Progressivism and the process of nationalizing the people

In The Promise of American Life, Herbert Croly writes a very interesting passage in the first two paragraphs of chapter 9 section 2: (p. 272/273)

The Federal political organization has always tended to confuse to the American mind the relation between democracy and nationality. The nation as a legal body was, of course, created by the Constitution, which granted to the central government certain specific powers and responsibilities, and which almost to the same extent diminished the powers and the responsibilities of the separate states. Consequently, to the great majority of Americans, the process of increasing nationalization has a tendency to mean merely an increase in the functions of the central government. For the same reason the affirmation of a constructive relation between the national and the democratic principles is likely to be interpreted merely as an attempt on the grounds of an abstract theory to limit state government and to disparage states rights. Such an interpretation, however, would be essentially erroneous. It would be based upon the very idea against which I have been continually protesting—the idea that the American nation, instead of embodying a living formative political principle, is merely the political system created by the Federal Constitution; and it would end in the absurd conclusion that the only way in which the Promise of American democracy can be fulfilled would be by the abolition of American local political institutions.

The nationalizing of American political, economic, and social life means something more than Federal centralization and something very different therefrom. To nationalize a people has never meant merely to centralize their government. Little by little a thoroughly national political organization has come to mean in Europe an organization which combined effective authority with certain responsibilities to the people; but the national interest has been just as likely to demand de-centralization as it has to demand centralization. The Prussia of Frederick the Great, for instance, was over-centralized; and the restoration of the national vitality, at which the Prussian government aimed after the disasters of 1806, necessarily took the form of reinvigorating the local members of the national body. In this and many similar instances the national interest and welfare was the end, and a greater or smaller amount of centralized government merely the necessary machinery. The process of centralization is not, like the process of nationalization, an essentially formative and enlightening political transformation. When a people are being nationalized, their political, economic, and social organization or policy is being coördinated with their actual needs and their moral and political ideals. Governmental centralization is to be regarded as one of the many means which may or may not be taken in order to effect this purpose. Like every other special aspect of the national organization, it must be justified by its fruits. There is no presumption in its favor. Neither is there any general presumption against it. Whether a given function should or should not be exercised by the central government in a Federal system is from the point of view of political logic a matter of expediency—with the burden of proof resting on those who propose to alter any existing Constitutional arrangement.

There are a few fallacies here which live on to this day of which I won't spend too much time here; rather, I want to focus on the ideological aspect of progressivism.

When Croly drones on about "nationalizing" the people, what he means is getting concepts like the 10th amendment out of their thoughts and culture, and he means turning them into a national collective. America's people at the time of the birth of progressivism was not nationalized. Yes, the country had been in existence for over 100 years but the states held tremendous sway with the people and many people still considered themselves individual "Tennesseans", "New Yorkers", "Arizonans", and so forth; much in the same way as the Founders did. Yes, we are Americans, but we are very much dual citizens. "My state has a constitution", the American/Missourian of 1900 would say - "and the Bill of Rights contained in my State's Constitution is something I appreciate", they would likely continue.

Today, Americans are completely nationalized to the extent that they are shocked to learn that America has 51 constitutions as well as 51 bills of rights. In this sense, the original progressive "New Nationalists" have been extraordinarily successful at abolishing the states in the minds of the people.

Croly does a brilliant bait and switch here. He says:

Consequently, to the great majority of Americans, the process of increasing nationalization has a tendency to mean merely an increase in the functions of the central government. For the same reason the affirmation of a constructive relation between the national and the democratic principles is likely to be interpreted merely as an attempt on the grounds of an abstract theory to limit state government and to disparage states rights. Such an interpretation, however, would be essentially erroneous. It would be based upon the very idea against which I have been continually protesting—the idea that the American nation, instead of embodying a living formative political principle, is merely the political system created by the Federal Constitution; and it would end in the absurd conclusion that the only way in which the Promise of American democracy can be fulfilled would be by the abolition of American local political institutions.

