第二港湾, 华人休闲之家

 找回密码
 注册帐号
搜索
热搜: 活动 交友
查看: 485|回复: 3

Gary Porter: Progressivism, What It Is and What it Believes

[复制链接]
发表于 2016-9-2 22:16:33 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
Note:  this essay is the first installment in a series exploring Progressivism. The topic is also the subject of our discussion on my weekly radio show:  We the People – the Constitution Matters, broadcast live on Friday mornings from 7:00–8:00 AM on WFYL radio, AM1180. The station transmits from the Valley Forge, PA, area but the show can be heard live on the station’s website:  www.1180wfyl.com, or via a recorded podcast. The topic of each show will provide the basis for the following week’s essay.
I’m a progressive who gets results and I will be a progressive president who gets results said Hillary Clinton.[1]
I do not know any progressive who has a super PAC and takes $15m from Wall Street (said Bernie Sanders in response).
Hillary Clinton takes the oath of office as Secretary of State, administered by Associate Judge Kathryn Oberly, as Bill Clinton holds a Bible (By Michael Gross [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)

Progressive groups had a field day, some defending Clinton’s declaration,[2] some discounting it[3]for various reasons.

So Hillary Clinton claims to be a progressive and Bernie Sanders claims she’s not. Who’s right?
It is difficult to pin down exactly what progressives believe these days, it’s sort of a moving target; which makes sense in a morbid sort of way:  if you’re for always “progressing,” always moving forward, you’re always ready to embrace something new. Discarding yesterday’s “truth” comes easy, even necessary.
I thank my radio colleague Phil Duffy for pointing me to some excellent online courses[4] on this topic, produced by Hillsdale College.   In one such course,[5] Hillsdale College Professor Paul Moreno breaks down the beliefs of progressivism this way:
One:  A fervent belief in Statism, a belief that government, at some level, has an answer to nearly every societal problem. If there is a problem:  unemployment, low wages, economic stagnation, Americans who can’t afford health insurance, whatever; the solution lies somewhere in a government action or government program.
Two:  A belief in Historicism, a belief that all lessons from history must be placed in a context and interpreted within that context. This doesn’t sound too bad until you discover that this also requires and results in a rejection of any notion of universal, fundamental, or immutable interpretations of history. Jefferson’s self-evident truths go out the window. Those “truths” may have been true in 1776, but they can’t possibly be today. 2016 is a different time, a different place, and everything now has a new context. So while the Declaration may be a great document that resulted in our not having to speak proper English, it served its purpose and is now just a historical artifact to be studied by academics, like dinosaur bones.
Three:  Support for the Living Constitution. It should come as no surprise to discover that Progressives support the idea of a living Constitution, one that must continually be updated to keep up with the times. Whether those updates take place through amendment, which is hard, or judicial ruling, which is much easier, the Constitution must continually change. If it can’t be updated it must be discarded and replaced. Fortunately, Progressives have found the Courts willing to come up with new, expansive interpretations of key clauses that have allowed for expansion of government power without the need for amendment. Original intent  Who cares, those guys are dead.
Four: Support for legal positivism. I won’t go into a lot of detail on this this—I’ve written on legal positivism in the past and cover it in my Constitution seminar—but legal positivism boils down to a belief that all law is man-made, no law exists in nature, nor was any law created by God. God, if he even exists at all, is irrelevant to the study of law. Legal positivism arrived on America’s shores about the same time as Progressivism. They share some common history.
Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (By Harris & Ewing [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)

Five:  Support for the science of public administration. Government is way too important and way too complicated to leave in the hands of elected officials. Government is, in the words of Woodrow Wilson, a living organism. You need knowledgeable, experienced experts in the science of government to govern properly. This idea produces big, bloated government staffs, with many, many programs to keep things “progressing.”

The sixth and final tenet of Progressivism according to Professor Moreno is support for a growing Federal Police Power. States can’t be trusted to exert their police power; the federal government must have and use this power as well.
On that note:  There are only four federal crimes discussed in the original Constitution. Today there are well over 4500 federal crimes in the statute books, so many crimes that some authors postulate that every citizen commits at least three federal felonies each day. If true, if we are all walking around as potential criminals; who actually becomes the criminal on any given day is whoever the federal prosecutor decides to prosecute that day.
I mean really, need it be a federal crime to disrupt a rodeo? It is, of course. If you disrupt a rodeo, say by unfurling your “John 3:16” banner, you could be prosecuted by the feds. If you carry unlicensed dentures across a state line, you could go to federal prison. If you defame the character of Woodsey the Owl or his message “Give a Hoot – Don’t Pollute” you can go to federal prison. I’m not making this stuff up; look it up for yourself in the hundreds of thousands of pages of the U.S. Code.
Think about it, if it is a crime to kill someone under state law, and it is in all 50 states, why do we also need to make murder a federal crime? But to a progressive, who doesn’t trust in state police power, a continually growing federal police power makes perfect sense.
If you go to Wikipedia, you find that, and I quote:
Progressivism is a philosophy based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition.
Sounds pretty innocuous doesn’t it? Who isn’t for “improving the human condition, right?”
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, German philosopher of the late Enlightenment (By Jakob Schlesinger (1792-1855) (Unknown) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)

Progressives trace their philosophy to several nineteenth-century philosophers. Let’s start with Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, a German philosopher often called the “Father of Progressivism.” Hegel was born in 1770 and produced most of his ideas in the 1820s and 30s. He singlehandedly came up with one of the tenets of progressivism:  historicism, which I’ve already defined as a belief that there is no transcendent truth in history, everything in history must be taken in context. Hegel called it “zeitgeist,” the spirit of the time. All philosophy is also a product of the zeitgeist, which would mean there is no transcendent philosophy, it is always changing. Taken to its logical conclusion, this means Hegel has nothing to say to today’s progressives; ironic.

