By Seth Richardson
In a September column, “Libertarianism and Collectivism”, I discussed the general principles of the two political ideologies and pointed out that collectivists, at least the honest ones, are forthright in their belief that the individuals of a society owe a duty to the collective, and that prosperity for the collective requires sacrifice of individual interests in the name of the public good.
Moderate collectivists, known today as “Liberals” and sometimes “Moderate Democrats,” are willing to acknowledge that individual rights do exist, at least to one extent or another, and have the grace to at least moderate their ideological quest for equality of outcome with a grudging obedience to due process and some modicum of conciliation towards the liberty interests of the People and the Constitution. Moderate Democrats are at least willing to engage the process our Republic uses to make law.
Progressives, however, have no compunctions whatever about imposing their vision of Progressive utopia over the strident objection of everyone, if they can manage it by hook or by crook. And that Progressive arrogance and disrespect for both due process and public opinion is precisely what we’re seeing in Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and all their ilk, both within the Democrat and Republican parties, as they attempt to ram government-run health care through the Congress.
It has become essential to the preservation of the Republic and our individual liberty to learn how to identify Progressives wherever they may metastasize. With that in mind, I’m going to discuss what the Progressive ideology is, and what it has planned for you and I.
The beginning of American Progressivism in government was Teddy Roosevelt, our first Progressive president. His major contribution was the National Parks, which were a good idea, but which were also the first move in a long-running chess game of Progressives against fundamental liberty and limited government. By claiming unbridled Executive power without a shred of Constitutional authority, Roosevelt personally reserved huge swaths of public lands and preserved them in perpetuity. The result was noble, but the process was anything but.
Never before, outside of wartime, had any President executed such sweeping and permanent changes to the complexion of our nation entirely without Congressional approval or even advice. That Congress did not balk Roosevelt was not surprising, given the beneficent intent of his exercise of executive power, but its failure to act immediately to constrain this arrogation of executive power has resulted in much mischief and has empowered Progressives beyond all reason or justice in the decades since.
But things didn’t really get rolling with the Progressives until Woodrow Wilson was elected.
Wilson, an unapologetic racist, eugenicist, Ivy-League professor and President of Princeton University, despised the Constitution and the Congress as obstructions to his vision of a “perfected” nation run by professional, unelected bureaucrats and the Executive, lead by a strong, charismatic leader (himself) who would apply science to government and run the country by executive regulation rather than rule of law. He sought to impose this tyranny of the intellectual elite for the benefit of the downtrodden lumpen proletarian masses too fundamentally ignorant and stupid to know what is best for themselves, to be sure. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that is the road he set us upon, and which we tread today.
Wilson, a fan of the British parliamentary system, thought that the Congress should be a political debating club whose only purpose was to provide broad guidance to the President, who might choose to take that advice, but who, with the guidance of his hand-picked intellectually superior Cabinet ministers, would be solely responsible for determining the “unified national will” of the people, and who would be empowered to do whatever was necessary, unconstrained by law or custom, to achieve this vision.
He, like Obama and Bush the Younger (a closet Progressive who deeply admired Wilson), and many other Progressive presidents, believe that the Constitution is just a piece of paper, and that only “science” and the “unified national will” of the people, as discerned and expressed by a strong President smart enough and well-educated enough to know what that unified will is, should rule government and make law, in order to move society “progressively” closer to some undefined state of political and social perfection, through a Darwin-like evolution of political power and social science.
To Wilson, and FDR, and every Progressive since, the fundamental touchstones of our society, the very foundation on which our incredibly successful form of government was founded, our natural, unalienable, individual rights as human beings are impediments to the progress of society, which in their view has an ultimate, utopian form where the intelligentsia run the country for the benefit of the ignorant not through the rule of law and according to constitutional principles, but through the “science” of executive branch regulation handed down by professional, lifetime-tenure bureaucrats. (Side note: Wilson was the inventor of the Civil Service that entrenches bureaucrats in government and makes them harder than ticks to root out even when they are biased, corrupt, or incompetent.)
The structure of our Republic is one of three branches, the Executive, Judicial and Legislative, all equal in power and subject to the overarching will of the People. Each branch is constrained by the others in a complex system of checks and balances, including the Constitution, intended to prevent runaway tyranny.
But Progressives disdain the separation of powers, the checks and balances and the Constitution itself, and seek to impose top-down unitary Executive Branch management. Instead of the broad foundation of three equal branches, they propose an ivory tower of power, with the President residing at the penthouse of a vertical edifice that places the People at the bottom, using their bodies and rights as rubble for the foundation, with the Congress on their backs and the Judiciary treading on Congress’ power in support of the apex predator of Progressivism, the President, who rules over everyone in benign and benevolent intellectual superiority, supported by a coterie of sinister Ministers and the scientific expertise of the intellectually elite Executive Branch bureaucrats.