Yet, that's exactly what happened. But the cultural shift is what is important. The original progressives knew that if they nationalized the people first, the progressives wouldn't have to abolish the states. The people would abolish the states all on their own in a de-facto manner. Think of the last time a constitutional question came about. Did your state's constitution get overlooked first? As the late Andrew Breitbart famously said: "politics is downstream of culture". Croly makes this quite clear:

When a people are being nationalized, their political, economic, and social organization or policy is being coördinated with their actual needs and their moral and political ideals. Governmental centralization is to be regarded as one of the many means which may or may not be taken in order to effect this purpose. Like every other special aspect of the national organization, it must be justified by its fruits. There is no presumption in its favor. Neither is there any general presumption against it. Whether a given function should or should not be exercised by the central government in a Federal system is from the point of view of political logic a matter of expediency—with the burden of proof resting on those who propose to alter any existing Constitutional arrangement.

What he is saying is that the narrative is "the thing you want is x", mr. voter. What is the quickest way to get it? Don't worry about which governmental entity employed to get it, just make sure you get what you want. Don't you want it? Yeah, you want it. So just vote for anybody, anywhere who will give it to you. Of course, the progressives will always drive people to the national government. See what they did just a few years later with the 17th amendment, a gross injustice against America, the states, and Federalism. In the very next paragraph(third), he says:

It may be affirmed, consequently, without paradox, that among those branches of the American national organization which are greatly in need of nationalizing is the central government.

Of course the national government needs to get bigger, according to the opening of paragraph three. Opening of paragraph four is about growing government bigger, paragraph 5 is about denigrating the states, and paragraph 6 returns with an opening of how government needs to get bigger. Croly is nothing if consistent. Towards the last paragraphs of this section, Croly writes:

The great obstacle to American national fulfillment must always be the danger that the American people will merely succumb to the demands of their local and private interests and will permit their political craft to drift into a compromising situation—from which the penalties of rescue may be almost as distressing as the penalties of submission.

What "local" and "private" interests. He means the states. Or "worse" in the eyes of a progressive, would be county/city matters. He means one of the most important aspects of American Federalism - just throw it out.

Progressives today have left nationalism behind and have graduated to globalism. But at the time, they fully recognized that the way forward was first to convince the people that "You're just an American", and America has only one constitution. A strikingly simple goal to attain, especially at a time when the progressive era was in full swing - "private" and "special" interests were universally looked down upon and to assist in the process America's first progressive president was also helping to push everybody away from their states.

Should the British Government be dissolved because they authorized slavery?

Preferred title: Should the British Government be dissolved because Queen Elizabeth authorized Sir John Hawkins to import Africans into the West Indies? (title too long)

Frederick Douglass is amazing.

If you consider yourself a constitutionalist and you aren't reading Douglass you are missing out on true greatness. In 1860, Frederick Douglass tore fellow abolitionists to shreds over the slave trade saying: (source)

Mr. Thompson is just 52 years too late in dissolving the Union on account of this clause. He might as well dissolve the British Government, because Queen Elizabeth granted to Sir John Hawkins to import Africans into the West Indies 300 years ago!

This is the reason that progressives have erased Frederick Douglass. Douglass was pro-constitution, pro-capitalism, and pro-Founding Father. Frederick Douglass was the GOAT. A man like that naturally has to be erased from the history books. Obviously this is relevant today. Just as Douglass is mocking the Garrisonians for some of their notions that the union ought to be abolished over things such as the three-fifths or other clauses, he rightfully points out that the British Empire did in fact authorize slavery in the West Indies and by that reason the crown has to go. Buh bye.

And also the 13 colonies. Britain did that one too. Britain was all-in on slavery for hundreds of years, they had no room at any time to question us. They brought it here and then blamed us. Hypocrites. Looking outward it would be foolish to say that any union or government ought to be dissolved over what was done hundreds of years ago, because if we did that we would be abolishing every single government in existence. China, India, Russia, anywhere in Africa or South America - all of it would have to go.

