Now you are rejecting the idea that progressivism is liberalism. Welcome to my world.

In an address in North Carolina, FDR said:

In those days, 1913 and 1914, the leadership of the Nation was in the hands of a great President who was seeking to recover for our social system ground that had been lost under his conservative predecessor, and to restore something of the fighting liberal spirit which the Nation had gained under Theodore Roosevelt. It seemed one of our great national tragedies that just when Woodrow Wilson was beginning to accomplish definite improvements in the living standards of America, the World War not only interrupted his course, but laid the foundation for twelve years of retrogression.

Yes, you read that paragraph correctly. Now does FDR actually believe Teddy was a "liberal" having a "fighting liberal spirit"? No probably not. But FDR was retcon-drunk trying to retroactively change progressivism's back story after the deathblow 1920 election. And in changing history as FDR was doing, it simply required calling Teddy Roosevelt a liberal too on account of consistency. FDR also did this to Wilson, BTW.

Now, the thing is, I do not believe Theodore Roosevelt was a "liberal". And neither do you.

But this is a litmus test. If you are the kind of person who trust progressives when they say that progressivism = liberalism, if you are the kind of person who agrees with progressives(and there are a lot of you who will see this) then you don't get to exempt yourself, you have to be consistent. You need to call Theodore Roosevelt a liberal as well, because Teddy was in fact a big time progressive, a big time statist, and he was not a fan of the kinds of things related to governmental limitations. Theodore Roosevelt wanted maximal government.

Like all other progressives, Theodore Roosevelt was a postliberal. He wanted to get past the Constitution. Get past government limitations. Get past John Locke. Get past natural law and natural rights. Get past anything and everything related to the idea that he, Teddy, could not do whatever the heck he wanted to do. There is a whole party platform from the 1912 Progressive Party, Teddy's Party, explaining what exactly they wanted the government to be able to do to us. To us, understand that - do to us. That's what progressives are about.

Note how the 1912 Progressive Party is not the Liberal Party. Progressivism is not liberalism.

Progressivism was the first postliberal ideology to be seen in the U.S. Good job on you for being consistent in your refusal to call Theodore Roosevelt a "liberal". Progressives are not liberals.

New audiobook release: The Pioneer Mothers of America, Volume 2

Its been rougly 1 year to the day, Volume 2 of The Pioneer Mothers of America has been completed. This book series if you remember, goes into detail about our Founding Mothers. I'll be getting started on the final volume of the series soon. https://librivox.org/the-pioneer-mothers-of-america-volume-2-by-mary-wolcott-green/ https://progressingamerica.blogspot.com/2025/09/new-audiobook-release-pioneer-mothers.html

New audiobook release: Evolutionary Socialism, by Eduard Bernstein

Socialism is not always my wheelhouse. I think progressivism is the greatest threat that the U.S. has ever faced, not socialism. However that does not mean that I am not aware of the similar ideologies and have opinions of them. So it is with Socialism and its Revolutionary as well as Evolutionary variants.

The interesting thing about Evolutionary Socialism is that most people refuse to acknowledge its existence, just like people don't pay much attention to progressivism. Which is weird because arguably the most successful socialists in history are the British Fabians who promise to make haste slowly. An interest of note is how at times, the British Fabians and American Progressives did collaborate, and differences aside do take the same outlook of doing actions generally in small moves.

Well, the best way to understand something is simply to read (or now listen) to what they said about the topic and as such here is Eduard Bernstein's book about socialism piece by piece. It's literally the hand book about socialism by slowly boiling the frog in the pot.

Evolutionary Socialism, by Eduard Bernstein

Now I'm not saying pay a blind eye to the Revolutionaries. But what I am saying is that if over the decades, the Evolutionaries have been the most successful at implementing their goals, then you should be prioritizing your view and your discourses on the Evolutionaries. It's priorities. Most people that I see focus on the Revolutionaries and leave a blind eye to the Evolutionaries, which is a huge mistake. That is all I am getting at. In my summary for this book here is what I wrote:

Contains a challenge to the rigid Marxist orthodoxy that revolution is required in order achieve a centrally planned society. Bernstein believed in working from within a capitalist system in "revisionist", that is, evolutionary steps toward socialism. By gradually evolving in consistent legislative reforms, socialism could be made to become inevitable. Doing this would not only avoid the violence seen in earlier attempts to establish communism, but it would (Bernstein believed) endear the voting populace toward embracing a socialist future.

I think this is pretty accurate of a summary, even moreso for the view of Evolutionary Socialists than just simply the book itself.