 Episode 1 Individualism vs Progressivism Henry Adams, a direct descendant of two presidents, was one of the earliest proponents of what became known as Progressivism. In the late 19th century, Progressivism was taking hold of American elites who hoped to perfect society by engineering social policies that would transform people into obedient and ideal citizens. Adams believed America's individualist ethos stood in the way of this vision, declaring that the American people are obliged to choose between the principles of individualism and the principle of socialism. As Adams explained it, individualists sought to strictly limit the powers of the state, while Progressives, following the socialist principle, would merge the personality of the individual into that of the state. But what did this mean? First, it meant viewing society rather than the individual as the basic unit of social organization. Progressives believed social order had to be imposed uniformly by a coercive government and that society, an ambiguous concept, formed the state. The state would then establish itself as an administrative bureaucracy. Second, it meant placing decision-making power in the hands of government-appointed bureaucrats. These appointments were touted as experts who possessed the necessary wisdom to determine what was best for the American people as a whole. Essentially, Progressives contended that policies should prioritize the needs of society over the rights of individuals whom they considered too ignorant and selfish to make their own decisions. Writing 60 years after Henry Adams, economist Friedrich Hayek defended individualism against the progressive assault. True individualism, Hayek argued, affirms the value of the family, believes in local autonomy, and contends that much for which the coercive action of the state is usually invoked can be done better by voluntary collaboration. He believed social order emerged spontaneously as individuals interacted with each other, forming families and communities. To Hayek, the essential difference between the individualist and progressive philosophies was how they affected the decision-making process, which came down to questions of incentives, knowledge, and responsibility. In other words, who has the interests of your family and mind, who best understands your unique needs and constraints, and who pays for the decisions people make? The progressive philosophy holds that the state is responsible for doing what's best for society as a whole. That decision-making should be centralized because only expert bureaucrats have the necessary expertise to know what's truly best. The costs for maintaining the society and its infrastructure should be shared by everyone. Think of building and maintaining roads, bridge construction, power grids, things that benefit society broadly, should be paid for by everyone. The individualist philosophy, in contrast, recognizes that you care more about your family's well-being, and are more knowledgeable about your particular circumstances than Washington experts. The costs of any and all of these decisions that affect society should be privatized, that you should be responsible for your own choices, not those made by distant strangers. The choice between these two philosophies affects all areas of life, but perhaps nowhere is the difference between them more pronounced than in the decisions we face regarding our children's education.