Another Hegelian contribution is “the dialectic process.” Any idea, called a thesis, has its opposite, called an antithesis. These two ideas are polar opposites, thus they are in conflict with each other. But out of that conflict arises the synthesis. For example, the thesis that “lying is bad” produces the antithesis, that “lying is good.” Out of this conflict comes a synthesis:  “lying is sometimes good.” This then produces a new thesis and a new antithesis. Out of these arise a new synthesis. The process repeats endlessly and thus “truth” can never be firmly grasped, it is always in the process of changing into a new synthesis.
Hegel’s final contribution, at least that I will discuss, is the basic idea that God is spirit and that spirit is ultimately the human mind. So Hegel believed that Christianity was true, but not literally, only as a metaphor for the human condition. In Christianity, God becomes man in the form of Jesus Christ. But that’s Hegel’s way of saying that the human mind becomes increasingly rational until finally, at the end of history, it becomes purely and perfectly rational, in effect:  it becomes God.
Rational man is the true god, whereas non-rational man is merely man.[6]
The true progressive thus believes in the perfectibility of man. And this carries over into their support for government social programs.
Hegel saw America’s weak government (of the 1820s and 30s) as a detriment when compared with Germany’s very strong government. America’s “excess” of liberty was also a detriment; government ought to take charge and direct people in the way they should live.
Hegel’s follower, Karl Marx, disagreed with Hegel in several points, particularly Hegel’s acceptance of private property. This produced Marx’s communist version, where all property is held “in common.”
Before Hegel, came France’s Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau authored a book called Social Contract, published in 1762, which was a direct refutation of the theories of John Locke, who the Founders had studied and adopted.
Michael S. Coffman has written a book called Plundered, How Progressive Ideology is Destroying America[7] that contains a nice side-by-side comparison of Locke and Rousseau, from which I’ve drawn some of this material.
Frontispiece of “Leviathan,” by Abraham Bosse, with input from Hobbes (Public domain via Wikimedia Commons)

Rousseau, the father of four illegitimate children by four different mothers, based much of his philosophy on the work of Englishman Thomas Hobbes, whose 1651 book Leviathan argued that man combined in societies, in communities, and formed governments for protection from a life in nature that was “nasty, brutish, and short.” Government, to Hobbes, becomes the “Leviathan” that is all-powerful and omniscient, government that can meet all of man’s needs. Government becomes the sovereign and man has few freedoms, if any.
Rousseau refined and built upon Hobbes:  mankind must bend to the “general will” of the people, all property should be held in common, not privately, and everyone in society should work towards “the common good,” or be forced to. It Takes a Village fits right into this philosophy, as does “you didn’t build that,” along with the idea that children are ultimately the responsibility of the state, not parents.
Rousseau’s ideas fed directly into the bloody French Revolution, which cost approximately 100,000 Frenchmen and women, their heads.
All human rights, to Rousseau, are “civil rights,” granted by the government; there is no such thing as unalienable or inherent natural or God-given rights, and so government must be powerful enough to define, grant, and then protect those rights that it grants.
It is difficult to pinpoint exactly when European Progressivism came to these shores, but some historians point to the late 1800s, sometimes known as the “Gilded Age” in America. American academics studying in European universities, particularly those in Germany and France, brought these ideas back with them. While the exact “landing point” of Progressivism is hard to discern, a likely candidate is Johns Hopkins University, founded in 1876. Some authors suggest Johns Hopkins was formed for the sole purpose of providing a launching point for progressivism in America. In 1883, a young man arrived there to complete advanced degrees. His name:  Woodrow Wilson. Every single one of Wilson’s professors had obtained advanced degrees from German universities.
Though called the “Gilded Age,” there were indeed excesses in America during this period, and progressives fought for improvements in workers’ wages and working conditions.
Some historians believe the Progressive Era peaked in the early 1920s with the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson. You wouldn’t know that by listening to the rhetoric today.  With today’s Congressional Progressive Caucus having 71 members (70 of them Democrats and one Independent, Senator Bernie Sanders), it looks to me like progressivism is still alive and well. Groups like Think Progress[8] help keep the movement alive. This article[9] on the DailyKos website tells you where to find news sources with a progressive slant.
Next week, we’ll examine that period in the early 1900s when progressivism really took off in America and the damage it caused, particularly during and by the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. In subsequent essays, we’ll examine progressivism’s influence on American public education, on environmentalism, globalism, and economics. Stay tuned, and please consider joining us live as we discuss these topics on Friday mornings 7:00-8:00 AM EDT. I would love to hear your comments and take your questions.

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.


