Except that Jefferson publicly fought that notion to some degree as he tangled with Hamilton's drive to put the early republic's financing on a sounder footing. Jefferson (and Madison, who broke from his Federalist Papers co-conspirator) increasingly pushed for real mass democracy - a country of rural propertied farmers who excercised more and more control directly of the country - a furthering of the original delcaration of independence along the lines of France. Now how much he really believed that is up for debate, his real concern was what he saw as the consolidation of power in the monied class in New England at the expense of his region.
In my studies, I am finding more and more that the historians understanding of progressivism is no more correct than what I thought when I was in HS and college. I believe that in some time mine will be the predominant thought. I do not find it ahistorical at all. It actually is quite interesting to see the fight during Washinginton's adminstration over what was true republicanism and what was monarchy lite. This fight has been going on almost since the ratification of the constitution.
I don't trust the masses. Occasionally, they come around, but often times are led by well intentioned - or not - individuals with an agenda, for instance the global warming scam, which only could have been fanned by progressive govt power determining certain energy use was immoral. Look at ObamaCare. The desire for speed of passage was so that they could use the initial public support before they caught on. I know some people love direct democracy. I don't, and as I have stated, love the diffussion of power all throughout the system. That is a check well placed. Direct democracy is at odds with the US Constitution.
Was direct election of Senators a progressive act? Yes, because it changed the structure and composition of the body and increased the opportunity for tyranny of the masses. The House was for the tyranny of the masses, the Senate for the tyranny of the states. Now power is less diffused.
CK - Sorry for my absence, I actually had to do some work for a change. To your response that I am changing the definition of progressive, I am not. We are still working under different definitions I am afraid.
Under your definition you are fixating on progress. By your definition, any exercise of supposedly enlightened legislative action is progress. I do not accept that as a marker for Progressivism - which is leftist to the core and talks about the intrusion of the state in the private affairs of the governed. Voting is a public political act. I fail to see how the expansion or contraction of this right is either progressive or not. It certainly fails to meet the very basic definition of progressivism that I have consistently used since this argument got going. I didn't say giving women the right to vote was a bad thing, or that it wasn't a good thing. I am not even going to suggest those in the progressive movement didn't support it, I know they did.
What came with progressive thought to my mind was the inflaming of nationalist tendencies, and the idea that the nation state must be enhanced and protected against all enemies, real and imagined. I do not deny that there was a pacifist bent to the progressives, though much more prevalant here than in Europe, which leads me to believe that the pacifism in the US was more attuned to the long standing isolationist bent in our nation's history. The pacifism which existed in Europe particularly between the World Wars was a reaction in France and Britain over the slaughter of so many of the nations' youth, the introduction of the notion that war was no longer heroic. But this reaction was not evident in Italy and Japan (part of the allies in WWI), nor Germany (which lost), nor Russia (which bowed out). With the exception of Japan and maybe Italy, the losses were equally awful yet in these countries where the progressives were dominant, they created the next fight.
WWI is a little more complicated and I would like to re-consider my argument. WWI is often times called a reaction to an assassination, or the triggering of defense treaties meant to keep the peace. While that is all true, I believe there was more there than meets the eye. That Britain and France felt it was a call to arms and the heroic response to another war, I am not so sure about the others.
I am curious how you can call women's suffrage progressive. It doesn't meet the definition in any form. How is the granting of voting privileges either progressive or non-progressive. It isn't an expansion of the states powers, it was a legal change to voting rules. Under your definition of progressivism, any legal change you like is progressive. The direct election of Senators I do see as a progressive doctrine, and I am not sure it has been for the better, because this changed a fundamental structure of the body. Women's suffrage just added voters.
Rex - I haven't seen it yet in person. I imagine it is here and now just because the technological progress and ease of life compared to earlier times. I do see a great miscarriage of justice and intrusion on liberty the further along the 20th century progressed. We finally saw a great deal of prosperity which numbed the masses, but I look at the New Deal, the Great Society, and the current bunch as on balance unfortunate. I believe there is more greatness to find that is snuffed out by the govt. I knew of the New Deal issues for some time, but I am only now learning more about the heyday of early progressive thought. I don't like it at all.
Once again, I don't accept woman's suffrage as progressive or not - it was a decision to confer voting rights on another class of citizens who before that had none. To suggest that it is somewhat progressive or not is false. It is neither. I am currently looking into more background on the anti-trust legislative era. I studied it like everyone else in school and remember all the robber baron stuff. It is only recently that I came to understand the property right side of the equation.
