It?s no surprise that an article in the latest print version of National Review paints an unflattering portrait of the ?progressive? political orientation.
But Matthew Spalding?s piece doesn?t engage in pointless name-calling. Instead Spalding explains why the siren song of progressivism offers such a strong appeal to those who believe government initiatives can counteract or even overcome human nature:
Progressives viewed the Constitution as a dusty 18th-century plan unsuited for the modern day. Its basic mechanisms were obsolete and inefficient; it was a reactionary document, designed to stifle change. The believed that just as science and reason had brought technological changes and new methods of study to the physical world, they would also bring great improvements to politics and society. For this to be possible, however, government could not be restricted to securing a few natural rights or exercising certain limited powers. Instead, government must become dynamic, constantly changing and growing to pursue the ceaseless objective of progress.
Sounds good, unless you possess a healthy skepticism of utopian visions that discount the unchanging character of human nature.
