From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article should be written. By that I mean having the entire article be a quote doesn't tell anyone anything except you are lazy. Rellik 15:47, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

After World War I

Where did all of the progressives go? Did they all of a sudden give up their ideas, admit that they were wrong, and seek another path? Or did they just put on masks and change the label on the box?

Section: Understanding Progressive Ideology

I created a simple table to help illustrate the claims of Progressivism about how "x group" or "x initiative" will be helped, but in reality the actual beneficiary is always, always big government.

Looking at the platform of the Bull Moose Party(and I hope every conservative will read this platform) there are some things that are so nebulous that they can't be quantified. It's merely campaign rhetoric.(Campaign rhetoric is not necessarily good nor bad, it just is) Examples of this from the platform are the section on "The Old Parties", and some parts of the section on "Social and Industrial Justice". Conversely, the call for a living wage needs no explanation needs no explanation in the table, along with others.

Amendment of the Constitution
This is a long time dream of progressives, to finally get around that pesky Constitution. The beneficiary they point to is a nebulous "the people". What the progressives ended up settling on is the concept of the Living Constitution. Since Judges can on a whim decide what the Constitution means at any given moment, the progressives no longer have a need for a reform of the amendment process. The Judges do it in real-time now.

The dream of progressives has long been to control the land of the country. Where we are at today, 2016, states like Alaska, Utah, and Oregon all have over a 50% Federal ownership in their land. Nevada is almost 85% owned, there are more than 10 states with more than 33% Federal ownership. One thing that progressives are very good at is grabbing at the "low hanging fruit". Get everybody to agree that government intrusion is necessary now, and then once government intrusion has been established as a fact, haggle over the details later.

The Old Left

Many of the original progressives were republicans, and where they weren't, they were not generally favorable to the competing socialist movement.

Herbert Croly, Jane Addams, Learned Hand, Felix Frankfurter, Hiram Johnson, Albert J. Beveridge, Boies Penrose, Alf Landon, Frank Knox, Theodore Roosevelt, Hamilton Fish, John M. Parker, Gifford Pinchot, Thomas R. Marshall, and A. Mitchell Palmer. Mitchell Palmer might be the most stark of everybody in the list, being both a progressive and a democrat. One of the best-known parts of Palmer's legacy was the "Palmer Raids", also known as the first Red Scare. There's not much more that can be done to demonstrate anti-communism than knocking heads, rounding them up, and throwing away the key. And deportations in some cases.

Being anti-communist or anti-socialist does not then mean that progressives are good people, at least not in the context of their belief that government should control every aspect of your life. Of which all progressives did or do believe. The Bull Moose platform as well as the Second Bill of Rights are declarations of total government control.

