Our puritanical progressives

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
What was old is new, and what is new is oh so familiar.

While some argue for the "progressive" intercession of government in all aspects of personal life, from our diets to our exercise, to our words and, yes, to our very thoughts, it seems to me like the ugly head of freedom hating progressiveness has not "progressed" since their attacks against the comic books of the last century.

Our puritanical progressives

By George F. Will

Sunday, November 28, 2010

An eminent Harvard law professor, James Thayer (1831-1902), argued that although the judicial function is "merely that of fixing the outside border of reasonable legislative action," this still gives courts "a great and stately jurisdiction." While patrolling that jurisdiction today, Supreme Court justices may be playing the video game "Postal 2," whose rich menu of simulated mayhem provoked California's legislature to pass a problematic law.

During the oral argument about whether the law restricting children's access to violent video games violates First Amendment guarantees of free expression, the lawyer representing game manufacturers urged the court to remember America's history of moral panics, which he said included one in the early 1950s about comic books. Really? Yes, and the episode remains instructive.

An estimated 90 percent of children 8 to 13 then read 10-cent comic books, of which scores of millions were sold weekly. The worry du jour was juvenile delinquency. By 1957, delinquency - how quaint the term sounds - would be romanticized in "Romeo and Juliet" recast as "West Side Story." But by 1953, delinquency was considered an epidemic symptomatic of national decline, so the U.S. Senate established a juvenile delinquency subcommittee. It included Estes Kefauver, the spotlight-seeking Tennessean whose 1950-51 hearings on organized crime - the first congressional hearings to have a mass television audience - made him a presidential candidate and, in 1956, the Democrats' vice presidential nominee.

In 1954, Fredric Wertham brought science - very loosely defined - to the subject of juvenile crime. Formerly chief resident in psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, he was politically progressive: When he opened a clinic in Harlem, he named it for Paul Lafargue, Karl Marx's son-in-law who translated portions of "Das Kapital" into French, thereby facilitating the derangement of Parisian intellectuals.

Without ever interviewing the convicted spy Ethel Rosenberg, Wertham testified on her behalf concerning what he called her "prison psychoses." Since 1948, he had been campaigning against comic books, and his 1954 book, "Seduction of the Innocent," which was praised by the progressive sociologist C. Wright Mills, became a bestseller by postulating a causal connection between comic books and the desensitization of young criminals: "Hitler was a beginner compared to the comic-book industry."

Wertham was especially alarmed about the one-third of comic books that were horror comics, but his disapproval was capacious: Superman, who gave short shrift to due process in his crime-fighting, was a crypto-fascist. As for Batman and Robin, the "homoerotic tendencies" were patent.

Even before Wertham's book appeared, a committee of New York's legislature considered government licensing of comic-book publishers. More than a dozen states passed laws restricting sales of comic books - laws similar to the California one pertaining to video games. Some civic groups staged comic-book bonfires.
Comic-book publishers fended off such pressures by adopting a severe code of conduct. Soon even Betty and Veronica, those less-than-wanton femme fatales of the "Archie" comics, had their supposedly provocative protuberances made less so by donning looser-fitting blouses.

In 1956, fear of comic books was suddenly eclipsed by fear of Elvis Presley, whose pelvis would not be the last cause of moral panic. Pre-Presley panics had concerned ragtime music, "penny dreadful" novels, jazz, "penny theatres," radio and movies. By 1926, seven states and at least 100 municipalities had censors who pre-screened movies. In 1940, NBC radio banned more than 140 songs that were thought to encourage, among other evils, "disrespect for virginity." NBC would broadcast only the instrumental version of Cole Porter's "Love for Sale." Post-Presley panics about threats to children have concerned television (broadcast, then cable), rap music and the Internet.

Concern for children's sensibilities is admirable. The coarsening of the culture is a fact with many causes, but its consequences are unclear. And it can bring out a Puritan streak in progressivism.

The lawyer for the video-game industry warned the Supreme Court that "the land is awash" with contemporary versions of Anthony Comstock (1844-1915), the crusader for censorship of indecency, as he spaciously defined it. "Today's crusaders," the lawyer said, "come less from the pulpit than from university social science departments, but their goals and tactics remain the same."

