Mediaboss Marketing

posted at 7:21 pm on April 27, 2017 by John Sexton

The Trump administration launched a new initiative Wednesday called Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE). The office is intended to provide support for Americans who have been victimized by illegal immigrants. Trump mentioned it during his first address to a joint session of Congress.

Progressives offended by the existence of the office noticed that the launch also corresponded with Alien day, a day where fans celebrate the Alien film series. So some progressives decided it would be a good idea to flood the hotline that responds to reports of criminal aliens with calls about UFOs. Buzzfeed highlighted some of these yesterday:

McCoy told Buzzfeed he did call and told the hotline hed been abducted by a UFO, at which point they hung up on him. Lots of other people jumped on the bandwagon:

Thousands of people tweeted or retweeted the idea and dozens (more?) seem to have actually called the number. But its not clear what impact if any this had. Fusion contacted the office and received a statement about the prank:

The VOICE line remains in operation. As yesterday was its first day I cant give you any sense of whether this group had any impact at all on wait times or call volume because theres no prior data to compare

Openly obstructing and mocking victims crosses the line of legitimate public discourse. VOICE is a line for victims to obtain information. This groups stunt is designed to harm victims. That is shameful.

I imagine theyll get bored with this after a few days and move on to the next outrage. Still, its noteworthy that weve finally identified a government program the left would like to cut.

Go here to read the rest:
Progressives flood hotline for victims of crime by 'criminal aliens' with UFO sightings - Hot Air

The likely winner of an Arlington County board race would normally be the candidate who raises the most money and collects the most recognizable endorsements.

Arlington politics, however, has been unusual for the past few years.

The strongly Democratic electorate twice chose a former Republican-turned-independent for County Board in 2014, even though he came up short on cash and endorsements in his first election. Just last year, incumbent Libby Garvey, who had plenty of cash but had lost the support of the party establishment, held off a primary challenger, Erik Gutshall, who had captured the endorsements Garvey had lost.

Democrats next month will choose from among four candidates including Gutshall for a nominee to fill an open seat on the board, a decision that will likely determine the outcome of the general election in the deep-blue county.

Gutshall is the clear leader in fundraising and getting backing from names that voters know. But those accomplishments may no longer be enough.

Arlington is sort of unique; looking at how much money a candidate has raised in the last few years has not been particularly helpful, said Frank Shafroth, director of George Mason Universitys Center for State and Local Leadership. The community tends to be very involved, and their decisions are made at the last minute.

In addition to Gutshall, owner of a home improvement business, the candidates include tax accountant Peter Fallon; nonprofit official Kim Klingler; and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Patil. They are competing in an unusual three-day party caucus that will require voters to rank their choices as part of an instant-runoff feature.

If one candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes during the first round of counting, that candidate wins. If not, the candidate with the fewest number of first-choice votes is eliminated and each of his or her ballots is redistributed to the candidate listed as the second choice on that ballot. The process continues until one candidate reaches the majority.

Each hopeful has enough support that party insiders expect the second-choice votes will may be decisive.

Voters will caucus May 9 from 7 to 9 p.m. at Key Elementary School; May 11 from 7 to 9 p.m. at Drew Model School; and May 13 from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. at Washington Lee High School. The last major candidate forum is Wednesday at 7:30 p.m. at the NRECA building, 4301 Wilson Blvd. Three School Board candidates vying for one seat will also appear.

No Republicans have yet announced an intention to seek the County Board seat in November; a perennial candidate, Audrey Clement, will run as an independent.

The four Democrats identify as progressive politicians eager to uphold Arlingtons culture of smart growth, strong schools and welcoming diversity. They also say they will focus on improving the climate for businesses and boosting the struggling commercial real estate market.

Gutshall, 47, raised $22,512 in the first quarter of 2017. He lists multiple current and former elected officials as supporters, including incumbent Jay Fisette, who is stepping down after nearly 20 years.

Against Garvey last spring, he emphasized the need for homes that will fit the budgets of young families and working people priced out of Arlingtons expensive market but too affluent to qualify for subsidized affordable housing.

Hes the current chair of the county planning commission, a former member of the transportation commission and a past civic association president, experience he says will help him connect the dots, because all those other things schools, housing and transportation are possible only when we have the commercial tax base to pay for them.

