Progressive Distortion
The Vanguard of One Political Age Appears Quaint or even Harmful in the Next
There is something initially hazy about looking back upon those who have looked forward.
The famous Seinfeld episode, “The Outing,” where a journalist mistakes Jerry and George to be gay lovers, was seen as subversive and a progressive expression of pro-gay rights when it aired in February 1993. The advocacy group, GLAAD, honored the show as a result. The premise that the characters sought to correct the record without wanting to disparage the gay community (by asserting “not that there's anything wrong with that” numerous times throughout the episode) underscored a care and respect that straight liberals navigated and facilitated in the 1990s.
Younger generations in recent years on reaction channels online have occasionally watched this and expressed concern over the program's supposed homophobia, even as the gay community at the time praised Seinfeld for doing an episode that connected with gays, afforded them respect, and did so with good-natured humor.
This phenomenon where the tolerant and forward-looking people of a given era are looked upon by a later generation with concern or even contempt for supposedly backward or unacceptable views , is something I have dubbed progressive distortion.
Any interested student of history might witness various forms of progressive distortion.
Another pop culture example: much of the politically incorrect racial humor and gay/trans jokes from the 2000s sitcom, Arrested Development, could be seen as incredibly offensive to many in our current era (I am actually amazed at how this show and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia have managed to generally avoid sensitive culture-scolds). The context missing for those unfamiliar with this recent history was how, in the wake of 9/11 and the threat of Islamist terror, inappropriate humor became a bipartisan affair and was often seen as an expression of pro-American liberty.
In 2007, the documentary The Aristocrats, where notable comedians each provided their own version and twist on an old, deliberately crude and inappropriate joke, was celebrated in the mainstream press, including by pundits on cable news channels.
Mel Brooks' brilliant 1970s comedic film, Blazing Saddles, similarly utilized sexual and racial humor to lampoon the popularity of old Westerns (including their general lack of African Americans, even as the black adult male population in Western mining towns in the 1880s was significant). The language found in the film, and the nature of some of the humor, is similarly lost on younger generations who have been raised to believe that to be funny and to be offensive are mutually exclusive, opposing values.
Bringing a more important historical example to the fore, the American Colonization movement was the first substantial abolitionist movement in the United States. Many of the most important nineteenth century abolitionists were part of this early iteration of those seeking to end slavery in the United States.
This organization promoted so-called re-colonization: the idea of freeing African American slaves and transporting them to Africa (a later movement changed the possible location to South America) so that newly freed enslaved persons could establish their own independent country. This was an idea that went back to the American Founding, with figures like the fifth president of the United States, James Monroe, in support of the concept. The African country of Liberia was initially founded for this purpose (Liberia being an iteration of Liberation), and it's national capital, Monrovia, was named after the U.S. President who gave his approval for the plan.
William Lloyd Garrison, one of the most prominent and important abolitionists in the nineteenth century, was a supporter of this re-colonization movement prior to radicalizing further and eventually embracing full abolition and citizenship for African Americans.
This was not a fringe abolitionist concept. President Abraham Lincoln considered re-colonization of African Americans during the early years of the Civil War.
Though the re-colonization movement appeared backward, racist, and regressive to many later abolitionists--just as it does to Americans today, it saw support from some Founders and even some nineteenth century abolitionists prior to an evolution in their thinking, because it was a far more progressive view when compared to those who defended slavery or were apathetic to the issue. Some who wanted to see the practice of slavery ultimately come to an end in the United States were uncertain if an equal, multi-racial society was possible. Though the nation proved it to be (even with all of its enduring tensions), this was a concern quite understandable among those at the time. Progressives today, however, too often assume that abolition and citizenship were values that went hand in hand, but this was not the reality whatsoever.
Progressive distortion.
The world, and the United States in particular, always needs forward-thinking people. Progress is only possible when influential people ask “what if?” or “why not?” The same people with such forward-looking dispositions, however, must never forget how far we have come, that some now-antiquated ideas were the revolutionary ideas of their time, and that one day, some of the thoughts of today's most progressive people may come to be seen as quaint, or even barbaric (let us not forget that eugenics was an aspect of the progressive movement in the early twentieth century, and a popular one at that).
Progressive distortion clouds the real history and proper framing of previous progressive movements and positions. It is better to learn from history and recognize that not all new ideas are wonderful, not all old ideas are invalid or unreasonable (particularly in the context of their own time), and that sometimes something that now seems misguided in fact paved the way, in time, for actual progress.
[James M. Masnov is a Columbian Distinguished Fellow at George Washington University’s history department in Washington, DC. He has been a scholar at the Institute for Constitutional Studies and a contributor at Pure Insights and the Oregon Encyclopedia, among other publications. His books include Imperfect Vehicles, available here, Rights Reign Supreme: An Intellectual History of Judicial Review and the Supreme Court, available here, and History Killers and Other Essays by an Intellectual Historian, available here.]
Interested in reading more history? Become a free or supporting subscriber to History is Human: A Journal of American Intellectual History, an independent publication that provides historical analysis that is neither cynical nor utopian. Subscribe here. Help us make history!!!
