Progressives Then and Now: Tracing Managerial Racism from the 19th Century to Today

This white paper examines how Progressive Era paternalism evolved into modern race-conscious “DIE” policies, highlighting a continuous reliance on top-down racial management that, despite new justifications, preserves the same core structure of “expert-driven” discrimination.

Introduction

From the aftermath of the Civil War through today’s Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE) movement, a single powerful idea has shaped numerous American policies: top-down, “expert-driven” social engineering based on race. Although the justification for such engineering has swung wildly—from overtly suppressing racial “undesirables” to ostensibly “uplifting” marginalized communities—the underlying structure remains the same. This white paper explores how Progressive Era paternalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries laid the groundwork for racially charged governance, how Democratic Party leaders helped institutionalize these approaches, and how modern antiracist frameworks continue to rely on race as the central lever of control.

Far from dismantling oppressive systems, these new forms of “ethical” or “antiracist” discrimination frequently serve as a fresh veneer over the same paternalistic machinery—comparable, some argue, to “house slaves” who benefit from and perpetuate the master’s system while claiming to be champions of the oppressed. By tracing this lineage from Jim Crow to eugenics and onward to affirmative action and DIE, we see that the same managerial ethos—often claiming a moral imperative—justifies official reliance on race, even if the ostensible goals have changed.

1. Background: Key Moments in Democratic Racial Policies (1865–Present)

Below is a highlighted timeline of how, in virtually every era since the Civil War, the Democratic Party (especially in the South at first, then nationally) advanced racial policies that courts or subsequent laws later repudiated:

  • 1860s–1870s (Reconstruction and Black Codes)
    Following the Civil War, Southern Democrats enacted Black Codes, restricting newly freed Black Americans’ movements and opportunities. These codes were precursors to a system of segregation, ultimately undermined by Republican-led Reconstruction but revived once federal oversight waned.

  • 1880s–1950s (Jim Crow)
    Southern Democrats institutionalized Jim Crow, mandating segregated facilities, schools, and public life. The Supreme Court later deemed many of these laws unconstitutional (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 1954).

  • 1900s–1930s (Progressive Era & Eugenics)
    In this era, many Democratic-aligned reformers supported scientific racism and eugenics, passing laws on forced sterilization and strict immigration quotas. Although not all Democrats uniformly embraced such measures, leading Progressive thinkers within the party had significant influence. Courts gradually curtailed these policies, especially after World War II discredited eugenicist ideas.

  • 1950s–1960s (Segregation vs. Civil Rights)
    The Dixiecrats, a segregationist faction within the Democratic Party, fiercely resisted desegregation and civil rights legislation. Over time, national Democrats shifted to championing civil rights laws, dismantling de jure segregation but simultaneously laying foundations for new forms of race-based government intervention.

  • 1970s–1990s (Affirmative Action & Racial Quotas)
    Under Presidents and Congresses dominated or significantly influenced by Democrats, various affirmative action programs emerged, sometimes involving racial quotas. Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978) declared explicit quotas illegal, though race could still be considered a “factor.”

  • 2000s–2020s (DIE Movement & Modern Antiracism)
    Race-based admissions and hiring policies proliferated under “Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity,” championed by Democratic-led institutions. In 2023, the Court’s Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard & UNC decision again confirmed the unconstitutionality of race-based admissions processes, underscoring a recurring pattern: Democrats enact race-driven policies later deemed to violate equal protection.

This history reveals a continuous reliance on race as a basis for lawmaking or policy—first for explicit suppression, later for “remedial” discrimination. Regardless of the moral justification, critics note that these initiatives entrench the power of governmental or institutional “experts” who administer race-based rules from above.

2. Progressive Era Racism: The Managerial DNA

The Progressive Era (roughly 1890s–1920s) introduced a strong conviction that professional “experts” and scientists could improve society through centralized coordination. On one hand, it produced laudable reforms such as child labor laws and safer food practices; on the other, it spawned eugenics and legitimized racial hierarchies, especially in Northern Democratic strongholds where social scientists established entire bureaucracies to measure “fitness.”

While Southern Democrats enforced Jim Crow through local legislatures, Northern Progressives of both parties often endorsed immigration quotas, forced sterilizations, and social-engineering schemes aimed at “unfit” races or classes. Although these separate factions had different immediate goals, both operated within a paternalistic framework—a self-declared elite allocating privileges or punishments along racial lines.

By the mid-20th century, the horrors of Nazi Germany discredited eugenics, but many of these Progressive structures did not disappear. Instead, some leaders merely repurposed the machinery for new ends—just as the rhetoric about who was “unfit” or “inferior” evolved, so too did the moral justification for continuing to categorize, segregate, or favor groups by race.

3. The Apparent Moral Break: From Suppressing to “Uplifting”

Between the 1950s and 1960s, the Democratic Party claimed the moral high ground by supporting civil rights legislation, apparently repudiating Southern Democrats’ long reign of segregation. While this was an undeniable victory for formal equality, it also paved the way for further federal interventions in racial matters—this time in the name of uplifting formerly oppressed groups. Under President Lyndon B. Johnson, landmark civil-rights acts ended state-enforced segregation, even as the administration quietly established race-conscious preferences for federal contractors and educational institutions.

Thus, although the rhetoric shifted to “affirmative action” or “remedial programs,” the same premise re-emerged: the government would officially rely on race to engineer outcomes, believing a more equitable society would result if the “right” elites set the right racial rules. Critics argue that what changed was the target—no longer “keep them out” but “let them in” disproportionately—yet the paternalistic framework remained. Lawmakers still believed they knew how best to manage racial demographics in schools and workplaces.

