Defining Progressivism

The use of government as an agency of human welfare in education, in public service, in political weapons of democracy, chiefly to make the round plugs in our society fit into the square holes of our national economy. - William Allen White

Progressives have for so long wore masks and tried to hide who they are, that finding any one of them honest enough to define progressivism is a deeply difficult task. One thing is clear even to the least involved observer: progressivism is a government-centric ideology. Government, above all else, is what means the most to them. As long as government is growing, they can tolerate any and all deviations within that framework.

White's definition is simple, concise, and most of all, accurate. Very accurate. White wrote this in his 1939 book The Changing West, on page 92. Here's a broader view of what he wrote: (See this and this)

To that end we have been trying to use government as an agency of human welfare in education, in public service, in political weapons of democracy, chiefly to make the round plugs in our society fit into the square holes of our national economy. The environmentalists in our politics - and they included practically all the liberal and progressive leaders - were not revolutionists. They believed in the evolutionary democratic process - the political, and social and economic process.

Understanding that the progressives prefer to eat your lunch bite by bite, and not steal the whole thing from you in one swoop is one of the most important ingredients in the mix. We can point to any number of things:

The Welfare State - This has seen expansions repeatedly over the last 80 years and every time various departments take on more people, cover more things, and cost more money. Ultimately, the basics began with FDR. They didn't begin with LBJ, didn't begin with Carter, or Obama.

The Administrative State - The bureaucracy and the aggressive use of regulations has a long storied history that very often gets tied to the EPA, which is one of the chief abusive agencies that we have today. But the abusive administrative agency did not start with Nixon. Didn't start with FDR either. This goes back to Woodrow Wilson. Wilson is the father of public administration, and many agencies that did exist before him did not do the kinds of voter/taxpayer hassling that they do today until Wilson brought his ideas of administration to office and these agencies were reformed in the mold of the progressive ideologue.

Education - We have Common Core today, but the best in-depth analyses of it mention how directly, CC is built on top of Ted Kennedy's No Child Left Behind framework; and those analyses continue, going back through and ultimately to the work of John Dewey.

Land Usurpations - This one is one of the oldest in the pantheon of the abuses of progressivism. The Bundy Family has repeatedly been in the news for all of their antics and chicanery. While they acted the wrong way in response to a bad situation, ultimately it did bring in discussions about how out of control the BLM is. And where does all of this begin? With Theodore Roosevelt. The original master of land usurping was Teddy, who sold us a bill of goods under the guise of national parks. Isn't that always how the progressives do it? They start with something that seems to make sense, until decades later you're scratching your head and wondering what it is you really signed up for. What did the progressives leave out of the fine print? There's always something they demand in return that they don't mention.

That's the problem with progressives, they're all liars. They can't really tell you they want government to control all aspects of your life, and they know that if they try to steal your whole lunch in one grab that you'll fight back.

But if they only steal one pea off your plate, then they steal another pea, then they take one small piece of a slice of ham off of your plate, then they only take one half-spoonful of the sauce....... Next thing you know you have a President Obama completing the job that a President T. Roosevelt began. They're not revolutionists, it's the evolutionary democratic process. Bite by bite, making you a slave to the administrative state. We're making progress. We're not going to tell you where we're making progress too. But just know. We're making progress.

Progressivism is the use of government as an agency of human welfare in education, in public service, in political weapons of democracy, chiefly to make the round plugs in our society fit into the square holes of our national economy.

It's all there, in that short explanation. Now, every time you hear a progressive speak, don't they throw it all to the economy? We need this Obamacare, to save people's money, it's $2500 per year, it's for the ECONOMY. See. Why did we get the welfare state anyways? Well it's good for the economy, we have this great depression going on. What about using government to attack business? Why, that's good for the economy, we can't have all these trusts, we need to bust these trusts. What about the EPA? Well, we have to have a good fuel ECONOMY, don't we?

And finally, what makes White's definition so completely accurate in its brevity is that he threw in the word "weapon". I can't begin on that, otherwise I'll type a whole book. But needless to say, yes, the progressives have weaponized government against us for the purposes of their control of our lives.