This section is need of RobS's thoughts. Progressingamerica (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
Progressivism was hijacked by immigrant socialists and anarchists. The "Progressive Party", such that it existed, was low-hanging fruit for being hicked by the Comintern after 1921.
The Wall Street bombing of 1919 (see here Alger_Hiss#Early_career) caused the most stringent immigration reform up to that point (in 1927); European radicals, socialists, and anarchists, had masqueraded as progressives between the 1880s and 1920s. All the original reformers abandoned progressivism after the 1919 bombing (Bob Lafollette lingered on for awhile).
The early Progressive Republicans were people who loved America, and had a proud heritage as Civil War victors. Republican Progressivism was also the post-Reconstruction civil rights movement, opposed by segregationist Democrats. Republicans for the most part (Harold Stassen notwithstanding) abandoned the progressive label after the 1920s (Look at both Harold Stassen and Henry Wallace's platforms in 1948, who both ran as Progressives that year, to understand the difference between Republican Progressivism and Democrat Progressivism as it evolved from the end of WWI til 1948).
So while Republican Progressivism lingered on in Wisconsin and Minnesota for some time after the 1919 Wall Street bombing, immigration reform in 1927 killed it, as it acquired a reputation associated with sedition. Scott Walker sparked some debate when he claimed the mantle of Progressivism during his recall election; in Wisconsin it's still basically associated with being a reformer. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:22, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
This has been troubling me since I first read it, and I want to make sure you have the opportunity to summarize this down correctly in case I am misunderstanding.
Is it your intention to tell me that you believe there were good big-government progressives? Specifically, do you think the original big-government progressives of the 1900s were "good progressives"? Progressingamerica (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
I'm saying Progressivism has different shades of meaning since the original popularization of the term c.1882. I've summarized the basic thesis here (Democratic_Party#Civil_service_replaces_Reconstruction_and_the_spoils_system) and here (Civil_service_system#U.S._civil_service.
It cannot be understood without a full understanding of the Spoils system and Political patronage (and their potential for rampant corruption), which still exists in many states and municipalities. Additionally, it has nothing to do with social policy, other than lifetime bureaucrats attempting to hold onto their jobs and implement social spending programs legislated by elected officials, which itself is a hybrid Spoils system that extends itself past a two year election cycle.
The early progressives would be Cleveland and TR Roosevelt; the middling progressives would be Colonel House, and V.I. Lenin, who introduced the idea of specialized technocrats beyond merely non-partisan civil servants (See also Wisconsin Idea for how this came about).
The Civil War was fought over the notion of popular sovereignty - that a majority of white male voters over 18 could vote to restrict black rights and make slavery legal in any state - and a civil service under the spoils system would enforce it. The Republican party, founded in 1854, was a single issue party that captured the White House and Congress in six years. After the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment, it had no reason to exist other than to administer the Spoils system in both North and South. Veterans of the Grand Army of the Republic were its beneficiaries. The same old rampant corruption, coupled with post-Civil War violence (i.e. the Ku Klux Klan which was the remnants of the Democratic party and civil service beneficiaries of the Spoils system in the South) made the proper functioning of the civil service and the spoils system impossible. The "Progressive Era" was born, to create a society in which people could live without violence (segregation was a form of "popular sovereignty" and the spoils system that survived on the state level).
In the period from about 1900 to the New Deal, unionization and collective bargaining rights crept into Progressive rhetoric. Here's where socialism - an import from Europe - crept in. After WWII, more specifically the early 1960s, unionization was so widespread and politically powerful, unionization of civil service began. This is where a Marxist-Leninist form of socialism took shape in federal, state, and municipal civil service systems (although it had its roots in the New Deal).
Progressivism began as Civil Service reform; it ended with civil servants handing out welfare and food stamps allocated by their paymasters (elected officials) in the name of "compassion" and "fairness" to buy votes, maintain power for themselves, and keep blacks down on the farm. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 13:54, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
Progressiveism today has nothing to do with Civil Service Reform - in fact it is dead set against it. Progressivism today is a struggle for control of the civil service. Obamacare, for example, is a form of popular sovereignty; the idea that a one time victory in the 2008 election cycle can impose a spending program on yet unborn generations costing trillions to be administered by the progressive beneficiaries created by the Affordable Care Act, never mind the fact that the creators of this Spoils system boondoogle were booted out 2 years later.
Progressives today oppose Civil Service Reform (a 180 degree shift from its original meaning); the intelligence community was not created by the National Security Act of 1947 and later reforms that created the Department of Homeland Security and ODNI to meddle in U.S. elections and decide who will be president. We're having this fight right now. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 14:36, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
There's a lot wrong here but I just want to focus because your answer is very indirect. You say Progressivism has many shades, ok. Are any of those shades "good"? Or are all of those shades bad? Progressingamerica (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
Progressivism was founded as a reform to the Spoils system, patronage , and corruption. It was hi-jacked by socialists to usher in the welfare state. It not only failed to eliminate patronage and corruption, it created a system in which it is impossible to vote out corruption. The Spoils system at least had that advantage. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:10, 5 October 2019 (EDT)
To the Victors go the Spoils (dated today, October 4, 2019). Trump has had it with these Progressive civil service deep state coup efforts against him and the Constitutionally elected people's choice. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:28, 5 October 2019 (EDT)

Name Change

The section regarding when progressives re-named themselves into liberals contains a small section of an FDR speech:

"Yes, the people of this country want a genuine choice this year, not a choice between two names for the same reactionary doctrine. Ours must be a party of liberal thought, of planned action, of enlightened international outlook, and of the greatest good to the greatest number of our citizens"

Liberalism never stood for "planned action"/central planning. Liberalism never stood for the utilitarian doctrine of the "the greatest good to the greatest number". Liberals did not use the word "reactionary"; radicals use this word to juxtapose themselves as progressives against reactionaries. Finally, there is even some question as to an "enlightened international outlook".