[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35489572
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-progressive_us_572cca08e4b0bc9cb0469098
[3] http://inthesetimes.com/article/19315/is-clinton-a-progressive-not-if-she-chooses-tim-kaine
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N71Cg-7Oqnc
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n2R6infY2s
[6] http://blog.hillsdale.edu/online-courses/hegel-and-early-progressivism
[7] https://www.amazon.com/Plundered-Progressive-Ideology-Destroying-America/dp/0615630774
[8] https://thinkprogress.org/
[9] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/4/716698/-
 楼主| 发表于 2016-9-10 13:51:01 | 显示全部楼层

Progressivism, What It Is and What it Believes (Part 2:

Note:  this is the second installment in a series exploring Progressivism. The topic is also the subject of our discussion on my weekly radio show:  “We the People – the Constitution Matters,” broadcast live on Friday mornings from 7:00–8:00 AM on WFYL radio, AM1180. The show can be heard live on the station’s website:  www.1180wfyl.com, or via a recorded podcast. The public is invited to join the discussion.
Theodore Roosevelt (1858 – 1919), an American statesman, author, explorer, soldier, naturalist, reformer, and 26th President of the United States (1901 – 1909) (By Pach Bros. (https://www.loc.gov/item/2002718198/) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)

This turned out to be an interesting assignment:  investigate the lives of perhaps our two most well-known progressive presidents:  Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. As I studied the two men it was amazing to see the connections and similarities between them.
Wilson was born only two years before Roosevelt and died five years after him so the two men were basically contemporaries. They were both born into affluent families, definitely beneficiaries of what the left today calls “white privilege.” Roosevelt’s father was a wealthy businessman, Wilson’s a prominent Presbyterian minister in a long line of ministers  Both men had to overcome childhood afflictions:  Roosevelt, severe asthma and poor eyesight; Wilson, dyslexia that kept him from reading until age 12. Yet, both graduated from Ivy League colleges:  Roosevelt from Harvard, Wilson from Princeton. Both attended law school, although Wilson dropped out.  Both studied under college professors enamored with Hegelian political and historical theory.
Both men were elected Governor of their state, Roosevelt, in New York, much earlier than Wilson, in New Jersey. And both men faced off in the 1912 election for President of the U.S. Both men were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for actions as President. Finally, both men were racists. Both subscribed to the theory that the Aryan races were the most advanced in history and needed to be kept that way. Each supported both positive as well as negative eugenics.
That’s where the similarities end, most at least.
There were also big differences in their lives:  Roosevelt spent much of his early life in public service. He was the youngest elected New York State Assemblyman, was appointed to the U.S. Civil Service Commission by President Harrison, appointed to the NY City Police Board by the Mayor of New York, and appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy by President William McKinley. He was selected as McKinley’s running mate for McKinley’s second term in 1900, and the pair were successful in getting themselves elected. Six months after taking the oath of office as Vice-President, Roosevelt found himself taking the oath as President; McKinley had been assassinated. Roosevelt went on to be re-elected as President in 1904 before deciding to take a hiatus from public office at the end of that term.
All this time Wilson was getting his Doctorate at Johns Hopkins and then teaching in a variety of universities before being named President of Princeton in 1902. He stepped down from running Princeton in order to run for Governor of New Jersey, and he interrupted his term as Governor to run for President.
Roosevelt came into the presidency after a long period of unfettered growth in American business and manufacturing. Some businesses had grown to enormous size:  U.S. Steel Corporation became America’s first $1 Billion company in 1900. Large corporations were forming trusts to suppress their competition. A host of social problems were reaching national scope:  poor working conditions, low wages, child labor, adulterated and spoiled foods. The time was right for someone willing to “fix” things.  “ … I cannot say that I entered the Presidency with any deliberately planned and far-reaching scheme of social betterment,”[1] said Roosevelt in his autobiography, but plunge into “social betterment” he did nevertheless.
Andrew Napolitano, Senior Judicial Analyst for Fox News Channel (By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America (Andrew Napolitano) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons)

Roosevelt studied under Professor John Burgess at Columbia, a man enamored with Hegel and all things German—and I’m sure that had some effect on him. But I get the impression from my study that Roosevelt would have approached the job of President pretty much the same way without that progressive indoctrination. “From an early age, Theodore Roosevelt thought that he could single-handedly save America,”[2]  writes Judge Andrew Napolitano in his book Theodore and Woodrow, How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.  “Roosevelt was psychologically incapable of accepting a secondary role in the government,”[3]  write Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison in The American Constitution, Its Origins and Development. Unlike Wilson, who put the Constitution and the Founders’ worldview under a microscope while studying for his PhD, Roosevelt simply felt supremely confident in his own abilities, particularly his decision-making power. He had faced death in the charge up San Juan Hill, he felt tested and proven. He is the best example I’ve encountered of a human perpetual-motion machine.
Unfortunately, Roosevelt’s progressivism (and later Wilson’s) was hampered by the Constitution. At the turn of the 19th century, the Supreme Court still saw the Constitution largely as the Framers had:  one of limited and enumerated powers. There had been no constitutional amendments since the Reconstruction Amendments immediately following the Civil War; amending the Constitution was hard and time-consuming. Yet, national problems demanded action.
In his autobiography, Roosevelt stated his theory of the presidency:
My belief was that it was not only [the President’s] right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws.
This is, of course, diametrically opposed to the constitutional philosophy of the Founders, all except Hamilton perhaps.
So what actions did Roosevelt take as President that stretched or ignored constitutional limitations?
Ever the “war hawk,” Roosevelt sent troops into many Caribbean countries[4] and established new governments in several of them without Congressional approval.
He ordered General John Schofield to seize coal mines closed by striking miners even though he acknowledged the action “might be unconstitutional.”  The General was to ignore “any authority … but my own,”  Roosevelt said.
He secretly negotiated a treaty with Japan to allow Japan to take over Korea in exchange for leaving China for American conquest.
When the Senate refused to ratify a treaty he had negotiated with a South American country, Roosevelt simply renamed it an Executive Agreement and proceeded to implement it unilaterally.
He proposed and signed the Pure Food and Drug Act,[5] which now gives the FDA the authority to tell us what we can and cannot eat and drink. Today, the FDA jails people for selling raw milk, even to adults fully aware it is not pasteurized.
Roosevelt gave us the Interstate Commerce Commission whose regulation of commerce leads to higher prices, poorer service, reduced profits, and diminished competition.
To try to “fix” the Supreme Court’s antiquated Founders-deferential view, Roosevelt nominated Oliver Wendell Holmes. Holmes brought to the Court a distinct disdain for Natural Law, and he stands today as one of the Court’s most progressive jurists.
Roosevelt dared Congress to impeach him.
Speaker of the House Joe Cannon[6] complained that Roosevelt had “no more use for the Constitution than a tomcat has for a marriage license.”[7]
“Colonel Roosevelt and his Rough Riders at the top of the hill which they captured, Battle of San Juan” (By Photographer: William Dinwiddie [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)