If the thought of groaning and sweating under the burden of such an oppressive and arrogant government scares you, it should, because Progressives are nearly there. This is evidenced by examples such as the EPA’s blatant and tyrannical disregard of the Separation of Powers Doctrine inherent in it’s threat that if Congress does not pass climate legislation, the EPA will do it through regulation.
This is a shot across the bow of our Republic by Cass Sunstein, Obama’s “Regulatory Czar,” an uber-radical Progressive who is at the moment the most dangerous man in America. Sunstein is so dangerous because he can effectuate the Progressive agenda of controlling everything in America, from the food we eat to the houses we live in, to the clothing we wear, to the cars we (do not) drive through “nudges” applied by “interpreting” existing federal regulations.
He’s able to do this because for nearly a hundred years, Congress has been giving government bureaucrats and agencies broad powers to exercise executive authority on the excuse that they will use them wisely and not abuse their authority and are under the overall supervision of Congress.
But with Sunstein in charge, and Obama in office, Progressives and outright Communists infesting our government agencies and even the White House, and a Congress under the Svengaliesque influence of Progressivism, Sunstein, at Obama’s command, and can cause massive damage to our rights and our economy without any real threat of interference from Congress.
All this happened because we, the People, lost our focus on the Founders and our own fundamental liberties. We have surrendered our essential liberties for the mere promise of safety, a promise that was a lie to begin with and could never be fulfilled anyway.
Our only hope is to learn to recognize the danger that we face, which is the first step in retaking the Constitution and the Republic from those in power who seek to destroy it.
© 2010 Altnews
sex shop on line…
[...]Progressivism and tyranny – a primer – The Broadside : Colorado Springs Gazette, CO[...]…
timeline for pages…
[...]Progressivism and tyranny – a primer – The Broadside : Colorado Springs Gazette, CO[...]…
Bonus Backlinks!…
Get a sample backlink from http://www.usbhubreview.net/sites-we-like-2. Just fill in the offer and your backlink is permanent….
Mr. Richardson,
I am inspired by your article on Gazette.com the Broadside. Evergreen Tea Party would like you to speak at one of its meetings. Our members and the general public would greatly benefit from so thorough an appreciation of the history of progressivism. We convene the second Monday of every month. Please contact me so that we might set it up. I can be reached at the email address above.
Mr. Richardson,
I don’t know another way to contact you, but I wanted to make sure you saw this (see link). Wow. Hope you get it.
http://townhall.com/columnists/LuritaDoan/2011/01/24/federal_government_unions_looting_american_taxpayers
Thanks for the link, I do get it and I’ll look into it.
Jlee42, the reason the wealthy are “progressive” is because they have a set group of “elite families of wealth” that they want to stay in power, and taking away the wealth of the “new rich”, is a way to prevent “new blood” coming into the fold, unless the “new rich” agree to abide by said “progressive” agenda of government control through them. True “Classical” liberals (libertarians), like our founding fathers, and myself, want all people to be free to succeed in life, on thier own terms, as long as they do not violate another person’s right and freedom to succeed. Of course, success must be individially earned, and not handed out at the expense of others. Progressives, on the otherhand, see things as collectivists, that you and I “owe” our lives to the “benevolent state” that is just trying to steer we idiots toward a perfected (1984/Gattacan) world. As a disabled individual, I particularly fear a Gattacan world, where I, if not killed outright, would be relegated to menial jobs like that of the older janitor played by Ernest Borgnigne. Though he had been a highly educated scientist or engineer, he was demoted to janitor because he was an “in-valid”, unenhanced by genetic tailoring. However, progressives see such a world as progress towards perfection, and progressives never see themselves as becoming a member of the masses of serfs whom they will to subjugate, for our own good, of course. Therefore, even though they may present themselves as having care, concern, and empathy for us, they are really looking down their noses at us with thinly veiled contempt.
Seth, speaking of progressives:
***”The goal is totalitarian control of government, and if Marxist egalitarian rhetoric gains Obama the necessary support, he’ll use it, just as Hitler used anti-semitism, nationlism, environmentalism and socialism in his rhetoric, all the while focusing on the goal of fascistic total control of society.”
Ah, yes, the obligitory Obama/Hitler connection.
Of course, “progressives” are Hitler wanna be’s.
The right wing is obsessed with defining “progressivism” because they need another enemy, now that they have worn out “socialist”.
One thing I know for sure about “progressivism” is that it is the antithesis of fascism.