This is the definition of progressivism.

Progressivism is the use of government as an agency of human welfare in education, in public service, in political weapons of democracy, chiefly to make the round plugs in our society fit into the square holes of our national economy.

http://tinyurl.com/jkwwr89

This out of control judge is exactly why I'm re-creating the Constitutional Convention

Many of you have no doubt seen the horrible tragedy of Judge Richard Posner writing that "I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation" and have had the same response that I have.

That's why I have been doing something about it. Blogging or making comments is too easy and probably doesn't have any impact anyways.

We have a big problem in this country with elites believing that they have the right to totally control the media, control our education, and thus, control our history. I say we need to rip it out of their hands, learn it, and then hammer them with it. I know I'm not alone, I just don't know how many people agree with me in this sentiment. I say we need to make it easier for others around us to do the same with useful tools that can make the learning time more efficient. Instead of it taking you a few days, a week or more to go through the convention, which is a very difficult read to begin with, I'll make it so you can do it in a few hours.

With regard to the re-creation of the Convention, it is still a work in progress and will not be completed for quite some time, as the Convention is(was) a massive, massive event. What is currently complete, can be downloaded from here. Still, I can't wait to deliver it to anybody who wants to learn from it, because contrary to what this piece of Judge has stated, the Constitution does deal with many of today's problems. I noted three ill comments from the judge that I want to address:

Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee

They foresaw you, Judge Posner. On July 21st, 1787, Gouverneur Morris had some very prescient comments regarding judges mixing their role in the legislative arena, and how big of a problem that was in England. They also foresaw out of control government, because they lived with it with King George. Here is what Rufus King had to say regarding excessive government: "A great vice in our system was that of legislating too much." (Aug. 7th) Imagine that, the Founders thought government was involved in too much, back in 1787!

Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today

This is how progressives get you. They confuse governmental structure with day-to-day life, with society, with culture, as a way of demeaning and undermining imposed constraints on their power and their ability to dictate to you. Woodrow Wilson was the first to use this tactic. Wilson was, after all, the guy who invented the concept of the "Living and breathing constitution" in the first place. The fact is this: The Constitution is still a very grave threat to anybody who believes in the ideology of progressivism, and the document offends their sensibilities. That to me is a strong indication that the Convention needed to be more easily consumed.

The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about.

This is the second time that the Judge has used the phrase indicating the century.(I underlined them) This is also a common refrain for progressives going back more than a 100 years.(see here, here, here referencing this, here, and here) Much to Judge Posner's and other progressives' chagrin, what happened in the 18th century regarding individual Liberty is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man, much more forward thinking than most of what occurs in the 21st century.

Just to reiterate the title of the blog posting, re-creating the Convention is not an easy project, but it will be done. And it is to the benefit of those of us who stand against anybody with the kind of twisted mindset that Judge Posner is afflicted with.

The Convention download page can be found here.

http://tinyurl.com/gu8jhk5

What do Hillary Clinton and Theodore Roosevelt have in common? Hypocrisy, critics, and criticism

After spending years trying to silence people in the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy", Hillary Clinton shrieked this little number:

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate, and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic and we should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.

Yes, unfortunately, I had to listen to it. I provided the link, but for the sake of your health you might not want to click and listen to the YouTube clip. Now, onto Dear Leader Teddy's hypocrisy. And you know, this is something you always see with progressives. They just can't help themselves. Because they worship at the altar of big government, it's ok for them to lie to whomever they need to lie to. As long as the agenda moves forward.

On April 23rd, 1910, Roosevelt said:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Now, why did Roosevelt say these things? Well, he does give clues. Such as his use of the phrase "strong man". TR was so "strong", he wasn't going to let any G.. D... Constitution stand in his way - and he didn't. He exercised his pen and his phone, whatever he had to do, to get around that pesky Constitution. He readily admitted as much in his own autobiography.(page 372)

I declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for the Nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it. My belief was that it was not only his 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. Under this interpretation of executive power I did and caused to be done many things not previously done by the President and the heads of the departments. I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power. In other words, I acted for the public welfare, I acted for the common well-being of all our people, whenever and in whatever manner was necessary, unless prevented by direct constitutional or legislative prohibition.