In his book, Presidential Courage, Brave Leaders and How They Changed America, 1789-1989,” author Michael Beschloss singles out Roosevelt for his toughness in personally settling a coal strike, but presents the act as though settling labor strikes is just one of the President’s many official/constitutional duties. This warped view of constitutional powers is not uncommon among progressives.
One progressive author sums up Roosevelt’s presidency this way:[8]
The decisive and benevolent—if possibly unconstitutional—actions that Theodore Roosevelt took benefited America by making it a more equal and progressive place.
Possibly unconstitutional? Interpretation:  the Constitution must not be allowed to become an obstacle to “progress.” If it must be violated, so be it.
Roosevelt, for all the damage he did by expanding the traditional powers of the President, is almost universally acclaimed as one of our great presidents; you don’t get your face carved on Mount Rushmore for nothing.
In 1912, after three years of exploring Africa, Roosevelt returned to politics. But failing to secure the Republican nomination for President, he wrangled the nomination instead of the Progressive Party. Republicans nominated William Howard Taft, and the Democrats:  Woodrow Wilson.  Roosevelt’s continued popularity with the American people pulled enough Republican votes from Taft that Wilson was able to succeed instead. Taft finished a distant third.
While Roosevelt felt very strongly in the strength of the American people to govern themselves, Woodrow Wilson saw them almost as a subclass who, quote:
must get their ideas very absolutely put and are much readier to receive a half-truth which they can promptly understand than a whole truth which has too many sides to be seen all at once.
Such people need a strong leader.
Woodrow Wilson’s approach to the Presidency was one of a seasoned academic, expert in the science of government, but also someone steeped in Hegelian Historicism and Rousseauian Social Compact Theory. It is safe to say that Wilson is the only man to ever take the oath as President with a clear goal to remake the U.S. government in his own image, with the possible exception of our current President.
Wilson is credited with creating the phrase “Living Constitution.” Wrote Wilson:
… government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life  It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton.
Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Bill into law, creating the Federal Reserve and ensuring the U.S. would never again have a sound currency. Wilson was actually supported by the banks for election in 1912 because he had pledged to sign the Federal Reserve Act. President Taft had fought the Act while in office, so Taft had to be replaced.
Wilson promoted ratification of the 17th Amendment, destroying federalism, and one important check on federal power.
Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (By Harris & Ewing [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)

Wilson was a loyal son of the old South who regretted the outcome of the Civil War.[9] He re-segregated the U.S. Navy and allowed his cabinet ministers to re-segregate their departments. When a delegation of black leaders finally obtained an audience with Wilson, he claimed his actions were “to avoid friction” and “for their own good.” Wilson hosted a private showing of the KKK-glorifying movie Birth of a Nation (some claim he was actually a member of the Klan[10]).  Some subtitles in the silent movie were direct quotations from Wilson’s scholarly writings.[11]
After deciding that America needed to be involved in the war in Europe after all, Wilson initiated a military conscription program (slavery?) to produce the forces needed.
In one essay, Wilson writes:
While we are followers of Jefferson, there is one principle of Jefferson’s which no longer can obtain in the practical politics of America. You know that it was Jefferson who said that the best government is that which does as little governing as possible … But that time is passed. America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise.
There is little doubt Wilson’s indoctrination with progressivism came while he studied at Johns Hopkins University. He spent three years there under the tutelage of Hegelian-trained professors. During this period and later, Wilson wrote many essays which vividly show his connection to Hegelian Historicism.
Ignoring the lessons of John Adams’ Alien and Sedition Laws, Wilson sought and signed new Espionage and Sedition Laws that made it a crime to speak disparagingly of the government or act in any way counter to government policy.
Wilson was so obsessed with creating a new world order, one of perpetual peace, that he was crestfallen when his plans for the League of Nations were derailed. In 1919, midway into his second term as President he suffered a stroke which nearly incapacitated him; it permanently paralyzed his left side and blinded his left eye. For some reason Wilson felt sufficiently capable to remain in office, but he was effectively sidelined and remained out of sight. He died four years after leaving office.
So what are we to make of this? Two of our forty-four presidents set out to do “big things,” whooptido!
As I reflect on these two men and their exploits I am first struck by how much the American people seemed in agreement with or at least ambivalent over their approach to presidential powers. This should come as no surprise. As we will see when we examine the progressive influence on public education, by 1912, progressives had already made their mark on public education, not to the extent they have today perhaps, but the fact that there was little to no backlash over Roosevelt’s or Wilson’s “grandstanding” indicates to me that progressive brainwashing was well underway.
As I said earlier, progressive historians give both men high marks for their efforts to expand the powers of the President, but these usurpations set precedents that future Presidents would follow and expand upon. The Constitution suffered deep and permanent wounds under both men.
Next week we will examine two more progressive Presidents:  FDR and LBJ on WFYL Radio. I hope you can join us Friday morning for the live broadcast (7:00 AM) or listen to the re-broadcast on Saturday (11:00 AM) or Sunday (2:00 PM).

