poverty or even economic inequality among African Americans. However they did a great deal to contribute to the destruction of family values among many of the recipients of its "benefits". A growing nimber of serious Black scholars, Jason Riley, today, but also Including Frederick Douglas over a century ago,prominently among them have attested to these facts and in the case of Douglas, the causes for them.
Removing unwarranted restrictions on voting enforced by a Democrat political establishment in the South , was a long overdue and good initiative, that got relatively more support from Republicans in the Congress than from Democrats at the time. Subsequent efforts to gerrymander House of Representative districts to ensure the election of Black representatives involved significant adverse side effects. contributing to the corruption of the evolving state governments; the growth of single issue interest groups; and a Black political establishment that demands special treatment from the government to this day - with all the adverse side effects attendant to that. Some, of course is warranted, but overall this has involved factors and side effects that have significantly retarded assimilation by African Americans and created dependencies that have arguably retarded the achievements and assimilation of many.
There is a sophomoric quality to your recitation of the noble aims of "Progressives":.. These are not the exclusive domain of these political types : libertarian and other rather conservative types hold them as well, and, despite your claims, embracing noble ends does not constitute an excuse for foolish or counterproductive public policy. Results count for more than mere good intentions.
The Social welfare Democracies of Europe are doing far less well in assimilating immigrants and evolving a common culture embracing them all than did the United States in the 19th and 20th century waves of then mostly European immigrants - a process which continues today with a far different population. The present political issues have more to do with the refusal of our Federal Government to enforce existing law than a rejection of the immigrants themselves, though even there the politicasl side effects of politically motivated arbitrary action (itself deceptively styled as "progressive" ) . Moreover in terms of the slow economic growth; rising, near unsustainable debt levels; the growing political divisions among themselves; and their declining demographics that, coupled with their inability to assimilate immigrants, threatens the continuation of their economies,, these countries, with all their progressive policies are doing rather poorly compared to theUnited States.
Human nature doesn't change much, and examples of perfection don't occur our history. History does record systems of governence that yielded truly awful results for their people - these were mostly authoritarian systems of various types ruled by Kings, emperors, dictators and self-appointed 'vanguards of the people' promising the creation of new forms of humanity (many millions were killed in that vain, but progressive effort.)
Progress, where it occurs is far more often the result of the work of individuals and the influences they create for the beliefs and actions of other individuals, and usually in a climate and environment which permitted freedom of thought and action. Instances of it flowing down from above are rare indeed.
