MLK, BHO, and Moral Progress

by Will Wilkinson on January 19, 2009

It puzzles me a little that the idea of moral progress is still in such poor repute among intellectuals. It’s easy to see how Whiggish meliorism would seem naive at the center of the last century when the immense productivity gains of the modern era of growth brought “productivity” gains to the enterprise of mass coercion and death-dealing. But even then we were getting a distorted picture. That there were more people than ever alive to kill, that there was better technology with which to document concentrated carnage, led us understandably to miss that, despite all of this well-reported horror, we were on the whole becoming more civilized, more peaceful, better.

Indeed, over the past half-century, progress has been so rapid that perhaps with distance we might come to think of it as the Great Era of Moral Progress.

I was thinking about this today while reading Martin Luther King Jr’s great “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” It is impossible to read King’s enumeration of injustices — injustices still fresh in the memories of my parents’ and grandparents’ generations — and to not feel sickened and then gladdened at the staggering moral distance we’ve traveled in such a short time.

Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

To say that we are better, that our moral culture has progressed, is not to say that it could not be better still. But thanks to MLK, to those who marched beside him, and to the tens of millions to whom he gave such a powerful voice, we have become better. The idea that ours is a culture in moral stagnation or decline is simply preposterous. Martin Luther King Day is an excellent time to expose the silliness of the moral stasists and declinists. It’s an excellent time to celebrate the profound and rapid progress we have made, and can continue to make.

Now, I’m cynical about the romantic personality cult around Barack Obama because I am cynical about the romantic personality cult around the American presidency, which, because it is contemptible and stupid, demands cynicism. I think I’m not being cynical about liberal democratic politics when I concede that it is a very advanced, civilized, and relatively peaceful form of organized coalitional agression. But I’m definitely not cynical about what Barack Obama’s election means in light of the “Letter from the Birmingham Jail.” I’m admiring, I’m proud, of that.

Because I intend to be pretty hard on Obama, the politician, and his starry-eyed, mush-headed followers, I think it’s important to note that it’s not only possible, but morally recommended, to assume a posture that ought to be comfortable, but is in fact culturally awkward. One should both recognize in Obama a real symbol of morally meaningful cultural change and attack the romance of democracy and the cult of the presidency — because that is the direction of further moral progress.

Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day!

  • Amicus
    Will, with respect, your post reads like a prime example of why the original cynics ... never got anywhere, politically or in terms of 'moral progress'.

    "Organized aggression"? "Mush headed followers"? Your lame attempt at any disambiguation, if that was your goal, is hamstrung by your tone, if not your entire philosophy of moral progress.
  • Amicus,

    I don't think that people who stop thinking because they're distracted by the tone (many as they are) comprise Will's target audience.

    I, personally, like the color and the snark in some of Will's pronouncements. I don't always agree with him, but I always appreciate getting a sense of how annoyed or excited certain ideas and people get him. And, it's often funny.

    I think we can all agree that he's unelectable as a politician. But, I suspect that most people who like to think about the ideas he writes about find it more pleasant than dry, scholarly, arguments.

    And, maybe some of those people will help influence the masses towards progress.
  • Amicus
    Sorry, if I don't find the leeway you do.

    Frankly, I'm rather frustratingly bored to see the continual equation of "liberal" with "mush headed".

    And I don't see any intellectually superior or insouciant position of Will's that makes it interesting analysis to more or less label 'liberal moral progress' (or Obama) as something like Le Bon Doctor, Malgre Lui.
  • I didn't read Will to imply that "liberal" and "mush headed" were equivalent.

    I think he sees some (the ones he's going to be hard on) of Obama's followers as "starry-eyed" and "mush headed". That seems uncontroversially true to me. Some are.

    And, I haven't seen anything he's written that implied that either 'liberal moral progress' or Obama were farcical.

    You seem to be bringing some of these ideas with you, rather than finding them here.
  • Amicus
    Really? Just bringing them with me?

    I think you are finding more in the text than is there.

    Is there something positive or decent about Liberals or Liberalism that is clearly and unequivocally brought forward in this piece?

    If there were, it might substantiate your qualification, "some", but really I don't see it.
  • How can you not see it?

    The main point of the post is about the tremendous moral progress we've made in terms of civil equality. The civil rights movement was largely a liberal project, and Will enthusiastically supports and praises it.