Fallon, 53, who raised $10,129 in the first quarter, came in a close third in a six-way race for two open board seats in 2015, and ran twice before that.

A former transportation commissioner, civic association president and planning commission chair,he has called for more transparency in decision-making and said the current board is too passive in its response to school overcrowding, Metros financing needs and housing affordability.

Fallon broke with other Democrats to say he would consider voting for independent John Vihstadt for board chair, a heresy for some activists. Mr. Vihstadt is one of the most conscientious, responsive and dedicated board members, Fallon said. We should not be hyper-partisan.

Klingler, 35, a former volunteer emergency medical technician, a current civic association president and advisory commission chair, raised $5,065 in the first quarter. She came in fourth in a 2012 party caucus won by Garvey and said she was motivated to get back into electoral politics after the 2016 presidential election and the Womens March in January.

Her campaign has focused her on improving public safety and emergency response times, boosting government efficiency and increasing spending on public safety.

There are a lot of areas in the county where we could do better, said Klingler, a former management consultant.

Patil, 41, a first-time candidate who raised $20,320 in the first quarter, says he has big ideas to create green and clean jobs in the county, which would include positions for both highly educated tech innovators and those who work in manufacturing.

An engineer who came to the United States from India 18 years ago and has started two businesses, he has called for more creative thinking to improve housing affordability, transportation alternatives and school capacity shortages.

When it comes to our values about the environment, about womens rights, about equal pay, let us stand up and be known for something, he told a gathering of Arlington Young Democrats in April. We may be slapped on the wrist, but I am willing to stand up.

Excerpt from:
Four Democratic progressives compete for Arlington County Board nomination - Washington Post

Theyre holding marches and rallies, clogging Congressional phone lines, hosting forums and town halls, writing letters to the editor anything and everything to keep the heat up and public engaged. The question now is how to harness and leverage their energy.

Passion is driving the grassroots movement. But it takes more than passion to influence policy and elections. It takes a political party.

If you think about the life cycle of these groups, they get people fired up, they get people involved and then they become part of the formal structure, said Chris Cooper, political science professor at Western Carolina University. People who are putting a lot of time into politics eventually realize they need the parties.

It happened sooner than anyone expected, however.

Last month, progressives across North Carolina showed up in force on the doorstep of their local Democratic Party precinct meetings.. They werent just visiting. They pulled up a seat and settled in.

An alliance is absolutely necessary to effect change. We cant start a third party in Western North Carolina, said Amber Kevlin, 33, a leader of Progressive Nation WNC in Haywood County.

Kevlin is a newly minted precinct officer with the Haywood County Democratic Party, and shes not alone.

Dozens of activists with Progressive Nation WNC turned out for the Haywood partys annual precinct meetings and 15 of them now hold official party titles as precinct chairs or vice-chairs.

That was part of our plan, Kevlin said. If you really want to make some changes you have to get involved in the local party.

Almost overnight, the new wave of progressives came to comprise a quarter of the Haywood Democrats executive committee.

I am a big proponent if we want to change the system we have to do it from the inside out, said Chelsea White, 23, a founder of Progressive Nation WNC. We asked people who was willing to step up into leadership positions in the Democratic Party. It is a great opportunity for the progressive movement to utilize their voice inside the party.

Luckily, it wasnt seen as a hostile takeover.

We didnt storm. We simply showed up and wanted to know how we can help, said Mary Curry, a Progressive Nation member who took on a role as a precinct vice chair.

Rather than the traditional party stalwarts bucking the newcomers, they had a plate of cookies and extra chairs waiting.

A lot of older people stepped aside to let the younger people in, Kevlin said. They are very, very excited.

Indeed, thats a resounding sentiment throughout the party.

I am tickled to death to see all the new blood that is coming in, said Marietta Edwards, 75, a Cruso precinct chair. We need to keep people paying attention. Gracious, thats how we got in the mess were in.

Edwards was blown away when six new people showed up for the annual party precinct meeting in Cruso more than doubling their usual attendance. She passed the hat and raised more than $100 to help with rent for party headquarters.

I was flabbergasted because wed never been able to collect money at the precinct meeting before, Edwards said.

Meanwhile, Edwards has started going to the Progressive Nation meetings, a sign of cross-pollination thats working both ways.