4. From “Dixiecrat” Racism to Northern Progressive Continuities

One commonly cited milestone is the Dixiecrat break—the mass departure or marginalization of southern segregationists who opposed civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. Because these individuals were so visibly hostile to Black Americans’ equality, their downfall is often portrayed as a decisive moral turning point, supposedly cleansing the Democratic Party of its racist past.

However, focusing on Dixiecrats’ explicit segregationism can overshadow another reality: Northern Democrats, who had long professed more “enlightened” racial views than their Southern counterparts, never truly abandoned the Progressive Era commitment to race-based social engineering. Although Dixiecrats were discredited and often switched parties or lost influence, the “northern (and often urban) Democratic tradition” of managerial racial policies remained intact. From early 20th-century eugenic reforms to Great Society programs and modern DIE frameworks, many leading Democrats believed the government should and could be used to shape racial outcomes for the “greater good.”

Critics thus argue that highlighting Dixiecrats’ collapse provides a propaganda cover—letting the party celebrate having purged open segregationists while quietly preserving the paternalistic mindset of “experts decide by race.” While the moral language has shifted from “inferior vs. superior” to “oppressed vs. privileged,” the overarching structure—official reliance on race—did not vanish. Indeed, the repeated legal and constitutional challenges to race-based measures reflect an ongoing pattern: each generation of Democrats implements racially prescriptive policies (once Jim Crow, now DIE), only to have courts eventually rule them incompatible with genuine equal protection.

5. Continuities from the Progressive Era to Now

A useful way to see the parallels is by contrasting the earlier paternalistic era with its modern reflection. The table below summarizes how seemingly distinct policies align under a single worldview:

Dimension Then (Early 1900s) Now (21st Century)
Underlying Belief Experts can engineer a better society by regulating “unfit” or “inferior” races.
(Eugenics, Jim Crow)		 Experts can engineer a more “equitable” society by prioritizing underrepresented races.
(DIE, “Antiracism”)
Rhetorical Focus “Prevent the unfit from reproducing, protect the superior classes.” “Remedy historical injustice, uplift marginalized communities.”
Mechanism Forced sterilizations, segregation, immigration quotas, IQ-based screening. Race-conscious admissions, hiring quotas, demographic targets, DEI audits.
View of the Individual Defined by group membership—worth or rights hinge on race. Again, defined by group membership—still distributing opportunities by race.
Resulting Policy Systemic oppression (Jim Crow, eugenics) rarely beneficial to “unfit” races. Systemic favoritism for some groups, perceived or actual disadvantage for others (e.g., “overrepresented” Asians/Jews).
Ultimate Logic Top-down paternalism: an elite decides social outcomes based on race. Still top-down paternalism: an elite decides which groups need “equity.”

While the early 1900s featured overt racism and the modern era features “benevolent” or “remedial” rationales, critics see them as two sides of the same paternalistic coin—power brokers manipulate racial categories to shape society, trusting in their own expert authority to do so.

6. Modern DIE: A Fresh Coat of Paint on the Same Machine?

Contemporary Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity initiatives promise to “dismantle systemic oppression.” Yet many within the movement serve as cogs in a racial-management apparatus that remains firmly in place. Rather than destroying racist thinking, critics say DIE simply redistributes which groups are “privileged” under official policy. The analogy of “house slaves” underscores the idea that, although DIE advocates claim moral opposition to oppressive structures, they still operate inside the master’s system—helping maintain a fundamental reliance on race-based governance.

This point gains clarity when observing who is penalized and who is rewarded by modern “antiracist” measures. Whereas Jim Crow–style laws once singled out African Americans for exclusion, present race-conscious programs often single out Asians or Jews as “overrepresented”—in effect telling them to step aside so others can meet set targets. Courts have responded that such policies violate basic equal protection principles, highlighting a recurring pattern: Democrats legislate by race (with changed rationales) only to see those laws or policies struck down, whether it’s segregation back then or race-based admissions today.

7. Implications: Perpetual “Temporary” Measures

One of the starkest criticisms is that these race-based efforts, proclaimed as “transitional,” often lack any exit strategy. During the Progressive Era, paternalistic racists promised they were only controlling the “unfit” until society reached a more perfect state. Now, paternalistic racists argue they are merely balancing historic wrongs and will eventually return to colorblindness. In reality, every iteration of race-based policy tends to extend indefinitely, updated with new euphemisms and moral arguments whenever the old justifications wear thin.

Thus, the question remains whether any form of race-based social engineering—no matter how benevolent its intent—can avoid replicating the same structural racism it aims to defeat. Each time courts dismantle one system, another reappears under the same party’s guidance, championed as the latest remedy for social ills. If the overarching worldview remains anchored in dividing humans by race and trusting a managerial elite to fix “imbalances,” the result is arguably a perpetuation rather than a termination of racial frameworks.

Conclusion

Progressives then and now have championed numerous race-driven policies under varied banners: “scientific management,” eugenics, Jim Crow, affirmative action, and now “antiracism” or DIE. The thread uniting them is the conviction that paternalistic, expert-led interventions—always guided by race—offer the surest path to a better society. Whether the goal is to exclude the “unfit” or uplift the “underrepresented,” the means are remarkably similar: gather racial data, devise policies that treat groups differently, and assume that social engineers know best.

Historically, Democratic majorities in different states or at the federal level have been the primary enforcers of Jim Crow segregation, eugenics laws, and modern race-based preferences—only to see courts repeatedly rule these policies unconstitutional or otherwise unjust. The underlying premise, critics argue, remains the same: it is still managerial racism, albeit wrapped in evolving moral justifications. If this paternalism continues unchallenged, it may well produce new forms of racial injustice, ensuring the cycle persists. The lesson from history is that any reliance on racial classification—whether it claims to suppress or uplift—risks perpetuating the very divides society professes to be healing.