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.




[1] Theodore Roosevelt, “The Presidency: Making an Old Party Progressive,” in The Rough Riders, An Autobiography (New York:  The Macmillan Company, 1913), p. 614-615.
[2] Andrew Napolitano, Theodore and Woodrow, How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom. (Nashville:  Thomas Nelson, 2012), p. 19.
[3] Alfred H. Kelly & Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution, Its Origins and Development, (New York, W. W. Norton & Co. 1970), p. 587.
[4] Including actions in Colombia, Panama, Honduras, Dominican Republic, and Cuba.
[5] Constitutionality upheld under Commerce Clause in Hipolite Egg Co. v. U.S. (1911).
[6] Served as Speaker from 1903 to 1911.
[7] Quoted in Presidential Courage, Brave Leaders and how They Changed America, 1789-1989. Simon & Schuster, 2007, p.137.
[8] http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/1901-/theodore-roosevelts-broad-powers-erin-ruth-leonard.php
[9] http://www.bu.edu/professorvoices/2013/03/04/the-long-forgotten-racial-attitudes-and-policies-of-woodrow-wilson/
[10] http://allday.com/post/1398-11-people-you-wouldnt-believe-used-to-be-in-the-kkk/
[11] Ibid.
 楼主| 发表于 2016-9-16 21:07:15 | 显示全部楼层
Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson

Taking on a review of FDR and LBJ is a bit unsettling. Both men were revered by millions of Americans, FDR for “saving us from the Great Depression” and “leading us to victory in WWII,” and LBJ for signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and unleashing America’s great “War on Poverty.”

I remember where I was when I heard of the assassination of JFK. Likewise, most Americans of my parents’ generation could recall where they were then they heard of the death of FDR. After Roosevelt’s death, an editorial by The New York Times declared, “Men will thank God on their knees a hundred years from now that Franklin D. Roosevelt was in the White House.”[1] His funeral procession on April 14, 1945, was attended by 300,000 spectators.

The reverence paid to both presidents is evidence of the pervasiveness of Progressivism and progressive thought in America. Progressives eagerly overlook the men’s faults and violations of Constitutional order and focus on the “great things” both did.

Well, today we will peel back the veneer, the picture painted by progressive historians and see what these presidents actually accomplished and the effect some of the programs they initiated is having still to this day.

James Madison, in an address to the Virginia Assembly in 1785, said that Rulers who exceed the commission from which they derive their authority …

are Tyrants [and] [t]he People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves, nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.[2]
These words are as true today as they were then. The American people are slowly becoming slaves to a government that knows no limits to its power.

In some cases we have been lulled into believing that government is only acting in our best interest: “It’s for our own good,” we hear. Other times we are shamed into accepting programs we know will be harmful to the constitutional order of the future:  “You don’t want another Great Depression, do you?” “Don’t you think there should be a “safety net” to keep people from falling into abject poverty?”

Neither of these men brought with them the academic embrace of progressivism of a Woodrow Wilson. I’m sure neither man could describe Hegelian Historicism or Rousseau’s theory of Social Contract. But both were big men, physically and politically,[3] and they knew that “big things” must be done to keep their parties in power.

Let’s examine the two men in chronological order.

Franklin D. Roosevelt (By Elias Goldensky (1868-1943) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (By Elias Goldensky (1868-1943) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was born in 1882 to a prominent upstate New York family. He shares an uncanny set of parallels with his 2nd cousin Theodore Roosevelt; not just graduating from both Harvard and Columbia Law School, as did Teddy, but also serving as Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Woodrow Wilson, while Teddy had served in the exact same position under William McKinley.  Both Roosevelts served as Governors of New York—Teddy, a single two-year term from January 1, 1899, to December 31, 1900, and Franklin, two terms served thirty years later.

While Teddy overcame asthma and poor eyesight, Franklin’s “thorn in the flesh” was the polio he contracted in 1921 at age 39. He overcame polio’s most debilitating effects, but it cost him the use of his legs for the remainder of his life.

FDR easily defeated incumbent President Herbert Hoover in 1932 when it became obvious Hoover had no solution to the continued depression. Roosevelt then proceeded to enact some of the same programs he had tried as New York’s Governor to mitigate effects of the depression. While commentators of the times, and for many years after, credit FDR’s “New Deal” programs with lifting the U.S. out of the Great Depression, many historians and economists today believe instead that these initiatives served to lengthen and perhaps even worsen the depression.

I point you to New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America, by Burton Folsom,[4] which convincingly shows that the New Deal hindered recovery from the depression and continues to damage the American economy today. Desperate to find something, anything that would actually lead to economic recovery, Roosevelt next provoked the Japanese until they launched their surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, leaving America no choice but war—a war Roosevelt welcomed.