I guess my biggest problem is that all these supposed reasons for passing these laws was not based upon the righting of a specific problem. It was done on a broader more insidious rationale, that once breeched couldn't stop itself. Whatever goodness big government programs bring they more than make up for it in badness and misery. I know that directly for the new deal politics - and the great society is awful. I am trying to learn more about earlier days. Perhaps, CK, there is a reasonable chance for some good to come from laws consistent with this philosophy but that it quickly eats itself and creates a reaction which makes it all worse. So far everything I have investigated (a progressive based legislative act) has fit that mold.
I do not see pure democracy as a good thing as I am sure you know. I have looked more deeply into the early referenced article you linked to, and while I understand the argument, I don't for one minute believe the proponents of the philosophy or their ability to stop it from turning ugly.
Once the masses realize they can concentrate power and dictate terms to everyone else who disagrees, it is tyranny. I like the diffusing of power and see great advantage in the Founders having done so. Perhaps that is why we have been more resistant to socialism than western Europe, although two world wars on your continent can make you easy prey for anything, albeit progressive thought was implicit in creating the conditions for both of them.
With each post I think we are getting closer to understanding one another - at least I hope.
I do not dispute that as we live in the age where what I might call liberal-statist progressivism (LSP) has reigned almost supreme, that there will be a requirement for an activist attack on it which acknowledges politcal reality. If you are equating that action as some different form of progressivism, I guess I understand, although I would love to coin a different term. The dems are running from liberal and using progressive, remember how they absconded liberal when progressive became a dirty word many years ago. We need to make progressive a bad word, for then the LSP's have no where else to go.
I think Ryan is trying that. I know that my preferred manner to get rid of LSP legislation is not politically viable - end Medicare and SS today. Neither the politicians or the population are ready for that. Of course we didn't get here in a day either, so some time is necessary, where politicians can present opportunities for rollback that have the chance to pass. If your fear is that Beck could eliminate the space these reform (anti-LSP) politicians will need to do this, I share some of those concerns. Yet, these politicians will also need someone or group to hold them accountable for making some progress - we have enough issues with politicians saying one thing and doing another.
As to whether or not progressivism, statism, modern day liberalism, fascism, socialism, nazism and communism are all similar though distinct terms; sharing the same political underpinnings, I will remain your ever faithful stubborn advocate for the affirmative position.
I am finding this all rather fascinating. Here's to keeping this discussion going, with the generous application of respectful debate.
@ Seth Halpern:
Except that Jefferson publicly fought that notion to some degree as he tangled with Hamilton's drive to put the early republic's financing on a sounder footing. Jefferson (and Madison, who broke from his Federalist Papers co-conspirator) increasingly pushed for real mass democracy - a country of rural propertied farmers who excercised more and more control directly of the country - a furthering of the original delcaration of independence along the lines of France. Now how much he really believed that is up for debate, his real concern was what he saw as the consolidation of power in the monied class in New England at the expense of his region.
@ CK MacLeod:
In my studies, I am finding more and more that the historians understanding of progressivism is no more correct than what I thought when I was in HS and college. I believe that in some time mine will be the predominant thought. I do not find it ahistorical at all. It actually is quite interesting to see the fight during Washinginton's adminstration over what was true republicanism and what was monarchy lite. This fight has been going on almost since the ratification of the constitution.
I don't trust the masses. Occasionally, they come around, but often times are led by well intentioned - or not - individuals with an agenda, for instance the global warming scam, which only could have been fanned by progressive govt power determining certain energy use was immoral. Look at ObamaCare. The desire for speed of passage was so that they could use the initial public support before they caught on. I know some people love direct democracy. I don't, and as I have stated, love the diffussion of power all throughout the system. That is a check well placed. Direct democracy is at odds with the US Constitution.
Was direct election of Senators a progressive act? Yes, because it changed the structure and composition of the body and increased the opportunity for tyranny of the masses. The House was for the tyranny of the masses, the Senate for the tyranny of the states. Now power is less diffused.
CK - Sorry for my absence, I actually had to do some work for a change. To your response that I am changing the definition of progressive, I am not. We are still working under different definitions I am afraid.
Under your definition you are fixating on progress. By your definition, any exercise of supposedly enlightened legislative action is progress. I do not accept that as a marker for Progressivism - which is leftist to the core and talks about the intrusion of the state in the private affairs of the governed. Voting is a public political act. I fail to see how the expansion or contraction of this right is either progressive or not. It certainly fails to meet the very basic definition of progressivism that I have consistently used since this argument got going. I didn't say giving women the right to vote was a bad thing, or that it wasn't a good thing. I am not even going to suggest those in the progressive movement didn't support it, I know they did.
Nah - they are actually to blame for everything!!