    It's the personality cultishness that he insults. That's richly deserved.
  • Amicus
    ... the personality cultishness .... That's richly deserved.
    =====
    When I think over the leaders of the past, say, 50 years, and those who truly worked to develop personality cults for themselves and used it to wield significant power, I cannot help but think that Mr. Obama is ... bush league, when it comes to 'personality cutlishness'...

    I guess we just differ in our assessments.
  • I'm guessing that we also differ in who those might be. Despite your reference to Bush (I just don't see it), my first thoughts were Kennedy and Clinton.

    And, of course, if you'd gone back further we'd have to acknowledge FDR.
  • Amicus
    Who is "we" in your writing and in Will's?

    As I say, it's not in the text: "thanks to MLK, to those who marched beside him [any mush-heads?], and to the tens of millions to whom he gave such a powerful voice [any starry-eyed?], we have become better."

    Where is the positive nod to liberals or liberalism, in that? Or here:

    "I think I’m not being cynical about liberal democratic politics when I concede that it is a very advanced, civilized, and relatively peaceful form of organized coalitional agression."

    Is that "enthusiastic" praise for liberals/liberalism or a liberal project?

    No, the tenor is, 'boy, I'm sure proud of where 'we've' got to", despite those contemptible, mush-headed liberal followers of Obama, etc.

    Here, I'll go a step further. Without the "mush heads" or "starry-eyed" of their day, do you think there would be Wilkersonian pride today?
  • I don't think he was using "liberal" or "democratic" in the way you think he was.
  • webgrrl
    Amicus:

    In the name of Barbara Millicent Roberts, I can't believe it's true - Irony, snark and wit have overrun the Intert00bz? No. I suppose since John Stewart hasn't been invented yet, WW should go back to quoting Quine?

    Amicably,
    Skipper
  • Amicus
    I haven't read enough Wilkenson to know, honestly; but he couldn't go wrong with better quidditas/quiditties, from Quine or otherwise.
  • Will, no argument from me on those who've gone off the deep end, of which there are certainly many.
  • Will,
    Interesting post. I'm an occasional reader of your site and often find your posts thoughtful and provocative, and as I'm a registered Democrat and enthusiastic supporter of the new president, I find it interesting to always see things from another political perspective.

    That said...I agree with you that a lot of people have become parodies in their fawning over Obama, but I'm really, really TIRED of being cast as a, "starry-eyed, mush-headed followers." It's as if people think you have to be a total Kool-Aid drinker to support the man. One can have considered reasons to support Obama and those reasons don't lead them all to think Obama is some sort of political messiah. Enthusiasm for a new direction does not have to equate to being a follower of a political cult, which seems to be the only way that some people can refer to people who backed Obama.

    I look forward to reading your thoughts as the new administration progresses.
  • Mike P... I really didn't mean that all Obama supporters are starry-eyed and mush-headed. I favored Obama over McCain during the campaign myself. I meant that lots of Obama's supporters ARE starry-eyed, mush-headed, and culty as I'm sure you can agree (especially if you watch the Demi and Ashton video embedded below), and those people in particular need to be told to get a grip.
  • Mark R.
    I'm afraid you and I don't get to say this:

    "...we have become better. The idea that ours is a culture in moral stagnation or decline is simply preposterous. Martin Luther King Day is an excellent time to expose the silliness of the moral stasists and declinists. It’s an excellent time to celebrate the profound and rapid progress we have made, and can continue to make."

    You and I are young, male, and white; we've not been long at the center of any kind of personal or systemic target. This isn't about feeling bad or guilty. Perception emerges from experience, right? So how can we make these kinds of statements, judging how life has changed for someone else, let alone a group of people, extending to other times and places?
  • James
    "moral progress is still in such poor repute among intellectuals." Examples please. You measure moral progress as the, oh, for a trivial example, FOR or AGAINST Prop 8?

    You've confused the CAPACITY to do harm with the WILL to do harm? How old are you? I would expect this from my 17 yo.

    Wait, this must be performance art? "mush-headed followers"? That's it, it's some risible entreaty.