Comprehensive research has shown not only that Washington knew in advance of the attack [at Pearl Harbor], but that it deliberately withheld its foreknowledge from our commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the “surprise” attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II.[5]
Those unwilling to conclude the New Deal itself pulled America out of depression, point instead to the wartime economy as the true savior. In FDR Goes to War, Folsom demonstrates that while the war quickly cured the country’s chronic unemployment, it did so at great cost:  national debt soared from $49 Billion to almost $260 Billion.

Rare photograph of FDR in a wheelchair, February 1941 (Public Domain)
Rare photograph of FDR in a wheelchair, February 1941 (Public Domain)
Knowing that America and its Allies would ultimately prevail in both Europe and the Pacific, Roosevelt prepared for the return and departure from active duty of America’s servicemen and women. Rather than trust the free enterprise system to find jobs for these millions of workers, Roosevelt established the National Resources Planning Board and charged it with finding or creating jobs. According to Charles Merriam, vice-president of the NRPB, the U.S. government was to be the “final guarantor” of needed jobs if the private economy failed to create them.[6]

Not being an economist, I feel out of my league getting into the “nuts and bolts” of all the various New Deal agencies and their economic effects. But I can summarize the whole New Deal program by saying that Roosevelt never encountered a problem which he thought a new government program couldn’t fix; the hallmark of a true Progressive.

As a constitutionalist, to my mind the greatest affront perpetrated against the American system during FDR’s reign was his attempt to pack the Supreme Court with “yes-men” Justices. Here’s the background:

In his first term, faced with the economic emergency of the lingering depression, FDR rushed many “New Deal” proposals through the Congress; many of these were then challenged in the courts. When appeals reached them, the Supreme Court routinely struck down the legislation as an overreach of Constitutional authority. Typical of today’s progressive journalism, Wikipedia quotes Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes as saying that the Court’s action was because much of the New Deal legislation was “so poorly drafted and defended” that the court did not uphold it. Apparently its constitutionality was not in question. In reality, that was precisely what the court found at fault.

In Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935), Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co. (1934), Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford (1935) and Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), the administration suffered defeat after defeat at the hands an often unanimous court. The Constitution would be upheld; the President’s actions exceeded his authority. Hearing the last three decisions, which were announced on the same day, the President became “distressed and irritable.” Roosevelt remarked at a press conference that the Schechter decision had “relegated [the nation] to a horse and buggy definition of interstate commerce.”

He’d had enough; Roosevelt set about re-constructing the Court in his own image. In the “Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937,” introduced on February 5, 1937, the President proposed adding one new Justice to the Court for each sitting Justice who did not agree to retire upon reaching 70 and a half years of age. A maximum of six new justices could be added.

Roosevelt also appealed to the American people. In a Fireside Chat on March 9th, he accused the Court majority of

reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there, and which were never intended to be there.
We should note here that the number of Justices on the Court is entirely at the whim of Congress.  he very first Supreme Court had only six members and the number had swung back and forth over the years from a low of five to a high of ten Justices before settling back on nine. It was entirely within Congress’s constitutional power to accede to the President’s recommendation.

To its credit, however, the Republican-controlled Congress sent the proposed legislation off to the respective Judiciary Committees, where it languished and died. But a message had been sent, and it was received loud and clear—at least at the Court.

On March 29, 1937, a mere seven weeks after the President had sent his “Court-packing” legislation to Congress, the Court handed down three decisions, all upholding New Deal legislation—two of them unanimous:  Virginia Railway v. Federation and West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. The following month in five separate challenges, the National Labor Relations Act was found to be constitutional. In May, in Helvering v. Davis and Steward Machine Company v. Davis, the new Social Security Act was deemed constitutional. Except for the two unanimous decisions previously mentioned, all these others were 5-4 decisions, with Associate Justice Owen Roberts (a familiar last name, but no relation to the current Chief Justice) proving to be the deciding vote—leading to the misnamed “switch in time that saved nine.”    Roberts’ new view of the Constitution was definitely a switch, but the “saving” had already been accomplished by the Congress.

Other actions of this President which defied the limited powers of Article 2 include:  ordering the nation’s banks to close (in his first week after taking office); issuing Executive Order 6102 which confiscated all privately held gold coins, bullion, and certificates, requiring they be surrendered to the government in exchange for currency; personally setting the daily price of gold—one time to what he thought was a “lucky number;” ordering Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau to manipulate the stock market to give the impression of turmoil, which Morgenthau refused to do; and signing an Executive Order taxing all personal income over $25,000[7] at 100 percent. The remaining kings of the 20th century could only look on with envy.

Barely into his fourth term as president, FDR died of a massive cerebral hemorrhage on April 12, 1945, leading Congress to propose the 22nd Amendment, limiting U.S. Presidents to two terms.

Former President Lyndon Baines Johnson, promoter of the War on Poverty (By Arnold Newman, White House Press Office (WHPO) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)
Former President Lyndon Baines Johnson, promoter of the War on Poverty (By Arnold Newman, White House Press Office (WHPO) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)
Lyndon Baines Johnson

Lyndon Baines Johnson, our 36th President, was born in 1908 in a small farmhouse in Stonewall, Texas. After working his way through college at Southwest Texas State Teachers College he found work for a short time as a high school teacher. He entered politics in 1930 by campaigning for a Texas State Senator in his run for Congress. His efforts resulted in a recommendation to Congressman Richard M. Kleberg, who hired him as his legislative secretary.

In 1937, Johnson was elected to Congress from the Texas 10th district in a special election to replace a deceased House member, and served there until 1949. In 1940, he applied for and received an appointment as a Lieutenant Commander in the Naval Reserve, and, when war in the Pacific broke out, he was called to active duty. He would go on to serve in the Naval Reserve until 1964.