So you see, wherever the Constitution stood in TR's way, he simply declined to adopt the view. That's all. That's not so bad, is it? That's why in his letter to George Trevelyan, TR grumbled about how people kept calling him a usurper. Because that's what he did. He usurped.

But what does that have to do with Hillary Clinton? The usual progressive claptrap, of course. If you show me a progressive, I'll show you a person who stands at the height of hypocrisy. Here is what Roosevelt had to say in 1894, at the founding of the National Civic League in Philadelphia:

Two points in especial bear in mind: be actors and not merely critics of others, in the first place, and in the second, do not try to accomplish anything at the very beginning, and then because you fail abandon the effort to accomplish anything.

As to the first point criticism is a very good thing, but work is a much better one. It is not the man who sits at home in his parlor, the man who reads his evening paper before the fire and says how bad our politicians are, who ever works an improvement in our municipal government. It is the man who goes out to the primaries and the polls, who attends the meetings of his party organizations, (etc)

At first glance, this does not seem contradictory. Until you realize, that when TR was elected and he started using the Constitution like toilet paper, that suddenly there weren't any critics worth a penny that he could find. In 1894? Criticism is a good thing. Here, TR is sick and tired of people who say that if you debate, and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic and he stood up to say, that we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration...... But in 1910? It must be that vast right wing conspiracy and we need to silence those guys.

You see, they're just a bunch of critics after all. And critics don't count. They can be silenced. They're just RIGHT WINGERS anyways, clinging to their Constitutions and their Bibles, and antipathy toward others. It's the "strong man" who counts. TR explicitly separated critics from work. Yes, work is better, but criticism, originally that was still a good thing. Was. My, what a difference an election makes.

I guess to TR, the only critic who ever counted was TR himself.

The hypocrisy of progressives. I just can't take it. You can always tell a progressive is lying - is their mouth moving? Yes. There you go. They're lying. If their lips have motion, some devious plot is afoot. Hey, and let's not forget that Hillary keeps going out there and saying that she is just like those progressives from the early 20th century. She must mean Theodore Roosevelt.

After all, she doesn't like the Constitution any more than he did.

http://tinyurl.com/z267297

Wait, what? The Pulse Night Club is a civil rights organization?

In the wake of a horrific tragedy, once again our President is politicizing events. He cannot call islamic terrorism "islamic terrorism", and then there's this:

Obama's full remarks on Orlando nightclub shooting

The place where they were attacked is more than a nightclub — it is a place of solidarity and empowerment where people have come together to raise awareness, to speak their minds, and to advocate for their civil rights.

Unreal. The place where they were attacked is a place to advocate for their civil rights. Hey, he said it. The link is the full transcript. I'm seeing shades of Rahm Emanuel here. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

Henry George on the definition of Socialism

Despite the fact that Henry George was in favor of land nationalization, here is his view on the term 'socialism', and those who were calling him socialist.(The Works of Henry George, Protection or Free Trade, page 324)

The term "socialism" is used so loosely that it is hard to attach to it a definite meaning. I myself am classed as a socialist by those who denounce socialism, while those who profess themselves socialists declare me not to be one. For my own part I neither claim nor repudiate the name, and realizing as I do the correlative truth of bath principles can no more call myself an individualist or a socialist than one who considers the forces by which the planets are held to their orbits could call himself a centrifugalist or a centripetalist. The German socialism of the school of Marx (of which the leading representative in England is Mr. H. M. Hyndman, and the best exposition in America has been given by Mr. Laurence Gronlund), seems to me a high-purposed but incoherent mixture of truth and fallacy, the defects of which may be summed up in its want of radicalism - that is to say, of going to the root.

Like many progressives, George was not a socialist. He truly believed that if government only taxed land at 100%, that would solve more problems than any other proposal. 100 years after Theodore Roosevelt used parks as an excuse to start nationalizing land, we've experienced how dangerous it is for government to control the land. In the end, we the people are the ones who end up suffering.