The Democratic Party here is so ready for a change to be made. I think this election was a wake-up call that change needed to happen, said Natasha Bright, 40, another leader of Progressive Nation WNC.

Remarkably, the party stalwarts have put pride aside and readily admit they need the help.

Boy, are we happy to see Progressive Nation WNC come along, added Buffy Queen, a long-time Haywood Democrat. Some of us who have been in the party for years are battle-scarred in a way, so we need that fresh enthusiasm.

The progressive movement started organically outside the formal party structure but now stands to invigorate the traditional Democratic Party.

I am amazed and impressed in the level of enthusiasm theyve generated. I think it is fantastic, said Jon Feichter, a Waynesville businessman whos been involved in the Democratic Party for years.

Last month, Feichter passed the torch of precinct chair to a newcomer with Progressive Nation WNC. Hes one of several who have moved over to make way for the progressive infusion, and did so gladly.

Of the 15 party precinct positions progressives now hold, theres only one where a sitting Democrat tried to keep their seat but got out-voted by a progressive contingent at a precinct meeting.

It was not an ambush by any means, said Steve Ellis, a long-time party member and Waynesville attorney.

The credit for an amicable merger, rather than a hostile takeover, largely goes to Myrna Campbell, the chair of the Haywood Democratic Party. Campbell embraced Progressive Nation out of the gate, setting the tone for the rest of the party.

To me they have revitalized the Democratic Party, Campbell said. Thats where I think the positive impact of all this energy is. It will reactivate a lot of the people who havent been active.

Campbell worked the mainstream members of the party ahead of time to pave the way for the progressives.

I thought she did it really well, said Ellis. She makes a real effort to stay in touch with all the sort of subgroups within the party. It went much smoother than it could have because she didnt create a negative atmosphere or barrier to those people being able to participate.

Campbell not only reached out to her own party leaders, but also the leaders of Progressive Nation during their early formation.

I told them I want to work with you. I didnt want it to be You have your agenda and we have ours, Campbell recounted.

Campbells diplomacy, while sometimes tinged with tough love, has been a hallmark of her leadership style the past two years.

That was a goal of mine, to make it more inclusive and have a bigger tent, and I feel like I have done that, Campbell said. Some of it has just happened naturally.

The groundswell of progressive activists had energy to offer, and it made sense for the party to capitalize on it.

They were so discouraged after the election. They felt like they couldnt just say Oh well, we lost and not do anything, Campbell said. I wanted to get them working with the Democratic Party.

Its doubtful the progressives would have walked into a party precinct meeting on their own, however, if they hadnt been brought in first by Progressive Nation.

The party hierarchy hadnt been able to convince people to get involved at the local level, White said.

They needed a vehicle, and an invitation.

They hadnt really seen the way to get in before, Queen said. But Progressive Nation have made a big splash and said Come with us and well show you.

The trajectory of the current progressive movement has played out in American politics before.

I think these groups usually pop up because people are dissatisfied with the traditional party structure, Cooper said. But it almost functions like a gateway drug into the main party. If they are successful, theyre able to pull the party in their direction.

Chuck Dickson, a Waynesville lawyer whos long been involved in the Democratic Party, admitted party bureaucracy can be a turnoff.

It is kind of boring to have the precinct meetings and elect officers and take minutes and all these kinds of things, but there is a need for the structure that the party provides, Dickson said.

Dickson is the long-time organizer for the partys Get Out the Vote effort. He often sees an influx of volunteers who canvass and work polls during campaign season, but then melt away. Progressive Nation provided a venue to keep them involved.

I think it is a great thing, and I think many in the Democratic Party welcome the infusion of energy, Dickson said. It is time to get more spirit into the party.

The energized base trends younger and more progressive than the stereotype of a traditional mountain Democrat.

We are seen as a little more left, said Amber Kevlin, a Waynesville organizer behind the grassroots group Progressive Nation WNC.

Kevlin openly admitted shed like to push the party in a more progressive direction, much like the Tea party made the Republican Party more conservative over the past eight years.

We are the lefts answer to the Tea party, Kevlin said.

The Tea party emerged as a conservative backlash following Obamas victory in 2008 just like the Indivisible movement is a progressive backlash to Trumps victory.