    I'm an Obama supporter, here in hard red Texas, and I've got to say, mush headed is among the light-weight-i-est of slings my way. Here, let me try: It's rare to see such addlepated commentary promulgated as insight, even with an obtuse reference the "Whigs". Ah CATO! You've filled a void with the demise of the strip Peanuts.
  • webgrrl
    @James

    Prop. 8 actually isn't a trivial example. The California court determined that the marriage laws were unconstitutional and violated basic rights in that state. You may not like it, but we'll assume the California court knows the state constitution fairly well and that what they deemed was true. What's frightening about Prop 8 is that a mere referendum - a majority of the popular vote - could take away people's constitutional rights. If you find that small potatoes, you're scary.

    As for the snark against WW, not to judge you or anything, but I think you mean "abstruse" not "obtuse." I myself wondered a bit at the Whiggish, since while they were associated with a drive towards modernization, progress etc. they were also somewhat protectionist, no?
  • Peanuts was a masterpiece.
  • "The idea that ours is a culture in moral stagnation or decline is simply preposterous."

    What about the monsters who want to raise labor standards in the third world? Last I checked, "nationalist liberal egalitarians" were peddling "morally unserious arbitrary nonsense".

    C'mon man, make up your mind!
  • Moral progress proceeds through moral criticism, such as the kind contained in Dr. King's letter.

    For the record, I want to raise labor standards in the "third world."
  • "Moral progress proceeds through moral criticism..."

    Hm. If the issues you had with "liberal egalitarians" were primarily moral in nature, this would be a powerful argument. It seems to me, though, that you would agree that their unseriousness stems from their failure to address the consequences of capital flight, which is an economic issue, not from a failure to agree with us that sweatshops/trash sifitng are bad.

    It's kind of hard to take your concern for the global poor seriously when you expend such rhetorical energy impugning the moral character of others who you claim share you concerns. How are you not a concern troll here?

    By the way, comparing this contribution to the debate on global poverty to Dr. King's letter shows that you, sir, (as Colbert might say) have huge balls.
  • "Capital flight" is not a non-moral issue. The fact that you frame it in those terms implies that you are making a moral error, which is that capital (including human capital) in some sense belongs to the jurisdiction in which it originates. What I argue is that upgrading sweatshop conditions -- even at its best, where there is no loss of employment -- has a trivial effect on the welfare of the poor compared to relatively small increase in the freedom to access wealthier labor markets. Please read Lant Pritchett's Let Their People Come.

    A small contribution is still a contribution, isn't it?
  • Forgive me if I have created the impression that I am claiming that capital flight is a non-moral issue. What I'm saying is that to the extent that capital flight has results that are harmful to the cause of economic empowerment of the poor it should be regulated. This isn't a judgment concerning where capital "belongs", but rather to observe and criticize the results of completely untethering it from other forms of capital (i.e. social, human, natural). Since, in this case, it is easier to regulate the movement of financial capital than it is to give billions access to wealthier labor markets, the preponderance of moral obligation seems to lie on the capital side of the equation at this point. Your moral error, as I see it, is to see an equivalence, given the current situation, between capital regulation and immigration liberalization regarding both costs and effects. This is compounded by the enthusiasm with which you condemn those who reside on the same coin as you, but are simply focused on the other side of it (an inelegant metaphor, but time's a wasting...).

    You're welcome to move that pile of sand with tweezers, and to point proudly at your accomplishments so far, but I'm more inclined to criticize you for ignoring the shovel at your feet.

    I will, however, look into your reading recommendation, and, just to be clear, I do favor liberal immigration policies.
  • What gives, Will? Too busy to concede the point?
  • Will Wilkinson, you happen to have "super-liberal" values in part because people like King were victorious. If instead segregationists had won and turned all of America into an apartheid state you (or the average observer) would more likely be an anti-liberal who celebrated the moral progress made after the late unpleasantness. Winners write the history books, which is why the Soviet Union's reputation isn't as bad as Nazi Germany's and the American "Patriots" are not viewed as hypocritical thugs. For my own part I don't believe in objective moral truth and so find the concept of "moral progress" to be meaningless. There is simply what is, and that is all.
  • I don't get you. Yes, the values we have now are caused by earlier changes in values. Yes, there is history. Yes, history could have gone in any number of directions. But some of them are better and some are worse. For instance, it would have been better if the reputation of the Soviets had turned out worse than it is. (The Soviets were winners who wrote the history books?) You're operating on the assumption that moral evaluation is meaningful only if moral truth is grandly transcendental. But moral truth is not grandly transcendental and it's meaningful, so you've gone wrong somewhere.
  • The Soviets won WW2 but lost the Cold War. I'm saying that the same changes deemed "moral progress" also change the grounds on which we evaluate such changes as "moral" and common conceptions of "moral progress" include the changing of other people's conceptions of what is "moral". Your observation that there seems to be moral progress basically mean "I am a product of historical changes and identify with them". To someone that preceded those changes and may well have looked upon them with horror if they had foreseen them, you have NO OBJECTIVE WAY of showing your opinion to be more correct (and symmetrically, neither to they).
  • Random Walk
    In other words, you can expect 'moral progress' leading *up to your current values* for anthropic/observer selection reasons, but you have less reason to expect that to continue into the future.