Progressivism is a faith-based program. The progressives' agenda for improving everyone else varies but invariably involves the cult of expertise - an unflagging faith in the application of science to social reform. Progressivism's itch to perfect people by perfecting the social environment can produce an interesting phenomenon - the Pecksniffian progressive.
For the less than literate that peruse this forum...

PECKSNIFFIAN /pɛkˈsnɪfɪən/

Unctuously hypocritical.

We are in the company of Messrs Pumpkinskull, Sweedlepipe, Bumble, Tappertit, Honeythunder, Pumblechook, and Muddlebranes, whose names all came out of the mind of Charles Dickens. His ability to create memorable and frequently sarcastic names for his characters, his villains in particular, is surely unmatched in literary history. Pecksniffian derives from his Martin Chuzzlewit of 1844, in which Seth Pecksniff is a land surveyor and architect, though the author remarks that the only surveying of land he did was of the view of the countryside from his windows and that “of his architectural doings, nothing was clearly known, except that he had never designed or built anything.” In truth, Mr Pecksniff, though in appearance the most upright of men who prated about high moral principles and benevolence, was an awful hypocrite, full of meanness and treachery. Dickens remarked scathingly that “Some people likened him to a direction-post, which is always telling the way to a place, and never goes there.” In common with some other Dickens’ characters, including Gradgrind, Micawber, Podsnap, Scrooge and Uriah Heep, Pecksniff has become an archetype. He was turned into an adjective as early as 1851 and later became a noun, Pecksniffery.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
The person who goes into a moral rage about a Congressman readling Playboy complains about "Progressive Puritans?" That's rich.
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
It seems a favorite thing of conservatives now is to drum up old "Democrat" view points and policies from the past. What they don't want to say and don't want people to know using this "proof" is that political parties significantly change over the decades. A lot of these same things they try to drum up and call "Democrat" are people and ideas that now belong to the Republican party...
 

jhbball

Platinum Member
Mar 20, 2002
2,917
23
81
What was old is new, and what is new is oh so familiar.

While some argue for the "progressive" intercession of government in all aspects of personal life, from our diets to our exercise, to our words and, yes, to our very thoughts, it seems to me like the ugly head of freedom hating progressiveness has not "progressed" since their attacks against the comic books of the last century.

For the less than literate that peruse this forum...

Thanks for the update, guy!
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
It seems a favorite thing of conservatives now is to drum up old "Democrat" view points and policies from the past. What they don't want to say and don't want people to know using this "proof" is that political parties significantly change over the decades. A lot of these same things they try to drum up and call "Democrat" are people and ideas that now belong to the Republican party...

I thought all "progressives" were Democrats, though not all Democrats would claim to be "progressives."
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,935
55,288
136
I thought all "progressives" were Democrats, though not all Democrats would claim to be "progressives."

Looks like you thought wrong... yet again.

As someone else mentioned, gotta love that 'ol PJ has two active threads, one complaining about porn and the other complaining about how puritanical progressives are.
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
No you attribute nanny state laws as "progressive". These are not limited to democrats or progressives.

You also seem to think that democrats were always "Liberal" and republicans were always "Conservative".
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Looks like you thought wrong... yet again.

As someone else mentioned, gotta love that 'ol PJ has two active threads, one complaining about porn and the other complaining about how puritanical progressives are.

Only you would confuse the puritan freedomless goals of "progressives" with the propriety of exposing kids to pornography.

The only "freedoms" ever espoused by "progressives" are those which permit libertine indulgence in sex, drugs and abortion. Aren't all others eagerly proscribed, for the "good of society?"
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
No you attribute nanny state laws as "progressive". These are not limited to democrats or progressives.

You also seem to think that democrats were always "Liberal" and republicans were always "Conservative".


A perception common to the boards here. Unfortunately for the general populace, both Dems and Pubs can be "Authoritarian".
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,935
55,288
136
Only you would confuse the puritan freedomless goals of "progressives" with the propriety of exposing kids to pornography.

The only "freedoms" ever espoused by "progressives" are those which permit libertine indulgence in sex, drugs and abortion. Aren't all others eagerly proscribed, for the "good of society?"

Yet another spot on analysis of progressivism by PJABBER! I assume you're being this dumb on purpose, so I won't bother to respond.