Kevlin said theres a stark difference between the movements, however. The Tea party which stands for taxed enough already used aggressive, my-way-or-the-highway tactics to push out Republicans seen as too moderate.

We see Democrats as too moderate, but we still want to work together, Kevlin said.

While factions within a party can cause it to fracture, Feichter sees the allegiance holding. Inclusion is a fundamental tenet of the Democratic Party, he said, citing Hillary Clintons campaign anthem Stronger Together.

This is a prime example of that kind of mentality. We dont agree on everything but we do have a shared set of values and there is room for competing interests within that sphere, Feichter said.

The cooperative spirit could be chalked up to a honeymoon period, but many believe it will last.

The progressive group and establishment Democrats dont know each other all that well, but it seems like both sides are getting to know the other and working toward a common purpose rather than fighting with each other like it seems the Republicans have, Ellis said.

Like many involved in the progressive movement, Mary Curry got involved as a campaign volunteer first for Bernie Sanders, and then for Hillary Clinton. Typically, her activism would have stopped there.

This is not what I planned on doing in retirement. Taking hikes in the forest is what I wanted to do, said Curry, 68, who moved to Haywood County a year ago.

But after the election I felt like I had to do something productive.

She began attending Progressive Nation meetings, and soon found herself being courted for a role as vice chair of the Maggie Valley precinct.

The credit again goes to Campbell, chair of the Haywood County Democratic Party. Curry said Campbell invited her to lunch and asked her consider taking on the vacant vice chair role.

From the very beginning, Progressive Nation and the Democratic Party in Haywood County have been working hand in glove, Curry said. We are absolutely working for the same agenda. We want a country for everybody, not just the top 1 or 2 percent.

Curry believes the symbiotic relationship will continue.

Progressive Nation is the immediate action wing of the Democratic Party the way I look at it. We are in it for the long haul, Curry said.

Curry wasnt the only one Campbell courted from the progressives to fill vacant party precinct seats. Campbell was well aware that progressives planned to show up at precinct meetings, and given their numbers, they would likely have the votes to go head to head with mainstream Democrats for precinct positions. So Campbell tried to find places to include progressives in the party leadership where there wouldnt be any opposition from a sitting Democrat.

In most cases, the longstanding Democrats who had been in that position for years were ready to abdicate that role, Campbell said.

Bill Messer was among the Democratic Party stalwarts who eagerly handed over his precinct chair to a progressive.

Id had it for years. When you are working on 77, it is time for change, said Messer, who lives in Bethel. I figured she could do a better job.

Campbell had alerted all the precinct chairs in the county to expect an influx of progressives at their annual precinct meetings in late February. So when Riley Covin opened his Beaverdam precinct meeting, it was the first thing he addressed.

I asked if there was anyone from the progressive group there. If so, we wanted to make sure they knew they were welcome, Covin said.

Then something unusual happened. Covins precinct crafted a resolution to introduce at the county convention two weeks later pledging to work collaboratively with Progressive Nation WNC.

Somebody suggested we need to work with the Progressive Nation movement in Haywood County because we have such similar goals and frankly we need all the help we can get, Covin said. There are a lot of young people involved in the progressive movement and we could use their energy and ideas, so it benefits us.

The resolution is symbolic in nature, stating that the Haywood County Democratic Party recognizes a kindred spirit in Progressive Nation WNC and seeks common ground to cooperate with Progressive Nation whenever and wherever possible.

Many had no idea the resolution was coming at the county convention. Even Campbell wasnt sure how it would go down.

I thought there would be some resistance, but it was unanimous, Campbell said.

Haywoods resolution will move on the district convention, and then to the state convention. Campbell wagers there will be similar resolutions from other counties, and they will somehow be wrapped into an overarching version.

The same story playing out in Haywood County has happened across North Carolina. President Obama, in his farewell speech, incited Americans to get involved in local politics if they didnt like where the country was headed. Apparently, the progressives were listening.

All across the state in March, hundreds of progressives claimed seats as precinct chairs and vice chairs in their local Democratic parties. In Wake County, roughly half the 800 Democrats who attended the annual county convention last month were brand new to the party establishment.

The progressive movement recently lobbied for recognition as an official caucus within the state party. The proposal came from a contingent of former Bernie Sanders supporters, and was passed by the partys state executive committee in February. The recognition not only means symbolic clout but a designated seat at the partys leadership table.