This is a total troll and the Garrisonians deserved it. There's others in this speech, Douglass was definitely adept at trolling. This is a very fun read and I laughed out loud several times.

In progressivism, the definition of "democracy" is "government"

No matter what you may think, your definition of the word "democracy" is wrong as it pertains to what progressives are saying.

In progressivism, "democracy" = "the state". That's their definition of it. It's an unwritten and hidden definition, yet its the most commonly used. In The Promise of American Life, (p. 418) Herbert Croly wrote the following:

Any substantial progress towards the attainment of complete individual disinterestedness is far beyond the reach of contemporary collective effort, but such disinterestedness should be clearly recognized as the economic condition both of the highest fulfillment which democracy can bestow upon the individual and of a thoroughly wholesome democratic organization. Says Mr. John Jay Chapman in the chapter on "Democracy," in his "Causes and Consequences": "It is thought that the peculiar merit of democracy lies in this: that it gives every man a chance to pursue his own ends. The reverse is true. The merit lies in the assumption imposed upon every man that he shall serve his fellow-men.... The concentration of every man on his own interests has been the danger and not the safety of democracy, for democracy contemplates that every man shall think first of the state and next of himself.... Democracy assumes perfection in human nature." But men will always continue chiefly to pursue their own private ends as long as those ends are recognized by the official national ideal as worthy of perpetuation and encouragement. If it be true that democracy is based upon the assumption that every man shall serve his fellow-men, the organization of democracy should be gradually adapted to that assumption. The majority of men cannot be made disinterested for life by exhortation, by religious services, by any expenditure of subsidized words, or even by a grave and manifest public need. They can be made permanently unselfish only by being helped to become disinterested in their individual purposes, and how can they be disinterested except in a few little spots as long as their daily occupation consists of money seeking and spending in conformity with a few written and unwritten rules? In the complete democracy a man must in some way be made to serve the nation in the very act of contributing to his own individual fulfillment. Not until his personal action is dictated by disinterested motives can there be any such harmony between private and public interests. To ask an individual citizen continually to sacrifice his recognized private interest to the welfare of his countrymen is to make an impossible demand, and yet just such a continual sacrifice is apparently required of an individual in a democratic state. The only entirely satisfactory solution of the difficulty is offered by the systematic authoritative transformation of the private interest of the individual into a disinterested devotion to a special object.

American public opinion has not as yet begun to understand the relation between the process of national education by means of a patient attempt to realize the national purpose and the corresponding process of individual emancipation and growth. It still believes that democracy is a happy device for evading collective responsibilities by passing them on to the individual; and as long as this belief continues to prevail, the first necessity of American educational advance is the arousing of the American intellectual conscience. Behind the tradition of national irresponsibility is the still deeper tradition of intellectual insincerity in political matters. Americans are almost as much afraid of consistent and radical political thinking as are the English, and with nothing like as much justification. Jefferson offered them a seductive example of triumphant intellectual dishonesty, and of the sacrifice of theory to practice, whenever such a sacrifice was convenient.

And this screed it goes on from there. Attacks on Jefferson and the Founding(which happen in other parts of the book as well) But to stay on point, this is from Croly's chapter on "Conditions of Individual Emancipation" and yes, he does mean that in the most vile way. How can we emancipate individuals from individualism and promote them into collectivism? He uses all of these words interchangeably, but when he says that "a man must" "be made to serve the nation", he means the state. He means we should all serve government.

Even his quoting of Chapman is quite out of context. Chapman is lauding the greatness of the Founding in that section of his book (see here: [source on p. 121]) and it is not a slavish devotion to the purity of statism. Reading a few pages prior makes this clear, go ahead, you'll see it. Chapman isn't going in the direction Croly is.

