How Progressive was the 'Progressive era'?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

F*ycking hell, banning liquor, in the 19th century was a progressive ideal (in many cases, support by most on the left, bar some) There were progressive reasons for this, such as stopping violence against women, alcohol problems among poor people, in many cases progressives enacted modern drug laws, to stop corporations (or any capitalist organisation) from the free selling of addictive drugs, and prohibition, worked in some regards and failed in others, while other drug laws, generally worked.

Neither was imprisoning political prisoners, nor segregation progressive, but a by product of the era, (progressives) fought against such things, these thing happened not because of the progressivism of such an era, or the fact as progressivism in such as an era didn't exist, but in spite of it.

Steralisation (racially) was (generally) opposed by progressives, however unfortunately many progressives support eugenics against people of disabilities.

Immigration Restrictions was supported by progressives, but that was because labour unions feared capitalist organisaitons would use cheap, foreign labour against the established working class. This was more supported because of progressive constituencies in trade unions and the (white) working class, though (some) trade unions were open to African-Americans.

It is a complicated era, with contradictions, but it did lay the foundation for many progressive reforms, that happened with FDR, and even progressive reforms under Teddy, Taft and Wilson, (however contradictory some aspects of their policy may have been).

I know all this, but it can't be denied that a lot of it was far from 'progressive' by current standards. Which if anything is a sign that 'progressive' is a much more deceptively ahistorical term than its construction as a word would lead one to think.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

F*ycking hell, banning liquor, in the 19th century was a progressive ideal (in many cases, support by most on the left, bar some) There were progressive reasons for this, such as stopping violence against women, alcohol problems among poor people, in many cases progressives enacted modern drug laws, to stop corporations (or any capitalist organisation) from the free selling of addictive drugs, and prohibition, worked in some regards and failed in others, while other drug laws, generally worked.

Neither was imprisoning political prisoners, nor segregation progressive, but a by product of the era, (progressives) fought against such things, these thing happened not because of the progressivism of such an era, or the fact as progressivism in such as an era didn't exist, but in spite of it.

Steralisation (racially) was (generally) opposed by progressives, however unfortunately many progressives support eugenics against people of disabilities.

Immigration Restrictions was supported by progressives, but that was because labour unions feared capitalist organisaitons would use cheap, foreign labour against the established working class. This was more supported because of progressive constituencies in trade unions and the (white) working class, though (some) trade unions were open to African-Americans.

It is a complicated era, with contradictions, but it did lay the foundation for many progressive reforms, that happened with FDR, and even progressive reforms under Teddy, Taft and Wilson, (however contradictory some aspects of their policy may have been).

I know all this, but it can't be denied that a lot of it was far from 'progressive' by current standards. Which if anything is a sign that 'progressive' is a much more deceptively ahistorical term than its construction as a word would lead one to think.

The thing is they weren't opposed to alcohol for conservative reasons, or inspite of their progressivism, but because of their progressive nature. Drug Laws came about alongside other progressive laws,in the US, and in other countries, by social democratic/liberal governments.

I'm just trying to reiterate that.

I know that too. I've actually made qualified defenses of some of the motives (but not outcomes) of Prohibition before.