The main reason for this speech was for FDR to accept the nomination. But beyond that, the secondary main reason for this speech was to rename the ideology.

European influences

Among those who believed in progressivism early on, there is an influence that all of them found in European thinkers in a variety of ways: Margaret Sanger, for example, was strongly influenced by Thomas Malthus. Theodore Roosevelt had European influences through his good friendship with Jacob Riis, as well as his reading of Herbert Croly's books.(Croly was raised as a Comtist/Auguste Comte) One of John Dewey's most well known college professors, George Sylvester Morris, was a huge fan of G. W. F. Hegel. Other progressives were influenced by the Fabian Society, such as one of FDR's advisors, Stuart Chase. Sanger was also influenced by the Fabians. This story is repeated across the spectrum of early progressivism. However, these influences only came into effect after the progressives had already given up on American culture and ideals and came to the conclusion that big government was the only valid path forward.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Solzhenitsyn wrote about soviet communism, not American Progressivism. The word progressivism does not even appear in Gulag Archipelago.[1] Progressingamerica (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2019 (EDT)

Search here; the word "progressive" occurs 12 times; Progressive Doctrine 4 times; and Progressive Teaching occurs once. In all contexts, it refers to the leftwing socialist/Marxist teaching, or doctrine, of Progressivism, as modified by its importation from America (I'd recommend reading pages 422 to 436 to get a good understanding of Progressivism).
Anyway, there are four references cited to page; in full there are at least 15 that could be cited. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:44, 16 September 2019 (EDT)
You're removing words without any context. All of those words appear, but not one of them discusses nor even hints at "importation from America". This is quite clearly all based on the Russian Progressive Doctrine, not the American. These are good edits, but we already have a generic Progressive page which is where these should go. We need at least one page around here that is devoted specifically and exclusively to American Progressivism. Progressingamerica (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
One thing that is not clear is why some of this has not been placed on the The Gulag Archipelago. Can I help you build that page? Some of these edits may belong there the most. Progressingamerica (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
Just so it is noted, there is only one place between pages 422-440 which mentions the United States, and it is this:
Our newspapers are filled with reports on production victories which are a big bore to everyone, but you will find no reports of trials or crime in them. ()After all, according to the Progressive Doctrine, criminal activity arises only from the presence of classes; we have no classes in our country, therefore there is no crime and therefore you cannot write about it in the press! We simply cannot afford to give the American newspapers evidence that we have not falled behind the United States in criminal activity!)
And from here, he goes on to talk about murderers in the west with their photographs plastered on the wall. This is page 432. Hardly anything to do with people like Woodrow Wilson or Saul Alinsky. One important part of this section is about the Russian Druzhina(vigilantes) and how the state employed them together with the media to keep people in line.Progressingamerica (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
The quote you give speaks exactly about American Progressivism: censorship, alliance with criminals, etc. Bernie Sanders, and others are running right now wanting to give imprisoned criminals the vote. Solzhenitsyn speaks from experience what Progressives today are only proposing. Need I go on?
Look, I understand the point you are making. But he is talking about these things from a Russian context, and a fairly historical context at that. The book does not link this to America the way you suggest nor did Solzhenitsyn write about Bernie Sanders in 1953 nor did he predict the rise of Antifa in 2019. Your edits are overall good, they're just on the wrong page. They are over here: Progressive Progressingamerica (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
The universal ideal is a core premise of progressivism. Yes, Solzhenitsyn cites examples of its implementation in the Russian experience throughout the book. But core ideals of progressivism are universal. American readers need to understand the experience of living under those ideals.RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:06, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
Another thing about that quote: Solzhenitsyn refers, as he does throughout the book, to competition that Soviet Progressivism had with U.S. progressives even prior to WWII; they were trying to "out-progressive" the progressive U.S.. During the Cold War, the Soviets were the first to put a woman in space in 1961, at a time the U.S. never heard of feminism or the women's rights movement.
The U.S. never heard of any feminist.... The U.S. never heard of Margaret Sanger prior to 1961? This isn't making any sense. Please read this: Feminism "First wave feminism" as it is called goes back to the 1900s. Progressingamerica (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
I was a kid. I recall. Most Americans thought it was horrible and cruel, evidence that Communists didn't value women's lives (this was at a time of peacetime conscription, and the space program definitely was a military program). Feminism and the women's rights movement had to be explained to them, by communists and communist media, of coarse. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:06, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
Here in lies the difference: Most American's regarded the space race as technological competition; the Russian's regarded it as competition for social change.RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:20, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