Note the several periods in Croly's so-called quoting of Chapman. He's taking Chapman out of context! Even in the early 1900s, progressives have only taken what they have needed and discarded the rest like trash.

But as much as I dislike all of this that Croly has done, I also recognize the value it has. Progressives won't come to you and say "I have polluted the language." "I have perverted the word 'democracy' so that it has a new meaning. That new definition is the state or government." But that is in fact where we are at. The next time you hear a progressive speak and they start going into the use of the word "democracy", just strike that word "democracy" out in your mind as you are listening and insert the word "state" or phrase "the state", and you'll see it. It's an accurate capturing of progressivism ideology as it spills out of their dishonest mouths.

If more conservatives read Croly's book, we would all be better off for it and the result it would have on our dealings with these horrible people. Conservatives MUST read this book. To understand progressivism, this is the book. The Promise of American Life.

Progressives continue to marvel at how successful the Tea Party was

How much trouble are we in when progressives broadcast how to beat them and we still won't do it?

There's an interesting article in The New Yorker and this paragraph stands tall above all the rest:

This insurgent approach has caused establishment figures from both parties to refer to Justice Democrats and its ilk as the Tea Party of the left. Max Berger, an early employee, said, “If that’s supposed to mean that we’re equivalent to white-supremacist dipshits who want to blow up the government or move toward authoritarianism, then I would consider that both an insult and a really dumb misreading of what we’re trying to do. But if it means that we come out of nowhere and, within a few years, we have one of the two major parties implementing our agenda—and if our agenda is to promote multiracial democracy and give people union jobs and help avert a climate crisis—then, yeah, I’m down to be the Tea Party of the left.”

I have vacation time at work, I'd call out sick to attend, I'd take unpaid days. That's what I did a decade ago.(unpaid) But sadly, I feel 100% confident in predicting there will not be any protest to attend on April 15th, 2022. I wish I could be proven wrong on this, I would welcome it to see everybody out there next April.

Progressives campaign against the damage created by progressivism and then blame it on racial issues

You see what's happening here, right?

One of the singular most problematic items cited by BLM is the 1994 Crime Bill. Here's an example of what they say and how it hurts minorities from the Center for American Progress.

Who gave us this bill? Progressives did. Then Senator Joe Biden was even the bill's sponsor. But Progressivism can't blame itself, so it has to create a myth and campaign against it.

You can pick nearly any big city you want that's been ravaged by decades of progressive mayors. The inner cities are glittering examples of racial inequities. Chicago is one of those frequently cited and routinely tops such lists. Who caused it? Progressives did, they are the ones in charge of all these cities. Chicago has had progressive mayors since the New Deal.

But Progressivism can't blame itself, so it has to create a myth and campaign against it.

How about when a progressive hollywood actor or actress gets caught in some crime that any one of us would go to jail for 10 or more years for, well they can't say that's progressive privilege. So that has to be white privilege. Even when someone from hollywood is recognized for their grotesqueness and run over the coals the way they should be or more close to how they should be(instead of getting some joke of a two-month sentence/slap on the wrist) such as Harvey Weinstein, what's it an indication of? Whiteness of course. Here is an example.

You see what's happening here, right? It's easy to get caught up in the victimology of it all and proclaim that witches are being hunted. Not that that's inaccurate, but it's not useful. I want to understand the process. This is what they're doing and how they're doing it.

Progressivism can't blame itself even though they are creating these problems. But these problems that progressivism created are useful you see, so the progressives campaign against the very problems created by progressivism by re-directing the issue and saying it's an "American" problem or "systemic racism". You always see this formula, even though it's neither. Progressivism is America's cancer and this is all misdirection. They get away with it because they control the media.

Let me ask you a question. Woodrow Wilson was a deeply dedicated racist. You ever hear that proclaimed as a problem with progressivism? No of course not, that's an "American" problem. Why would it be a problem with progressives, progressivism is perfect.