This whole conversation is like going to James Dobson for a definition of what an atheist is.
If you want to know what an atheist is, ask an atheist.
And if you can find a “progressive” ask a progressive what a progressive is.
Otherwise, all I see going on here is the creation of another straw man for use by the advocates for corporate control of our country.
As for this from Seth Richardson:
***”The difficulty with Progressives is that they have no ideological foundation other than the “perfection” of the political state.”
I agree 100%.
And I would reference the first 15 words of the Constitution. If this is the foundation of progressivism, then go ahead, label me “progressive”.
“We could use some Libertarians at the new place.”
Libertarianism is just as dangerous. Those who fail to see this don’t understand that Left and Right meet at the extremes. Neglecting the rights of the individual is treacherous, but so is thinking you’re ever truly an island unto yourself.
Zen, that is my comment you replied to. My meaning is in reference to a need for balace or the addition of opposing political positions and points of view on a particualr web site where the current views are strongly left leaning and heavily weighted towards Liberalism and Socialism. I was not commenting on anything in general, but the political demographics of a web site I frequent.
Libertarians don’t think they are islands onto themselves. That is just another leftist canard. Libertarians, like leftists, are all for cooperation; however, we feel that people cooperate better without the strong arm of government getting involved.
In fact, the truth is, what socialists call cooperation is really just government coercion and proletariat submission. Libertarians are the only ones that actually embrace true cooperation that is voluntary and beneficial to all involved.
Progressive G.B. Shaw said: “I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the community, and as long as I live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can.”
This sounds appealing, somewhat, if one thinks of ‘community’ as your family, friends, co-workers, and neighbors. But this word ‘community’, or ‘village’, is really just another word for ‘the State’, or ‘government’, isn’t it?
There is nothing wrong with Shaw dedicating his life to the community. The problem occurs when he advocates the use of government force to coerce others into dedicating their labor or property against their will.
Progressives love to hold themselves out as examples of community mindedness and self-sacrifice, which is all well and good, but they never stop there, they always demand that others sacrifice themselves too, and have no compunctions about enslaving them to that agenda.
I read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ when I was maybe 15, and fell under its spell, just as I did when I read ‘GWTW’ when I was 13, 14, and for a 3rd time when I was 15, and spent years looking for a Rhett Butler to call my own, but of course, in time, and after suffering the slings and arrows that accompany romance, I saw Rhett for what he is. But what about John Galt? What goes around comes around, and maybe it’s time, despite the book’s formidable length, to reread ‘Atlas’? Rand, having lived with and fled communism, knows whereof she speaks, but is there a better, although still easy-to-understand (which eliminates the pure philosophers), author on this subject?
I’m curioius…you say that the modern Progressive movement began with Teddy Roosevelt…surely he did not come up with concept on his own…in addition to the Roosevelts and Wilson who else is responsible for Progressivism? Where exactly did the Progressvie ideology come from?
The Progressive movement is founded in both the German and English Historical Schools of thought. Roosevelt was a serious Nationalist Historicist. Wilson, on the other hand, was more of a globalist one might say, in that his interest was in the philosophy of evolutionary government rather than any specific notion of nationalism.
Darwin and his evolutionary theory had a lot to do with the foundation of the Progressive school of political thought. Evolution was all the rage in the late 1880s in academia, and it was extended to all sorts of things it was not intended to cover.
Historicism is the theory that politics is relative, and can only be viewed properly in context with the current needs of the society. There is no firm moral or political foundation in Historicism, which is based in Hegelian idealistic philosophy. Rather, Historicism, and in the current context Progressivism, eschews moral or political foundations and argues for a moral and political relativism that supersedes moral foundations in the interests of evolution towards an ultimate ideal political form. This moral relativism rejects the notion of fundamental natural rights because such rights create a foundation that frustrates the ability of government to evolve to meet whatever need appears at a given time in history.
Thus, our Constitution is anathema to Progressives precisely because it states foundational principles that interfere with the (as Progressives see it) the necessary evolution of political thought towards the ideal form of democratic government, which in their view, is the lumpen proletariat ruled by the intellectual elite, for their own good, of course.
Hegelian philosophy and this path towards an idealized system is the basis of Marxism as well. Marx also saw a process unconstrained by principle proceeding towards an idealized goal, but unlike Progressivism, which evolves slowly, Marxism is forwarded by revolution. But in their ultimate goals, they are much the same; the Cult of the State.
Levin’s book “Liberty and Tyranny” presents a more detailed account of many of these ideas. I think it should be dubbed the handbook for conservatives.
Thanks for the reference. I’ll look it up.