The real test of unity between Democrats and progressives remains to be seen, however. The relationship could be strained come primary time, when progressive candidates will likely square off against moderates for a spot on the Democratic ticket.

Progressives pose a risk to the party if they push a more liberal candidate to the forefront. A self-described progressive may have trouble winning a general election in WNCs conservative districts.

But primary competition within a party always creates some strain.

I dont think there is any more potential for that now than there would normally be within the party, Campbell said. The party was strained between Bernie and Hillary.

For now, where someone falls on the progressive scale just isnt part of the conversation, given the larger obstacles Democrats are facing.

We just arent even having those discussions about ideology at all, Curry said. I have never seen the Democratic Party so united as it is right now.

See the rest here:
Late to the party? Democrats welcome progressives in symbiotic ... - Smoky Mountain News

The Daily Banter

Cenk Uygur Denies Purity Tests For Progressives While ... The Daily Banter Why, how dare any of you neo-liberal corporate shills say that the hard left has purity tests?! That's just lie spread by the corrupt and useless establishment! and more »

See the original post here:
Cenk Uygur Denies Purity Tests For Progressives While ... - The Daily Banter

Most people close their eyes to unpleasantness in their past. Political movements do the same thing on a grander scale. Nowhere is this truer than in the willful blindness of twenty-first-century progressives to their early twentieth-century counterparts embrace of eugenics.

If you have spent any time in the conservative or pro-life movements, it is not news to you that the leading lights of progressive opinion a century ago openly embraced eugenics. Eugenics, the theory that social policies must be enacted to cull the bad genes from society, was popular among progressives across the developed world, including the United States. What constituted bad genes was, according to its proponents, a matter of scientific consensus. Today we would call it racism and classism.

After seeing the end result of such ideas in the Holocaust, progressives naturally sought to bury their connection to this genocidal concept, and succeeded in doing so, at least when they can discredit conservatives who persist in mentioning it. That problem bubbled to the surface last week when Bloombergs economist and writer Noah Smith tweeted, Apparently some people believe that eugenics was the scientific consensus 100 years ago. Sounds like a total myth to me.

That historical denialism did not go unnoticed. The editors of The New Atlantis, among others, pointed out the dangerous historical ignorance at work in that statement. Indeed, they went further than Smith and cracked a book or two to back up their points (see the thread here).

The New Atlantis is a journal about technology and society, and its writers demonstrated the horrible interaction between the two in eugenics. Citing from Edwin Blacks 2003 book, War Against the Weak, they described the scientific consensus on eugenics, with eugenicists firmly entrenched in the biology, zoology, social science, psychology and anthropology departments of the nations leading institutions of higher learning. The belief trickled down to high schools. A 1914 biology textbook, A Civic Biology, written by George William Hunter and issued by the nations largest book publisher, held that:

When people marry, there are certain things that the individual as well as the race should demand. The most important of these is freedom from germ diseases which might be handed down to the offspring. [] epilepsy and feeble-mindedness are handicaps which it is not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity. The science of being well born is called eugenics.

In case it is not clear what the author means, he goes on to describe what should be done about families that are not practitioners of the science of being well born.

Hundreds of families such as those described above exist to-day, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites.

If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe, and are now meeting with success in this country.

Eugenics grew only more popular from there. In 1921, Science magazine published the remarks of Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the American Museum of Natural History in New York and a leading proponent of eugenics. His slant on the topic was as much political as scientific, bemoaning the influx of immigrants to the United States who are unfit to share the duties and responsibilities of our well-founded government.

He called for eugenics supporters to enlighten government in the prevention of the spread and multiplication of worthless members of society, the spread of feeblemindedness, of idiocy, and of all moral and intellectual as well as physical diseases. Again, this was a prominent scientist who ran a museum in Americas largest city.

It is easy to see why a progressive would be ashamed to have this as a part of his intellectual heritage, but it is harder to understand why progressives have been permitted to sweep it under the rug so completely that even their own adherents have forgotten it. This was not a fringe theory. It was taught without controversy in colleges and high schools across the country, and a consensus of scientists attested to its validity. This was the received wisdom among social scientists, and it soon became the law of the land in many American states.