A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

How progressivism reverses socialism, and how progressivism drew in innocent supporters

In the course of reading the works of progressivism, it's not uncommon for these elitists to portray how better they are compared to everyone else.

That includes the progressives' elitism against socialists.

Taft's running mate in 1912, Nicholas Murray Butler wrote quite the scathing anti-socialist work in 1907 called "True and False Democracy" in which he wrote the following: (source)

The socialist propaganda, never more seriously or more ably carried on than now, is an earnest and sincere attempt to escape from conditions that are burdensome and unhappy. Despite its most imperfect interpretation of the economic significance of history and its ringing the changes on a misleading theory of class consciousness, this propaganda makes an appeal to our favorable judgment because its proclaimed motive is to help the mass of mankind. No just man can quarrel with its aim, but few readers of history or students of human nature can approve its programme. What is it that socialism aims to accomplish by restricting liberty in order to promote economic equality? It seeks to accomplish what it conceives to be a juster economic and political condition. At bottom and without special reference to immediate concrete proposals, socialism would substitute for individual initiative collective and corporate responsibility in matters relating to property and production, in the hope thereby of correcting and overcoming the evils which attach to an individualism run wild. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the corporate or collective responsibility which it would substitute for individual initiative is only such corporate or collective responsibility as a group of these very same individuals could exercise. Therefore, socialism is primarily an attempt to overcome man's individual imperfections by adding them together, in the hope that they will cancel each other. This is not only bad mathematics, but worse psychology. In pursuing a formula, socialism fails to take account of the facts.

Wow. Kind of almost makes you want to be a progressive now doesn't it? No. Not really. Just because he nails the socialists - unfortunately, that's not good enough. He spends plenty of time in this book(which I didn't quote) explaining why we need to murder free markets and put government in control of everything as well. What you end up with is this. When you see two bad people fighting, sometimes just letting them go until one kills the other is the only viable option. But in reality, we have to give Americans 100 years ago the benefit of the doubt for siding with the progressives.

This was written in 1907 at a time when Americans didn't really know the deceitful goals of progressivism but knew enough of the dangers of socialism. That is why its easy to understand how well meaning people could find themselves roped into becoming ardent supporters of statism(progressivism) under the guise of putting a stop to statism(socialism). Looking at that statement it seems completely nonsensical, yet it's exactly what happened. Sometimes, I fear that very same thing is happening again today - embracing statism to stop statism.

In any case, Butler ran with Taft in 1912 and was the Vice President on the ticket on election day. Think of that. A republican wrote this stuff. Not that that's exactly some big time surprise, the GOP was the hardcore progressive party at the turn of the century and it was the GOP who gave America it's first progressive president.

However, as to the honesty of progressives in 1912 did they run on a platform of "elect us and we'll erect the best aristocracy you'll ever see!"(see the next book quote) No, they did not. They lied, as all progressives do. They tell the truth in their books - they tell the truth to each other - you can find honesty with progressives if you dig for it. But outside of doors, all progressives are liars. He continued:

True democracy will carry on an insistent search for these wisest and best, and will elevate them to posts of leadership and command. Under the operation of the law of liberty, it will provide itself with real leaders, not limited by rank, or birth, or wealth, or circumstance, but opening the way for each individual to rise to the place of honor and influence by the expression of his own best and highest self. It will exactly reverse the communistic formula, “From each according to his abilities, To each according to his needs," and will uphold the principle, “From each according to his needs, To each according to his abilities.” It will take care to provide such a ladder of education and opportunity that the humblest may rise to the very top if he is capable and worthy. The most precious thing in the world is the individual human mind and soul, with its capacity for growth and service. To bind it fast to a formula, to hold it in check to serve the selfish ends of mediocrity, to deny it utterance and expression, political, economic, and moral, is to make democracy impossible as a permanent social and governmental form.