What came with progressive thought to my mind was the inflaming of nationalist tendencies, and the idea that the nation state must be enhanced and protected against all enemies, real and imagined. I do not deny that there was a pacifist bent to the progressives, though much more prevalant here than in Europe, which leads me to believe that the pacifism in the US was more attuned to the long standing isolationist bent in our nation's history. The pacifism which existed in Europe particularly between the World Wars was a reaction in France and Britain over the slaughter of so many of the nations' youth, the introduction of the notion that war was no longer heroic. But this reaction was not evident in Italy and Japan (part of the allies in WWI), nor Germany (which lost), nor Russia (which bowed out). With the exception of Japan and maybe Italy, the losses were equally awful yet in these countries where the progressives were dominant, they created the next fight.
WWI is a little more complicated and I would like to re-consider my argument. WWI is often times called a reaction to an assassination, or the triggering of defense treaties meant to keep the peace. While that is all true, I believe there was more there than meets the eye. That Britain and France felt it was a call to arms and the heroic response to another war, I am not so sure about the others.
I am curious how you can call women's suffrage progressive. It doesn't meet the definition in any form. How is the granting of voting privileges either progressive or non-progressive. It isn't an expansion of the states powers, it was a legal change to voting rules. Under your definition of progressivism, any legal change you like is progressive. The direct election of Senators I do see as a progressive doctrine, and I am not sure it has been for the better, because this changed a fundamental structure of the body. Women's suffrage just added voters.
Rex - I haven't seen it yet in person. I imagine it is here and now just because the technological progress and ease of life compared to earlier times. I do see a great miscarriage of justice and intrusion on liberty the further along the 20th century progressed. We finally saw a great deal of prosperity which numbed the masses, but I look at the New Deal, the Great Society, and the current bunch as on balance unfortunate. I believe there is more greatness to find that is snuffed out by the govt. I knew of the New Deal issues for some time, but I am only now learning more about the heyday of early progressive thought. I don't like it at all.
Once again, I don't accept woman's suffrage as progressive or not - it was a decision to confer voting rights on another class of citizens who before that had none. To suggest that it is somewhat progressive or not is false. It is neither. I am currently looking into more background on the anti-trust legislative era. I studied it like everyone else in school and remember all the robber baron stuff. It is only recently that I came to understand the property right side of the equation.
I guess my biggest problem is that all these supposed reasons for passing these laws was not based upon the righting of a specific problem. It was done on a broader more insidious rationale, that once breeched couldn't stop itself. Whatever goodness big government programs bring they more than make up for it in badness and misery. I know that directly for the new deal politics - and the great society is awful. I am trying to learn more about earlier days. Perhaps, CK, there is a reasonable chance for some good to come from laws consistent with this philosophy but that it quickly eats itself and creates a reaction which makes it all worse. So far everything I have investigated (a progressive based legislative act) has fit that mold.
I do not see pure democracy as a good thing as I am sure you know. I have looked more deeply into the early referenced article you linked to, and while I understand the argument, I don't for one minute believe the proponents of the philosophy or their ability to stop it from turning ugly.
Once the masses realize they can concentrate power and dictate terms to everyone else who disagrees, it is tyranny. I like the diffusing of power and see great advantage in the Founders having done so. Perhaps that is why we have been more resistant to socialism than western Europe, although two world wars on your continent can make you easy prey for anything, albeit progressive thought was implicit in creating the conditions for both of them.
With each post I think we are getting closer to understanding one another - at least I hope.
I do not dispute that as we live in the age where what I might call liberal-statist progressivism (LSP) has reigned almost supreme, that there will be a requirement for an activist attack on it which acknowledges politcal reality. If you are equating that action as some different form of progressivism, I guess I understand, although I would love to coin a different term. The dems are running from liberal and using progressive, remember how they absconded liberal when progressive became a dirty word many years ago. We need to make progressive a bad word, for then the LSP's have no where else to go.
I think Ryan is trying that. I know that my preferred manner to get rid of LSP legislation is not politically viable - end Medicare and SS today. Neither the politicians or the population are ready for that. Of course we didn't get here in a day either, so some time is necessary, where politicians can present opportunities for rollback that have the chance to pass. If your fear is that Beck could eliminate the space these reform (anti-LSP) politicians will need to do this, I share some of those concerns. Yet, these politicians will also need someone or group to hold them accountable for making some progress - we have enough issues with politicians saying one thing and doing another.
As to whether or not progressivism, statism, modern day liberalism, fascism, socialism, nazism and communism are all similar though distinct terms; sharing the same political underpinnings, I will remain your ever faithful stubborn advocate for the affirmative position.
I am finding this all rather fascinating. Here's to keeping this discussion going, with the generous application of respectful debate.