Thanks, Jim, for the link. The 2.4.10 The article says the Gallop poll did not ask “how Americans define “socialism” or what exactly they think of when they hear the word” but that the poll “helps shed light on connotations associated with this frequently used term.”
This is why essays like Seth’s published in the Gazette are important. The public does not know what ‘fascism’ ‘communism’ ‘liberalism’ ‘collectivism’ ‘progressivism’ and other ‘isms’ mean. Nor does the public know what ‘democratic’ and ‘republican’ and ‘libertarian’ mean and how these affect , i.e. control and restrict the freedom of the individual.
2 months ago, before I read something Seth wrote, I didn’t know what ‘progressive’ meant or who ‘progressives’ were or what their goals and intentions are or what they want from me and just how dangerous to my liberty and the liberty of all Americans these ‘progressive’ politicians and their followers and helpers are as they push on towards total control and power OVER the people.
Somehow the “progressives” are winning the war of words. First they arrogate to themselves the use of “liberal,” which connotes open-mindedness, stealing that term from “classical liberalism,” which is identical to modern libertarianism. Now that everyone seems to have caught on to them and “liberal” is viewed negatively by most Americans, they call themselves “progressives.” And who doesn’t want to be thought progressive? But fundamentally they are nothing but socialists/communists/fascists, or more simply totalitarians or statists. Meanwhile, “libertarian” is conflated with “libertine.” It’s frustrating.
They are very adept at lying, that much is true. Saul Alinsky is their playbook, and anyone who hasn’t read “Rules for Radicals” needs to do so, because his tactics are as applicable to fighting tyranny as they are imposing it.
This facility for shifting context and labels is one of the reasons why it’s important to identify Progressives by their works, not by their words. And once you’ve identified them, it is critically important to always call them what they truly are, and never give them the chance to weasel out of the label.
This is what frustrates me about OReilly these days. He’s unwilling to use the word “Progressive”, and he even debates whether Obama is a socialist.
The problem is that Obama’s not a socialist, but he is a Progressive, but most people don’t understand that Progressivism is pretty much the end result of socialism and could just as easily, with a very few differences, be called Communism, at least as Communism ends up once the Central Committee takes over.
We need to settle on one term, and Communism isn’t it because of the technical definition that has both socialism and communism having “the workers” owning the “means of production.” We all know that this Marxist ideal is never met in any socialist or communist system because it is the State that actually ends up owning everything, but people become confused by the claimed principles.
Progressivism, on the other hand, doesn’t necessarily seize ownership of the means of production, it either co-opts by offering financial advantage (protection from the State) or coerces through regulation all business, while leaving technical title with the owners.
That’s exactly what’s happening to our banking system.
Rather than offering TARP money to small banks to bail them out, the federal regulators are simply shutting them down, even though they may be solvent but stressed, and are selling their assets to the big banks for pennies on the dollar.
This creates a banking system that is under the control of the state because there are few banks with many tentacles who owe the State everything, having been bailed out by the State.
That’s one of my future columns.
Seth, paragraphs three and four confuse me. You say Obama is not a socialist, but he is a Progressive; then you go on to say that he’s closer to a Communist? Do you think, then, it is inaccurate to call him a socialist?
Given what I know about Obama’s voting record, his past associations, and his actions in office, I cannot imagine a socialist proposal that he would object to on principle alone. I believe he might object on the opportunistic basis of political prudence, but not on any free market principle or on any allegiance to individual liberty or on any moral scruple.
The difficulty with Progressives is that they have no ideological foundation other than the “perfection” of the political state. Their ultimate goal is ultimate statism, the Cult of the State, and all things, including the rhetoric they use, is subordinate to achieving that goal.
Practically speaking, Progressives will use any rhetoric and support any ideology or political position that advances their ultimate goal, and they will change rhetorical positions as easily as changing their underwear if it serves their purpose to do so. We have seen Obama do this numerous times since he was elected.
In this case, as in Progressivism historically, populism, by which I mean appeals to the collectivist notions of egalitarianism, are an effective way to gain compliance and consolidate power.
Thus, Obama’s catering to the socialist agenda of ACORN and the other labor unions seems to identify him strongly with socialism. But I see this as merely another Progressive charade. I do not believe that he, or Hillary Clinton, or indeed Nancy Pelosi have any intention of allowing a socialist state to emerge, even while they are pandering to socialists in order to consolidate their own power. Their goal is to rule the lumpen proletariat, not become them.
I would fully expect that once the structure and framework of the ultimate Progressive totalitarian state is in place, labor unions will be as carefully coerced as GM. This is possible, of course, because the whole point of liberal fascists, as Jonah Goldberg points out, is to place all industry and business firmly under the thumb of the State, and only allow them such power as the government allows, and only on the condition that industry and business (including labor unions) cooperate with the political and social goals of the State.