The United States is in sore need to-day of an aristocracy of intellect and service. Because such an aristocracy does not exist in the popular consciousness, we are bending the knee in worship to the golden calf of money. The form of monarchy and its pomp offer a valuable foil to the worship of money for its own sake. A democracy must provide itself with a foil of its own, and none is better or more effective than an aristocracy of intellect and service recruited from every part of our democratic life. We must put behind us the fundamental fallacy that equality is demanded by justice. The contrary is the case. Justice demands inequality as a condition of liberty and as a means of rewarding each according to his merits and deserts.

We have the progressives "aristocracy" of "intellect and service"(the elites) today 120 years later. The so called best and brightest rule over us daily and disregard all of our political wishes. Note how he causally uses that word "command". There are hundreds of abc soup agencies and bureaucracies representing this "aristocracy of intellect and service" in "command" of your life. In this sense, Butler was quite Wilsonian in his outlook. That's what Woodrow Wilson also believed in, and wrote about the need for governmental agencies on a constant basis. Wilson's right hand man Edward House wrote the book Philip Dru: Administrator - and what is the book about? Administrators! An "aristocracy of intellect and service" in "command" of your every minute - the dream of progressives everywhere. It all comes full circle with these horrible people.

This book gives us a good and concise insight as to why progressives spawn a deep state in lieu of outright nationalization of private property. And if they're not going to put government in "command" of the means of production, what use do they have for puny socialism? No wonder they constantly talk bad about it. They want aristocracy, they want experts, they want you serving them as your commanders. Confiscation of property is outmoded in their view and in reality, progressives are indeed correct (in their own sinister way) that if they put enough rules in place, if they just create enough regulations, if they just establish enough "command" then they have achieved ownership without ownership. What they don't need is their name on the title. They've successfully circumvented that obstacle.

Hillsdale College's Constitution 201 series describes progressivism as "bureacratic despotism" and it's a great summary of the difference between progressivism and socialism.

The real reason the progressives sought after the 17th amendment

Progressives hate the states.

You see, I could end the blog post right there and nothing else need to be said, but I want to back up that statement anyways. It is the truth after all. Progressives hate the states. They've been telling us this directly and indirectly for our entire lives and theirs. First though, I want to point out the importance of senatorial elections in the first place. At the convention, Elbridge Gerry made the following comment: (July 19th)

Mr. GERRY. If the Executive is to be elected by the Legislature he certainly ought not to be re-eligible. This would make him absolutely dependent. He was agst. a popular election. The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men. He urged the expediency of an appointment of the Executive by Electors to be chosen by the State Executives. The people of the States will then choose the 1st. branch: The legislatures of the States the 2d. branch of the National Legislature, and the Executives of the States, the National Executive. This he thought would form a strong attachnt. in the States to the National System. The popular mode of electing the chief Magistrate would certainly be the worst of all. If he should be so elected & should do his duty, he will be turned out for it like Govr. Bowdoin in Massts. & President Sullivan in N. Hamshire.

By making the states the vehicle for electing your senator, the Founding Fathers were looking (among other things) to make sure you still loved your state. So, if you consider yourself to be an American and only an American, you are not really all that close to the Founding Fathers compared to, say, if you consider yourself to be a (insert state here) Texan first and an American second.

Are you a Virginian first and an American second? That's who the Founders were. Gerry with his strong attachment to his state would've been a Massachusettsian first and an American second.

Now, as to the progressives. At the time of the 17th amendment and the de-coupling of our senators from the state legislatures, the big argument at the time was corruption. Corruption this, corruption that, corruption corruption corruption! Except, progressives are dishonest, and progressive leadership meant corruption another way.(I'll explain below) To the average rabblerouser out in the streets of 1905 or whenever clamouring for direct election of the senators, yes, sure this guy has no clue of what progressive leadership is aiming at. To him, he sees all these left wing media reports about this representative and that representative being bribed, so all he knows and thinks is that if he can directly vote for his senator, that will solve the problem. It's a very surface level, not-well-thought-out problem/solution equation.