How about this: We put in a subhead ==Progressivism in the Soviet Union==?RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:25, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
That to a certain extent already exists.
The section there which already existed had a really good segway into the edits as you made them. Again, just so its said, I'm not saying your edits are bad. I'm saying they are in the wrong place. Progressingamerica (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
Actually, after thinking about it for a moment Progressivism in the Soviet Union would make a good article all on its own. Progressingamerica (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
Did you read the footnote Solzhenitsyn has about killing dogs? Once you digest that, you understand much of progressivism. I can't understand why it's just a footnote, but there are many such things like that in Gulag. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 19:58, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
I cut this part for space reasons, but could just as easily used it as the next paragraph beginning, How many citizens who were robbed knew, which describes modern America. This excerpt here describes America since the rise of the New Left in the 1970s as referenced in the Intro. The Progressive Soviets were 50 years ahead of America:
The twenties, the thirties, the forties, the fifties! Who does not remember that eternal threat hovering over the citizen: Don't go where it's dark!. Don't come home late! Don't wear your. watch! Don'f carry money with you! Don't leave the apartment empty! Locks! Shutters! Dogs! (And nowadays those writers of satirical columns who weren't cleaned out at the time ridicule these loyal watchdogs. . ' .. )1.
And here is part of the footnote right before the paragraph I excerpted:
In the consistent struggle against the individuality of a man, first they deprived him of one friend-the horse, promising a tractor in its place. As if a horse were only draft power for a plow, and not, instead, your living friend in sorrow and happiness, a member of your family, part of your own heart! And soon afterward they began a persistent campaign against his second friend-the dog. Dogs had to be registered; they were hauled off to the skinners; and often special teams from the local soviets simply shot dead every dog they came across. And there were no hygienic or miserly economic reasons for this - the basis was much more profound: After all, a dog doesn't listen to the radio, doesn't read the papers; he is a citizen who is, so to speak, beyond the control of the state, a physically strong one, moreover, but his strength goes not to the state but to defend his master as an individual, without regard to any kind of decree that might be issued against him in the local soviet and any kind of warrant they might come to him with at night. In Bulgaria in 1960 the citizens were told, and not as a joke either, to fatten up ... pigs-instead of their dogs! Pigs don't have principles. They grow their meat for everyone who has a knife. However, The persecution of dogs never extended to those dogs who were useful to the state - the Security and guard dogs.
A profound example of Progressive reasoning and thinking, not far removed from forcing Christian caterers, florists, and photographers to serve at gay weddings. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 22:10, 17 September 2019 (EDT)

Can you explain what any of this has to do with Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt? Progressingamerica (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
Sure. TR & Wilson were not elected as progressives. When TR openly ran as one, he was soundly defeated. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 20:42, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
I don't follow. What do TR's and Wilson's elections have to do with the use of hunger as a motivating tool by the government? Maybe I should be even more specific. Once President, how did Woodrow Wilson use hunger to motivate people? How did Theodore Roosevelt keep people starved in order to make sure they acted more "progressively"? Progressingamerica (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2019 (EDT)
TR & Wilson were big government, civil service system reformers. TR & Wilson's expansion of rule by bureaucracy was expanded upon by Marxist-Leninist theory in the 1920s. Lenin even used TR's anti-monopolistic "trust busting" big government bureaucracy to attack "speculators", which Bernie Sanders just did in last Thursday night's debates. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 21:40, 17 September 2019 (EDT)