Pat Deneen does well to call attention to this confident comment by our President:
Stumping in Iowa on May 24, President Obama declared, “We don’t need another political fight about ending a woman’s right to choose, or getting rid of Planned Parenthood, or taking away affordable birth control. We don’t need that. I want women to control their own health choices, just like I want my daughters to have the same economic opportunities as my sons. We’re not turning back the clock. We’re not going back there.”
Pat loses me a bit when he goes on to connect that comment with the wacky Marxist hedonism of Shulamit Firestone (hadn’t heard her memorable name in years).
Obama’s comment is “merely” just what the Court said in PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY. Women are free individuals defining the mystery of their own being. They, like men, aren’t essentially biological beings. They aren’t breeding machines for the state. In order to be free and equal participants in our nation’s political and economic life, they need to be able to choose all means necessary not to be tied down biologically in a way men can’t be.
Now I don’t have the words to required to show my contempt for that quite unrealistic and basically anti-woman way of thinking. Still, it’s understandable. The Court believes it can use the single word “liberty” in the 14th Amendment to bring state law in line with the Constitution of 1787, which treats us all as free persons, and not as black or white, Christian or Jew, or man or woman. The president’s statement is, in an understandable way, Lockeanism run amok.
That kind of progressivism—where every generation thinks through more completely than one before the meaning of individual liberty—has to be distinguished quite radically from the sort of progressivism that organically treats people as members of a Great Community, favors the redistribution of wealth, civic education etc. It has nothing to do with the welfare state’s indefinite growth, at least in principle.
A libertarian would say: What we have here is one form of individualism (good) and one form of collectivism/historicism (bad).
I am not a libertarian. But we Straussians or whatever have to stop thinking of progressivism as a single anti-Lockean movement.
Actually, Pat does seem to think of all of progressivism as Lockeanism—the project of mastery or rational control—run amok. That’s wrong too. By identifying progressivism with Lockeanism, he can find an anti-progressive way not to vote for the essentially oligarchic Republicans.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