But to progressive leadership, where they are thinking in 50 year-100 year or longer increments, they could care less about bribes. They themselves bribe and seek to be bribed. The progressives, and I'm going to quote one in a minute here, they love big national government that can force you to live how they want you to live. The bigger government is, the better. Screw the states, the progressive says. We ought to abolish them outright, the progressive says. Here, see for yourself:

As for the veterans of the Grand Army of the Republic, they deserve honor and recognition such as is paid to no other citizens of the republic; for to them the republic owes it all; for to them it owes its very existence. It is because of what you and your comrades did in the dark years that we of to-day walk, each of us, head erect, and proud that we belong, not to one of a dozen little squabbling contemptible commonwealths, but to the mightiest nation upon which the sun shines.

Contemptible? That word simply does not need to be there. That sentence flows fully in place and gets the point across without that one word. Why was that word added? It was added because he wanted it there. He also said at another time:

Now, the Democratic Party in its platform and through the utterances of Mr. Wilson has distinctly committed itself to the old flintlock, muzzle-loaded doctrine of States' rights, and I have said distinctly that we are for the people's rights. We are for the rights of the people. If they can be obtained best through the National Government, then we are for National rights. We are for the people's rights however it is necessary to secure them.

See. This is Saul Alinsky 101. The ends justify the means. And if the states stand in our way? Screw them. That's old outmoded thinking anyways, those of you who cling to your guns and your religion AND cling to your state governments. But we progressives have a solution. We will load up the word "corruption" with multiple meanings so that even we can speak freely and you don't know what we mean when we say it.

As I said above, progressives had a different definition of their use of the word "corruption". What they meant was that the states are corrupt. The very existence of states violates all that is good and decent. That's what progressives think. Who did I quote above? Theodore Roosevelt. The guy who everybody says loved America. How can you love America and hate the states? How is that possible? You saw the words. The first part I used came from the New Nationalism speech and the second one - the more important one(but not because of the words themselves) - is from the speech when he was almost assassinated.

Yes, you have that right, but I'll spell it out plainly. Here's a guy who hated the states so much that he goes to give a speech in which he knows he is going to rip the states apart. He gets shot, he has a piece of metal in his chest and he is bleeding. But his answer is "Nope, I gotta rip the states even if I bleed a little, I can go to the hospital afterwards". Could you ever imagine hating something that intensely that even a bullet doesn't stop you? Now, before the comments start coming in I bet some of you might say "yeah, my in-laws". Wow. Ok. Well. I'm sorry to hear that. But the fact remains that TR hated the states as much if not more than you hate your in-laws. Imagine that, just to give context. Imagine that.

This is what we have been seeing for 100+ years now. We know the progressives hate the states. I'm not telling you anything new here. I'm just confirming it for you. What you have seen with your own two eyes is in fact correct. They hate the states as institutions and want it all done nationally. But the difference is the malcontent on the streets, who only knows what the media tells him, and a guy in leadership like TR who openly and admittedly hates the states. We will never know now as the question was never asked, but I have no doubt in my mind that the real plan among progressive leadership of the early 1900s was the de-coupling of the people's strong state attachments for good, and transforming from Ohioans into Americans into Americans-only who ask "My state has its own constitution?"

And it only took the progressives 100 years to achieve their goal. I bet that by the end of the 1950s Americans had forgotten the role that their states are/were supposed to play in the federalist system. How many people do you know who have read their State constitution? I'd bet you could ask 10 out of 10, and everybody would agree - nobody has read their state constitution. Particularly in the context of education. The progressive academics in schools teach everything nationally. Nothing is ever taught about the states in this context. They simply don't want you to know.

Some people say that the 16th amendment is the worst amendment. It's not. The 17th Amendment is. The 16th amendment "simply" changes how dollars and cents are collected. The 17th amendment represents a partial repeal of the United States Constitution. It repeals the Senate as well as a repeal of all 50 states.