Keep shrieking about porn out of one side of your mouth and puritanical progressives out of the other though! I mean you're frequently this stupid and hypocritical, but not usually so close together.
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
Only you would confuse the puritan freedomless goals of "progressives" with the propriety of exposing kids to pornography.

Republicans are such awesome history revisionists...

Now you add the word progressive to anything that is puritan freedom-less goals, when you quickly have forgotten that most previous nanny state laws were lobbied for by religious fundamentalists, not your created evil bad guy "progressives"...
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
No you attribute nanny state laws as "progressive". These are not limited to democrats or progressives.

You also seem to think that democrats were always "Liberal" and republicans were always "Conservative".

Not at all. I believe that political Republicans have pretty much left the public moralism of the past behind to practice private moralism at the family level and have focused instead on fiscal conservatism. And that the "progressive" Dems have taken on the mantle of being society's arbiters, usually to insure some part of their voting block remains committed, ie greens, gays and bulemics.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
Only you would confuse the puritan freedomless goals of "progressives" with the propriety of exposing kids to pornography.

The only "freedoms" ever espoused by "progressives" are those which permit libertine indulgence in sex, drugs and abortion. Aren't all others eagerly proscribed, for the "good of society?"

I'm going to have to start billing you for the time it takes me to clean off my monitor after reading one of your posts.
Maybe I shouldn't consume liquids when reading P&N. :hmm:
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I'm going to have to start billing you for the time it takes me to clean off my monitor after reading one of your posts.
Maybe I shouldn't consume liquids when reading P&N. :hmm:
My suggestion is that if you must indulge, that you lean back away from the keyboard and monitor and steady your glass on the table or arm rest.

A single malt is a terrible thing to waste.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
This comparison just doesn't work at all. Progressives have their flaws, but being puritanical isn't really one of them unless you stretch the meaning beyond recognition.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
This comparison just doesn't work at all. Progressives have their flaws, but being puritanical isn't really one of them unless you stretch the meaning beyond recognition.

If I was a Puritan, I might start a thread titled "Mr. Smut goes to Washington"

...or something like that. :whiste:
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
This comparison just doesn't work at all. Progressives have their flaws, but being puritanical isn't really one of them unless you stretch the meaning beyond recognition.

"Puritanical" refers to stern morality.

Who here has not been lectured by the resident "progs" about how bad smoking, eating and any other personal habit that makes life enjoyable (other than libertine sex, drugs and on-demand abortion) are and how indulging in those (and ignoring the fatal attraction of HIV/AIDS) costs society higher insurance premiums and is thus the reason we need to install government run health care that will reflect the singularly strict, singularly specific morals of 'progressivism.'

Pecksniffian indeed!

:awe:
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
"Puritanical" refers to stern morality.

Who here has not been lectured by the resident "progs" about how bad smoking, eating and any other personal habit that makes life enjoyable (other than libertine sex, drugs and on-demand abortion) are and how indulging in those (and ignoring the fatal attraction of HIV/AIDS) costs society higher insurance premiums and is thus the reason we need to install government run health care that will reflect the singularly strict, singularly specific morals of 'progressivism.'

Pecksniffian indeed!

:awe:

jeeeezus christ your team is retarded. Slow work day? Or did you get chewed out by your boss and came here to try and feel important again?
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
jeeeezus christ your team is retarded. Slow work day? Or did you get chewed out by your boss and came here to try and feel important again?
I feel important when I gore your ox. How do you feel?

():)
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
That article only made sense after I replaced every word "progressive" with "conservative."
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I'm feelin pretty good. Although I have no idea what "gore your ox" means, if its something sexual you can keep it.

You know, it does have the cachet of a frisson! Maybe I am a "prog" and just don't know it?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Not at all. I believe that political Republicans have pretty much left the public moralism of the past behind to practice private moralism at the family level and have focused instead on fiscal conservatism. And that the "progressive" Dems have taken on the mantle of being society's arbiters, usually to insure some part of their voting block remains committed, ie greens, gays and bulemics.

Absolutely. That's why Republicans no longer seek to outlaw abortions nor strive to prevent same-sex marriage. They're only opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage on a PRIVATE level.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
when you quickly have forgotten that most previous nanny state laws were lobbied for by religious fundamentalists, not your created evil bad guy "progressives"...

Like Tipper Gore, and the Moral Majorities PMRC?