progressivism, individualism, and the public ... - Telmarc Group

The Telmarc Group
Preface
PROGRESSIVISM, INDIVIDUALISM, AND THE PUBLIC
INTELLECTUAL
There is a great deal of confusion over the ideas of liberals and conservatives. Then we
add libertarians, which often sound interesting but when carried to their ultimate ends
oftimes results in less than reasonable solutions. This work was prepared to address a
simple question: what are the two extremes in our current society, how are they
characterized and what intellectual basis does each have.
We all know that we have a debt of gratitude to men such as John Locke and Thomas
Paine. In a small park in Morristown just a short distance from where I live and write,
there is a statue of Paine, hidden in a small niche of a duck pond surrounded by Canada
Geese. I doubt if anyone ever visits there, except perhaps me, from time to time, but it is
the largest such statue in the US. Paine wrote Common Sense and Washington read
Paine's famous script to his soldiers before crossing the Delaware. But Paine also was the
first to suggest income taxes, health care, retirement plans. Paine saw the Government
having this role, but this was conceived when he was assisting the French, well after he
left the new United States. Thus in many ways Paine was the first Progressive, looking at
society and at the Government providing support to all. In contrast Locke was the
influence on the founders, looking at the individual and the sanctity of property.
Individualism versus Progressive theories, two extremes which influence the
underpinnings of our current society. To understand these better is why I have attempted
this book.
The approach I have taken is to focus on the thoughts of several of the key players on
both sides. This is not a complete list in any manner. It reflects clearly a personal bias
based upon some forty years of considering these issues from a variety of perspectives.
For example, I first had to deal with Rawls more than a dozen years ago in the context of
a discussion on telephone universal service. To understand certain regulators and to
understand the positions of certain advocacy groups one need to understand Rawls. To
some that would sound extreme but it is akin to psychiatry, one needs to understand more
than just what meds to use to calm the patient down, the history is important also as is the
patients world view.
A second issue to try and place one's self in the mind of the other side. For example,
Progressives have such a strong belief in the Government. Having spent my tour in
Washington and in and around the Carter Administration, I often wonder why anyone
would trust Washington to do anything, even control traffic lights in the District! But that
is my view and that would not solve any problem of understanding the Progressive. I also
have another problem relying upon Government, it changes. The people "solving" your
problem today may not be there in a month, a year, whatever. Thus how could one
therefore rely on Government given its changeability. Again one must try to understand
the side which believes that. From whence did that belief arise. What basis do they have
for believing that their position has sustainable applicability?
Page 7