As a sitting Congressman, and a Lieutenant Commander, Johnson was sent on a special assessment mission to the South Pacific for FDR (Johnson’s political hero) where he was awarded the Silver Star for volunteering as an observer on a bombing mission. Although his plane turned back short of the target, either due to a mechanical malfunction or damage from enemy fighters (accounts varied), Johnson’s Silver Star citation credits his “marked coolness in spite of the hazards involved.” Apparently that was enough to get you a Silver Star in 1941, at least if you were a sitting Congressman serving in a war zone.

In 1948, amid charges (and significant evidence) of voter fraud, Johnson won a Democrat senatorial primary by 87 votes and then went on to be elected Senator. He served as Majority Whip from 1951-1952, Minority Leader from 1953-1954 and then Majority Leader from 1954-1961, when he was chosen as JFK’s running mate. These leadership positions reflect a consummate politician with a gift for deal-making. Historians Caro and Dallek consider Johnson “the most effective Senate majority leader in history.”[8]

One of Johnson’s many accomplishments as Senator was passage of the “Johnson Amendment” in the 1954 U.S. Tax Code. The amendment prevents, to this day, American pastors from endorsing political candidates at risk of their church losing its tax-exempt status. What had prompted this was that in his bid for re-election, Senator Johnson had faced vociferous opposition from some local pastors—this became Johnson’s revenge. This silencing of America’s pastors (those who accepted the threat at face value at least) flies in the face of protections under the First Amendment.

With Kennedy’s assassination in 1963 (you remember where you were when you heard the news, right?) Johnson became President. He was re-elected in 1964 in a contentious race with Barry Goldwater.

As President, Johnson’s first action was to push for passage of the Civil Rights Act that Kennedy had vigorously supported but which had met with Congressional opposition. “Master politician” LBJ was able to persuade and arm-pull until the votes came in for passage.

As he prepared for his re-election in 1964, he saw the need for a ‘catchy” initiative. His staff coined the “Great Society,” a collection of urban renewal, transportation, environmental, anti-poverty, healthcare reform, crime control, and educational reform initiatives.

The wildly utopian expectations (and experimental recklessness in social programs) brought modern liberalism into a crisis and dramatically expanded the administrative state, with all its cost and regulatory reach[9] (says an unattributed article on the Heritage Foundation website).
President Lyndon Johnson signs Medicare bill in 1965. Former President Harry Truman observes. By White House Press Office [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
President Lyndon Johnson signs Medicare bill in 1965. Former President Harry Truman observes. By White House Press Office [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Johnson “launched” his “Great Society” initiative during a commencement speech at the University of Michigan on May 22, 1964.[10] In his address, which you can easily find on the web, his description of this “Great Society” is wildly utopic. Even though Johnson assured his audience that: “The solution to these problems does not rest on a massive program in Washington, nor can it rely solely on the strained resources of local authority,” the result was one massive federal program after another.
Thanks to LBJ’s “War on Poverty,” we now have 43 million people on food stamps[11] and the percent of our population in poverty[12] is back to where it was 50 years ago[13] before the “War” began.

Johnson gave us both Medicare (1966) and Medicaid (1965). Experts expect Medicare to go bankrupt in 12 years.[14] As much as $60 billion, almost 10% of Medicare’s budget, is lost to waste, fraud, abuse, or improper payments each year. Medicaid is in the process of bankrupting the states. Fortunately, the Supreme Court provided the states some relief by ruling that the Medicaid expansion required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional.

The Head Start Program, food stamps, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts; “Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society was the New Deal on steroids,”[15] says Glenn Beck. The magic words:  “Kennedy would have wanted this,” gave LBJ greater ease at expanding the welfare state than even FDR had in the Great Depression.

Unguarded, LBJ could be profane, even obscene. “Lyndon B. Johnson had a famously dirty mouth,”[16] says one Time.com article. He was unfaithful to his wife; but all Lady Bird Johnson could say when confronted was, “My husband loves people, and half of the people in the world are women.” This amazing incident[17] shows LBJ’s lack of respect for his military leadership and why the administration’s Vietnam strategy might have seemed incoherent.

Johnson devalued the American currency by stopping the use of silver in coins in favor of lesser metals. When frightened Americans tried to protect their wealth by purchasing gold, Johnson moved to make such purchases illegal. Americans wouldn’t legally buy gold again until 1971.

In true progressive style, at a 1965 commencement address at Howard University, Johnson attempted to redefine standard terms:

We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result (emphasis added).
Not equality of opportunity, which had been America’s greatest claim to fame, but equality of outcome, progressivism’s “Golden Calf.”

In 1966, Johnson proposed a constitutional amendment to extend the term of office of U.S. Representatives to four years, citing the volume of business each Congress must attend to and the incessant need to run for re-election. In the same message to Congress he also suggested reform of the Electoral College, quoting Madison in support. Johnson particularly did not like the possibility, in a contingent election, of having a President and Vice-President, elected separately by House and Senate, from different political parties. “That possibility should not exist.”[18]

Because he had served less than 24 months of President Kennedy’s term, Johnson was constitutionally entitled to run for a second full term in 1968 but choose not to. The Vietnam War had split the Democrat Party —“Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today,” was an oft-heard refrain at public events. He was also concerned with failing health (Johnson had been a 60-cigarette a day smoker until his first heart attack in 1955).

