REAL Historical Progressivism is the OPPOSITE of the Pseudo-Progressivism of Today
Don't let yourself be fooled. There ARE real ways to tell the difference between the two.
Here is my response to Toby Rogers, Ph.D., a wonderful Substacker, whom I respect but disagree on his assumptions and definitions around progressivism. Here is the response to a point Toby made in his posting under “Sin” in his essay, “Thinking Points Memo”:
(Toby,) I've been with you on a lot of analysis, but your description of the FDA, CDC, NIH as "progressive institutions" could not be any further off. They are neo-liberal institutions, which have historically ALWAYS OPPOSED progressive movements.
"Progressivism" as a linguistic concept and worldview as you define-- ‘I am getting better and better always’ — like the revenue chart of a profitable company" is completely at odds with the political history of progressivism as a principled civic action. Cesar Chavez's progressivism (coalitional alliance and empowerment of the little guy) is at odds with an elitist notion of "progressivism" (i.e. vanguard Marxism and technocratic utopianism) as "the experts/the betters will tell you how to live your life better and show you the way" (until they screw up, and then, of course, it's your fault).
"But in public, the progressive is infallible." (Toby) This again is the very opposite of real historic progressivism (think 1930's US). The problem is that people ARE fallible, and prone to misfortune and error. Therefore, we have to support each other from the ground up, not the top down.
I am hating the way progressivism in real historical terms is being distorted and co-opted to become its opposite. You cannot be a Great Reset, New World Order-ist and ever call what you do progressive, even if you BELIEVE it is bringing the world forward, just as you cannot call yourself a philanthropist (like Bill Gates) and make tons of money off your supposed “charity” and then “save” the world through a misbegotten world-wide vaccination effort, you profit from to the tune of billions. You cannot use "support" (i.e. buy off) news watchdogs to turn them into flattering propagandists and call yourself in any way progressive or charitable.
What is the litmus-test proof of a pseudo-progressive? Bill Gates convinced Oxford University and AstroZeneca to make their vaccine for-profit, instead of publicly available. A pseudo-progressive is one who plays the symbolic empathy for the poor and downtrodden, while secretly making money and concentrating power off the misery of others. A real progressive directly challenges the retrograde ACTUAL direction of the pseudo-progressive, and fights FOR the people being exploited, while organizing resistance with them to TRULY move things forward for everyone.
Cui bono? Who benefits? When have you ever seen a pseudo-progressive benefit anyone ultimately, other than themselves. When has a pseudo-progressive been anything other than a cypto-conservative consolidator of power and money on steroids. An historic progressive is never elitist, authoritarian, or totalitarian, but the opposite, a radical democracist tipping power toward the disenfranchised to "move forward" toward full humanity and citizenship, not as a motto or a label, but as a growing, moving, human spirit-infused reality.