The consolidation of labor unions under broad umbrellas like ACORN and AFL/CIO serves to facilitate government command and control. I doubt that any labor union that balks Obama’s agenda will remain free of federal racketeering investigation for very long.
This is precisely what the government is now doing to the banking industry. Federal regulators are examining small, independent banks and, finding them “stressed” are shutting them down wholesale, even though they are still solvent, and are selling their assets to the big, interstate and transnational banks for pennies on the dollar. No TARP bailouts for small community banks.
The reason is obvious: by placing all banking in the US under the wing of large, transnational and interstate banks, the federal government can more easily control the banking system through both regulation and through coercion and threats.
This is precisely what Barney Frank did to the big banks that coerced them into making home loans the banks never would have made absent Frank’s outright threats of federal investigations and denials of branch extensions.
The goal is totalitarian control of government, and if Marxist egalitarian rhetoric gains Obama the necessary support, he’ll use it, just as Hitler used anti-semitism, nationlism, environmentalism and socialism in his rhetoric, all the while focusing on the goal of fascistic total control of society.
Well spoken, Seth. I do enjoy your pages and replies.
I am going to ask you the same question I asked my 80 year old father last year.
What do we do about it?
If Congress requires every citizen to buy bogus insurance (Medicare, HealthCare reform or Social Security) what do we do about it? Voting them out still gets congress paid free medical care, salary and benefits for life. How do we kill this socialism and force congress to pay for their misdeeds.
His answer “Vote at your local gun store.”
Your thoughts?
Like Beck, I’m wary of advocating violence, however obliquely. Until the day comes when the government refuses to recognize the validity of a proper vote, or when any government official up to and including the President refuses to step down when voted out of office, exercise of the First Amendment and the right to vote are the proper way to excise Progressivism from our society.
I just had the most interesting experience lizardfishr, I bought my first rifle off the internet. I live in Montana and we have pretty liberal–ie unregulated–gun laws. I don’t know what the situation is for you guys in Colorado. I chose to go with online sellers because the prices were better than anything I saw in the local gun stores, by about 60%. All I had to do was arrange with someone locally who has an FFL to receive shipment. It was quite easy and for only a $10 fee to the FFl holder. I did have to fill out the same paperwork I would have if I had purchased from a store; a phone call was made at the time to make sure I hadn’t lied about anything on the paperwork. And I took my gun home. This would be the same process even for a handgun.
Not that my anecdote is pertinent or anything, just that you mentioned “gun” and “thoughs” in the same reply, and well, these are my thoughts on guns.
We’re in pretty good shape here. We have “Shall Issue” for concealed carry, and the state has a preemption on local ordinances as well. Open carry is legal except in some home-rule cities, specifically including Denver. Denver does ban its residents from owning “assault weapons” however, and the state Supreme Court has upheld that authority over the state preemption.
Sadly, we have a VERY liberal state supreme court right now.
I would not have been able to buy my plinker then, if I lived in Denver.
Wonderful essay, as always, Seth. Perhaps the following (shocking) link has some bearing on the topic.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/Socialism-Viewed-Positively-Americans.aspx?version=print
Thanks Jim. An aside, did you know the Dawkins site is going through substantial changes, evidently to prevent dissenting opinion from getting a foothold. The new forum will require moderator approval of a topic, and I understand they are going to restrict topics to “reason and science.”
I didn’t know any of this. I’ve broken my addiction and successfully avoided the site for several months now. I always felt a little dirty after visiting it.
We could use some Libertarians at the new place.
Gallstones, feel free to post a link to the new place.
Hehehe.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/
Be forewarned, it is the same rules and same staff as the old place. Hope that doesn’t put you off. We have not had good luck getting any Libertarians to stay, they don’t seem to have the stamina and keep getting run off by those who presume to run the show. LOL.
Same banned list, or do I get a fresh start?
Everyone gets a fresh start.
Thomas Sowell’s 2.13.08 column reviews the book “Liberal Fascism” and discusses the connection between liberals, progressives, and fascists.” … http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell021308.php3
And Sowell’s 7.5.06 column talks about Teddy Roosevelt, saying of him, “TR was a “progressive” and denounced “malefactors of great wealth.” What more could the intelligentsia and the media want?” … http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell070506.asp
Why is it that politicians who come from families of wealth and privilege, such as TR and FDR and the Kennedys, are progressives? Is it guilt? But as guilt can be assuaged by giving away their own personal fortunes, which these men did not do, what explains their determination to take away the wealth acquired by others?