Although he would later nominate Thurgood Marshall, the first black Justice to sit on the Court, Johnson regarded the Court with suspicion. He nominated an old friend, Abe Fortas, to the Supreme Court in order to have a “mole” that could supply him with inside information. Fortas’ nomination was turned down by the Senate.

According to biographer Randall Woods, Lyndon Johnson posed in many different roles. Depending on the circumstances, he could be:

“Johnson the Son of the Tenant Farmer, Johnson the Great Compromiser, Johnson the All-Knowing, Johnson the Humble, Johnson the Warrior, Johnson the Dove, Johnson the Romantic, Johnson the Hard-Headed Pragmatist, Johnson the Preserver of Traditions, Johnson the Crusader for Social Justice, Johnson the Magnanimous, Johnson the Vindictive” or “Johnson the Uncouth,” “LBJ the Hick,” “Lyndon the Satyr,” and “Johnson the Usurper.”[19]  Interesting legacy.

After leaving the White House in January 1969, Johnson resumed his smoking habit, gained weight and died on January 22, 1973, of heart failure.

Once again, what can we learn from these two progressive presidents? FDR and LBJ both sought to do great things for America. Both Democrats took America into or continued us in wars that were expensive in lives and treasure. Both the “New Deal” and the “Great Society” initiatives contained costly programs that even today threaten to bankrupt the country if nothing is done to restructure them. “Progress at all costs” seems to be the progressive byword, no matter who pays.

“Constitutional Corner” is a project of the Constitution Leadership Initiative, Inc.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr ... _death_and_memorial

[2] James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 20 June 1785.

[3] FDR was 6’2”, LBJ an imposing 6’4”

[4] Burton Folsom, Jr. New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America” (Simon & Schuster: New York, 2008)

[5] “Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not” by  James Perloff, accessed at: http://www.thenewamerican.com/cu ... prised-fdr-was-not.

[6] Burton Folsom, Jr. & Anita Folsom, “FDR Goes to War, How Expanded Executive Power, Spiraling national Debt, and Restricted Civil Liberties shaped Wartime America,” (Simon & Schuster: New York, 2011), p. 282.

[7] About $422,000  today.

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson

[9] http://www.heritage.org/initiati ... s-the-great-society

[10] http://teachingamericanhistory.o ... eat-society-speech/

[11] http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/29SNAPcurrPP.pdf

[12] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/w ... -rate-united-states

[13] https://www.rt.com/usa/us-poverty-record-unemployment-800/

[14] http://hotair.com/archives/2016/ ... oner-than-expected/

[15] http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/08 ... um=contentcopy_link

[16] http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1995258,00.html

[17] http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot. ... became-longest.html

[18] http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=27582

[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ly ... ty_and_public_image
 楼主| 发表于 2016-9-20 08:41:07 | 显示全部楼层

The Progressive Agenda

Understanding the Progressive Movement is essential in defending what is left of our Constitutional Republic. The basic tenets of Progressivism include the seizure of  private property and regulation of American business by a ruling class .
Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (By Harris & Ewing [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)

We do not live in a democracy. We live in a Republic where regular citizens hold office in order to conduct the affairs of government. The Political Class of today is exactly what the founders feared.
The first duty of the electeds is to defend the Republic. To do that, they must understand the charter of the United States. The documents that comprise the charter are very clear that the national government should violate individual rights on a very limited scale.
The trampling of individual rights was to be the exception, not the rule. Eminent Domain is an example. Progressive ideology is contrary to the notion of individual rights. The collective, the group, and the needs of the group dominate Progressive thought.
Progressives claim that the duty of elected officials is to get people what they want. Pretty much they have been successful in spite of moral and constitutional prohibitions against such use of force. Government authority is force.
President Woodrow Wilson was the first Progressive President. Wilson gave us the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations. This was the first step toward one world government that Progressives favor. Wilson gave us the Federal Trade Commission. The federal income tax was approved just prior to his election.
Franklin Roosevelt was the most influential Progressive of the last century. Government-knows-best was his philosophy. This idea came to dominate attitudes about what government should do. No POTUS in history did more to establish the notion that the collective is more important than the individual. Lyndon Johnson was a piker compared to Roosevelt but was highly successful in promoting government control.
The Progressive’s dim opinion of humanity was nowhere better expressed than by Margaret Sanger. Sanger’s campaign to purge the country of black Americans is well documented. The Nazi regime borrowed her ideas about sterilizing certain people to stop their reproduction. Their extermination of Jews was a Sanger idea put into practice.
President Richard Nixon (By Unknown or not provided (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)

Richard Nixon was a Progressive. Privately, he called for the confiscation of handguns in America. Political expediency precluded his asking for it publicly. Nixon also gave us the EPA and OSHA. These two agencies have done more to cause the exportation of jobs from America than all the other agencies combined. The vacuum of missing jobs is filled by other government agencies providing for citizen needs.
To some extent, both Presidents Bush were Progressives. Neither did anything to close our borders to illegals entering the USA. The reason for open borders is to create a nation of government dependents. The scheme is working exactly as planned. Progressive policies have put America into decline.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Progressives. Americans would do well to understand that the Progressive Agenda is in place. We, the ordinary citizens are at the mercy of a ruling elite.

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册帐号

本版积分规则

Archiver|手机版|小黑屋|第二港湾

GMT-5, 2024-11-21 15:00 , Processed in 0.027204 second(s), 14 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

Copyright © 2001-2020, Tencent Cloud.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表