When something is a widely recognized scientific fact, any good progressive knows it must be made mandatory. Indiana passed the first eugenic sterilization law in 1907, and by the late 1920s a majority of states passed some form of sterilization law to cull the bad genes from society. The most famous of these was Virginias law allowing the sterilization of state asylum inmates without their consent. The law was challenged on equal protection and due process grounds, eventually reaching the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Buck v. Bell in 1927.

Before the appeal was heard, legal opinion followed scientific opinion in judging the law to be just and proper. In a Virginia Law Review note the year before the high court hearing, the author found no objection in the law, suggesting that even if the legitimacy of the science was uncertain, the state should be given the benefit of the doubt. Is there a grave social danger to the transmission of feeble-mindedness to posterity; and is sterilization an effective means of meeting that danger? These questions cannot at this stage of medical progress be answered be answered with any certainty. But simple doubt of the wisdom or policy of a statute is not decisive against its constitutionality.

The author also noted that the procedure could not be considered cruel and unusual punishment because it was not penal but purely eugenical and therapeutic. It was, in other words, for their own good.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmess opinion in Buck v. Bell the following year lacked any of the law review authors humility. Citing the lower court judgment on the facts of the case, Holmes wrote, Carrie Buck is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization.

His reasoning in the decision mirrored progressive opinion across the country. It is betterif instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. Noting that Bucks mother was a resident of the same asylum, Holmes wrote the famous damning statement, Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

The decision made forced sterilization legal, as far as the federal government was concerned. That would be evil enough, but modern research shows that the entire case was based on lies. Author Paul Lombardos Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell lays out the shocking, but ultimately unsurprising, truth that the state had exaggerated the degeneracy of Bucks conditions to make her sterilization easier to perform with legal sanction. Bucks feeble-mindedness was based on the testimony of people who barely knew her. Having a baby out of wedlock made her promiscuous in the eyes of state officials, although the circumstances of her pregnancy would, in modern law, have been called rape.

Bucks daughter, also judged by the state to be of subpar intelligence, was eight months old when that assessment was made. Lombardo interviewed Carrie Buck shortly before her death in 1983, and found her to be of normal intelligence. She was no danger to society; what she was, was poor and fertile. The progressive state could not accept that.

The widespread certainty in the justice and necessity of eugenics among scholars and legislators in the early twentieth century is beyond dispute. Concealing that historical truth is almost a requirement for the modern version of the progressive movement, however, because of the undeniable parallels between the eugenics movement and the current pseudo-science of the Left.

Declaring a scientific consensus to have been achieved and insisting on an end to discussion might seem familiar.

Declaring a scientific consensus to have been achieved and insisting on an end to discussion might seem familiar because it is identical to the way the Left talks about man-made global warming and treatments for transgender people. The thread of eugenics, also, is uninterrupted between the progressives of then and the abortion movement of today.

Planned Parenthoods founder, Margaret Sanger, was a leading eugenicist. In 1921, she wrote that the unbalance between the birth rate of the unfit and the fit [is] admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization and that the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. Time magazine sought to put this fact in context in a 2016 article, noting that in the 1920s and 1930s, eugenics enjoyed widespread support from mainstream doctors, scientists and the general public. Yes, yes it did.

Everything about 1910s and 20s progressives echoes in their modern intellectual descendants a century later. Absolute trust in government to do what is right. Certitude in their own scientific correctness, despite having seen settled science become unsettled with each generation. Knowing what is best for their fellow citizens, and the willingness to use force to overrule doubt and dissent. Even Hunters statement that all the Europeans are already doing it, so it must be good. But most of all, there is the repeated theme, the fervent belief that some people are not people, not really, not in any way that would make them deserve rights and liberty.

The progressive cause is helped by silence on this point, a silence so vast that even educated men like Noah Smith are ignorant of the movements past. Progressivism is relentless in its pursuit of an ideal future full of perfected humans. They can only achieve that by concealing the crimes of the past.

Kyle Sammin is a lawyer and writer from Pennsylvania. Read some of his other writing at kylesammin.com, or follow him on Twitter @KyleSammin.

See the original post here:
Refusing To Believe Early Progressives Loved Eugenics Will Not Erase The Horrible Truth - The Federalist