    What if we extend our circle of moral concern to animals, and then to possible beings, and thus create a Repugnant Conclusion-like world of vast numbers of impoverished entities with lives just barely worth living? What if we get the same effect from natural selection on values (both memetic selection for pro-fertility religions/ideologies and genetic selection for relevant personality traits)? What if market pressures lead people to modify themselves into beings that do not indulge in what you would call eudaimonia? (http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/evolution.html) What if advances in neuroscience lead us all to become wireheads or plug into Nozickian Experience Machines?

    There are many incompatible extrapolations we could make, and you would find many of them appalling. It would be a mistake to be confused by the anthropic reasons for your endorsement of past changes into undue optimism or complacency about future values.
  • Agreed.
    A relevant interview with Alan "Utilitarian" Durst here:
    http://hooverhog.typepad.com/hognotes/2008/10/i...

    I imagine an "apocalyptic imperative" for such reasons here:
    http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2008/0...
  • It's fun to read a utilitarian crazy enough to take it seriously.

    Anyway, I evidently need to do a post on how moral relativism, which is true, is compatible with moral progress, which is real.
  • Random Walk
    If you write that post, I'm curious about how you justify not continuing to extend the circle of moral concern to animals and possible people (as well as distant people elsewhere in the universe, with their own preferences about this region).
  • Clearly, the progress is not universal.
  • webgrrl
    And sometimes a tad slow. But it comes, nonetheless.
  • On a day when a good number of headlines have been about how racism is far less of a perceived problem than it was even ten years ago, it's hard to understand exactly who you mean doesn't think that the US has been making moral progress unless you mean the religious right which tends to think the whole country is going to hell in a hand basket.
  • webgrrl
    Ah Lee you obviously have never had the pleasure during these last 8 years to spend more than 15 minutes in Katrina vanden Heuvel's charming company, or taken tea with M. Tomasky. My situation's well-known but even I at time thought them possibly on the "Death to America Great Satan oppressor" email list.
  • Henry H.
    Why are you not a NYT columnist yet? The huge majority of your blog posts - this one is no exception - are better than anything I've ever read in that paper's op-ed pages.
  • Random Walk
    Don't you mean 'moral progress towards the super-liberal values that I happen to have'? If you define the current settings of our moral machinery, then of course we will find that there has been 'progress.' To some of those with higher purity and authority settings, much of what you call progress is decline.

    If future evolutionary pressures, combined with powerful technologies of self-modification, result in Earth-descended life evolving into collectivistic hive-beings monomaniacally obsessed with reproduction at all costs, then they will also be able to note 'moral progress,' in the face of what you or I might see as moral disaster.
  • "Don't you mean 'moral progress towards the super-liberal values that I happen to have'?"

    Sure. So what?
  • Random Walk
    So there's an observation selection effect. You don't have as much reason to expect continued moral progress by your lights as you would have if your values were determined by a process independent of recent trends.
  • mk
    That's true.
  • webgrrl
    I am now over 40 years old. Let me note obvious improvements in my lifetime:

    1 - Griswold v. Connecticut
    2 - Loving v. Virginia
    3 - Homosexuality removed from the DSM
    4 - Roe v. Wade
    5 - The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, still more honored in the breach, but extant nonetheless
    6 - The UN Convention Against Discrimination and Abuse of Women, again, more honored in the breach in many countries
    7 - The UN Convention Against Torture, no comment
    8 - Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
  • GU
    I agree that all of these are improvements. But, do important legal decisions show the moral progress of "society," or the moral progress of tiny portion of society (federal judges)?
  • Webgrrl
    It shows that unlike many other countries our justice system is strong and respected. That America's 3-branch system works to ensure justice is done and the promise of liberty is extended to all as the Founding Fathers clearly stated.
  • Well said.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: