Progressives: An Historical Perspective

[PoliticalChic]

1. The Progressive aim was to concentrate more and more power in the executive branch, where enlightened experts would govern the country. In effect, they were turning the Founder’s vision upside-down. Individual liberty was no longer to be the standard by which to judge policy. Hayek’s attack on “scientism”- the belief that well-educated public servants have the knowledge and skills to better run society with a certainty sought in the physical sciences- applies in spades to the Progressives and their agenda. Greatly expanding in the 1870’s, the movement seduced both Republicans and Democdrats with the lure of federal power.
Kibbee, “Hostile Takeover,” chapter two.





2. Theodore Roosevelt’s accession to the presidency in 1901 could be considered the Progressives first major victory. He aggressively expanded the power of government. Here is the view of H.L. Mencken on that expansion:
He didn't believe in democracy; he believed simply in government. His remedy for all the great pangs and longings of existence was not a dispersion of authority, but a hard concentration of authority. He was not in favor of unlimited experiment; he was in favor of a rigid control from above, a despotism of inspired prophets and policemen. He was not for democracy as his followers understood democracy, and as it actually is and must be; he was for a paternalism of the true Bismarckian pattern ... a paternalism concerning itself with all things, from the regulation of coal-mining and meat-packing to the regulation of spelling and marital rights.... All the fundamental objects of Liberalism -- free speech, unhampered enterprise, the least possible government interference -- were abhorrent to him.”
The THINK 3 INSTITUTE: H. L. Mencken on 'Forward Lookers'





3. FDR expanded government far beyond its constitutional mandate, endorsing a culture of dependency via welfare programs. And LBJ expanded the entitlement state’s future promises a degree of magnitude beyond our ability to finance them.

a. “If you fill the trough, feeding will commence. As the reach of government grew, more and more decisions that were once left to the market were now routed through Washington.”
Kibbee, “Hostile Takeover,” p.50.






4. The great push to centralize economic decision making from the top down was a fundamental departure from the laissez-faire principles that our nation was founded on….Economic decision makers in Washington can never grasp the particular knowledge of time and place that Hayek so eloquently described in his study of prices and information- essential knowledge that is generated from the bottom up, not from the top down.
Kibbee, Op. Cit., p.52.

a. We see this push toward centralization in government and the proliferation of czars, bureaucrats, agencies wanting to tell us what we can and can’t do with our lives and with our pay. At the top, a President gathering executive power, designing government outside the ken of our Founders.






5. . In his The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States, Theodore J. Lowi claimed that the Founder's constitution of 1787 had been surreptitiously replaced with a new one by the FDR administration. Here are three pertinent 'articles' of the Progressive's Constitution.
See if they don't ring true.

Article II. The separation of powers to the contrary notwithstanding, the center of this national government is the presidency. Said office is authorized to use any powers, real or imagined, to set our nation to rights making any rules or regulations the president deems appropriate; the president may delegate this authority to any other official or agency. The right to make all such rules and regulations is based on the assumption in this constitution that the office of the presidency embodies the will of the real majority of the American nation.

Article III. Congress exists, but only as a consensual body. Congress possesses all legislative authority but should limit itself to the delegation of broad grants of unstructured authority to the president. Congress must take care never to draft a careful and precise statute because this would interfere with the judgment of the president and his professional and full time administrators.

Article IV. There exists a separate administrative branch composed of persons whose right to govern is based on two principles: (1), the delegations of power flowing from Congress; and (2), the authority inherent in professional training and promotion through an administrative hierarchy. Congress and the courts may provide for administrative procedures and have the power to review agencies for their observance of these procedures; but in no instance should Congress or the courts attempt to displace the judgment of the administrators with their own.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear PC: When I teamed up with a Green activist to start the Houston Progressive website, the common theme was stopping corporate abuse at taxpayer expense that was destroying two major national treasures: the Headwaters Redwood Forest in Humboldt County, Northern CA and the national historic district of Freedmen's Town where I live near downtown Houston TX. Tom later regretted the name because he said it came from a conservative reform movement that was too authoritarian or totalitarian.

I looked up Progressive Movement and found "some" references to this idea of depending on govt for social welfare, which I disagree with as a Constitutionalist. But I also found references to reforms that were critical to the political development of democracy and equality, such as women's suffrage and abolition of slavery and child labor.

The description below seems to be a patchwork of both limited and big government ideas.

I agree that man/humanity is capable of improving the lot of all society,
but don't agree with shifting this from the church to the state. I believe in using all institutions and resources most effectively for their intended purpose, whether church, state, educational, business or nonprofit/charitable; and respecting the Constitutional limits of govt and consensus among religious and political beliefs so there is no abuse of either church or state authority.

I agree with checking the abuse of corporations or other collective institutions, but NOT by micromanaging with overregulations of govt, but by holding all people, parties and institutions equally accountable for enforcing Constitutional principles and ethics. Since this cannot be legislated, it is best upheld by education, informed consent, and voluntary compliance, by teaching people the Golden Rule of Reciprocity or Equal Justice -- that if you want these rights and freedoms under law for yourself, the best way to ensure those protections is to practice them yourself and uphold them for others equally as your interests.

Thus, the best way to describe my beliefs is "isonomy" under which I believe in protecting and respecting the beliefs of others, whether religious political or secular, equally under law.

I consider my views to be Progressive and Constitutionalist, where I align with liberals and conservatives on points of agreement that don't violate or threaten the beliefs of others. I believe there is a way to reframe all the interests and agenda of various parties to be constitutionally supportive and enforceable, unlike the current political bullying I object to!

===================
The Progressive Movement was an effort to cure many of the ills of American society that had developed during the great spurt of industrial growth in the last quartoer of the 19th century. The frontier had been tamed, great cities and businesses developed, and an overseas empire established, but not all citizens shared in the new wealth, prestige, and optimism.

Efforts to improve society were not new to the United States in the late 1800s. A major push for change, the First Reform Era, occurred in the years before the Civil War and included efforts of social activists to reform working conditions and humanize the treatment of mentally ill people and prisoners.

Others removed themselves from society and attempted to establish utopian communities in which reforms were limited to their participants. The focal point of the early reform period was abolitionism, the drive to remove what in the eyes of many was the great moral wrong of slavery.

The second reform era began during Reconstruction and lasted until the American entry into World War I. The struggle for women`s rights and the temperance movement were the initial issues addressed. A farm movement also emerged to compensate for the declining importance of rural areas in an increasingly urbanized America.

As part of the second reform period, progressivism was rooted in the belief, certainly not shared by all, that man was capable of improving the lot of all within society. As such, it was a rejection of Social Darwinism, the position taken by many rich and powerful figures of the day.

Progressivism also was imbued with strong political overtones, and it rejected the church as the driving force for change. Specific goals included:

The desire to remove corruption and undue influence from government through the taming of bosses and political machines

the effort to include more people more directly in the political process

the conviction that government must play a role to solve social problems and establish fairness in economic matters.

The success of progressivism owed much to publicity generated by the muckrakers, writers who detailed the horrors of poverty, urban slums, dangerous factory conditions, and child labor, among a host of other ills.

Successes were many, beginning with the Interstate Commerce Act (1887) and the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). Progressives never spoke with one mind and differed sharply over the most effective means to deal with the ills generated by the trusts; some favored an activist approach to trust-busting, others preferred a regulatory approach.

A vocal minority supported socialism with government ownership of the means of production. Other progressive reforms followed in the form of a conservation movement, railroad legislation, and food and drug laws.

The progressive spirit also was evident in new amendments added to the Constitution (text), which provided for a new means to elect senators, protect society through prohibition and extend suffrage to women.

Urban problems were addressed by professional social workers who operated settlement houses as a means to protect and improve the prospects of the poor. However, efforts to place limitations on child labor were routinely thwarted by the courts. The needs of African Americans and Native Americans were poorly served or served not at all — a major shortcoming of the progressive movement.

Progressive reforms were carried out not only on the national level, but in states and municipalities. Prominent governors devoted to change included Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin and Hiram Johnson of California.

Such reforms as the direct primary, secret ballot, and the initiative, referendum, and recall were effected. Local governments were strengthened by the widespread use of trained professionals, particularly with the city manager system replacing the frequently corrupt mayoral system.

Formal expression was given to progressive ideas in the form of political parties on three major occasions:

The Roosevelt Progressives (Bull Moose Party) of 1912

The La Follette Progressives of the 1920s

The Henry Wallace Progressives of the late 1940s and early 1950s.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dear PC: When I teamed up with a Green activist to start the Houston Progressive website, the common theme was stopping corporate abuse at taxpayer expense that was destroying two major national treasures: the Headwaters Redwood Forest in Humboldt County, Northern CA and the national historic district of Freedmen's Town where I live near downtown Houston TX. Tom later regretted the name because he said it came from a conservative reform movement that was too authoritarian or totalitarian.

I looked up Progressive Movement and found "some" references to this idea of depending on govt for social welfare, which I disagree with as a Constitutionalist. But I also found references to reforms that were critical to the political development of democracy and equality, such as women's suffrage and abolition of slavery and child labor.

The description below seems to be a patchwork of both limited and big government ideas.

I agree that man/humanity is capable of improving the lot of all society,
but don't agree with shifting this from the church to the state. I believe in using all institutions and resources most effectively for their intended purpose, whether church, state, educational, business or nonprofit/charitable; and respecting the Constitutional limits of govt and consensus among religious and political beliefs so there is no abuse of either church or state authority.

I agree with checking the abuse of corporations or other collective institutions, but NOT by micromanaging with overregulations of govt, but by holding all people, parties and institutions equally accountable for enforcing Constitutional principles and ethics. Since this cannot be legislated, it is best upheld by education, informed consent, and voluntary compliance, by teaching people the Golden Rule of Reciprocity or Equal Justice -- that if you want these rights and freedoms under law for yourself, the best way to ensure those protections is to practice them yourself and uphold them for others equally as your interests.

Thus, the best way to describe my beliefs is "isonomy" under which I believe in protecting and respecting the beliefs of others, whether religious political or secular, equally under law.

I consider my views to be Progressive and Constitutionalist, where I align with liberals and conservatives on points of agreement that don't violate or threaten the beliefs of others. I believe there is a way to reframe all the interests and agenda of various parties to be constitutionally supportive and enforceable, unlike the current political bullying I object to!

===================
The Progressive Movement was an effort to cure many of the ills of American society that had developed during the great spurt of industrial growth in the last quartoer of the 19th century. The frontier had been tamed, great cities and businesses developed, and an overseas empire established, but not all citizens shared in the new wealth, prestige, and optimism.

Efforts to improve society were not new to the United States in the late 1800s. A major push for change, the First Reform Era, occurred in the years before the Civil War and included efforts of social activists to reform working conditions and humanize the treatment of mentally ill people and prisoners.

Others removed themselves from society and attempted to establish utopian communities in which reforms were limited to their participants. The focal point of the early reform period was abolitionism, the drive to remove what in the eyes of many was the great moral wrong of slavery.

The second reform era began during Reconstruction and lasted until the American entry into World War I. The struggle for women`s rights and the temperance movement were the initial issues addressed. A farm movement also emerged to compensate for the declining importance of rural areas in an increasingly urbanized America.

As part of the second reform period, progressivism was rooted in the belief, certainly not shared by all, that man was capable of improving the lot of all within society. As such, it was a rejection of Social Darwinism, the position taken by many rich and powerful figures of the day.

Progressivism also was imbued with strong political overtones, and it rejected the church as the driving force for change. Specific goals included:

The desire to remove corruption and undue influence from government through the taming of bosses and political machines

the effort to include more people more directly in the political process

the conviction that government must play a role to solve social problems and establish fairness in economic matters.

The success of progressivism owed much to publicity generated by the muckrakers, writers who detailed the horrors of poverty, urban slums, dangerous factory conditions, and child labor, among a host of other ills.

Successes were many, beginning with the Interstate Commerce Act (1887) and the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). Progressives never spoke with one mind and differed sharply over the most effective means to deal with the ills generated by the trusts; some favored an activist approach to trust-busting, others preferred a regulatory approach.

A vocal minority supported socialism with government ownership of the means of production. Other progressive reforms followed in the form of a conservation movement, railroad legislation, and food and drug laws.

The progressive spirit also was evident in new amendments added to the Constitution (text), which provided for a new means to elect senators, protect society through prohibition and extend suffrage to women.

Urban problems were addressed by professional social workers who operated settlement houses as a means to protect and improve the prospects of the poor. However, efforts to place limitations on child labor were routinely thwarted by the courts. The needs of African Americans and Native Americans were poorly served or served not at all — a major shortcoming of the progressive movement.

Progressive reforms were carried out not only on the national level, but in states and municipalities. Prominent governors devoted to change included Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin and Hiram Johnson of California.

Such reforms as the direct primary, secret ballot, and the initiative, referendum, and recall were effected. Local governments were strengthened by the widespread use of trained professionals, particularly with the city manager system replacing the frequently corrupt mayoral system.

Formal expression was given to progressive ideas in the form of political parties on three major occasions:

The Roosevelt Progressives (Bull Moose Party) of 1912

The La Follette Progressives of the 1920s

The Henry Wallace Progressives of the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Did you intend to comment on the OP as well?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1. The Progressive aim was to concentrate more and more power in the executive branch,...

Dick Cheney has been an advocate for a more powerful executive since I can remember. And wasn't it Richard Nixon who had conservative staff who pushed an Imperial Presidency?

Now go look up and verify what Dante says

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

oops!

That began to change with Nixon. Prominent conservatives began to see the executive as the conservative branch and set to work developing a conservative case for the imperial presidency. Right-wing ressentiment over Nixon’s downfall helped drive the shift. As the right-wing writer M. Stanton Evans quipped, “I didn’t like Nixon until Watergate.”

Conservatives started to consistently vote for major expansions of presidential strength, even when those expansions contradicted traditionally conservative positions. By the Reagan era, prominent Republicans were calling for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms. In the ’90s, then-Speaker Newt Gingrich led an unsuccessful effort to repeal the War Powers Act, even though that would have increased the powers of President Clinton. “I want to strengthen the current Democratic president,” Gingrich explained, “because he’s the president of the United States.”

Rant: Learning to Love the Imperial Presidency - Reason.com

 

[Votto]

1. The Progressive aim was to concentrate more and more power in the executive branch,...

Dick Cheney has been an advocate for a more powerful executive since I can remember. And wasn't it Richard Nixon who had conservative staff who pushed an Imperial Presidency?

Now go look up and verify what Dante says

Both men were a disgrace.

Dick Cheney claimed that deficits don't matter and Nixon took us off the gold standard so that the monopoly money could be used to avoid balancing budgets.

 

[Tech_Esq]

1. The Progressive aim was to concentrate more and more power in the executive branch,...

Dick Cheney has been an advocate for a more powerful executive since I can remember. And wasn't it Richard Nixon who had conservative staff who pushed an Imperial Presidency?

Now go look up and verify what Dante says

Did you have a point with those examples? It can't be that repubs don't suffer from this disease because it's clearly in the OP that Teddy Roosevelt had it in spades. So, your point?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1. The Progressive aim was to concentrate more and more power in the executive branch,...

Dick Cheney has been an advocate for a more powerful executive since I can remember. And wasn't it Richard Nixon who had conservative staff who pushed an Imperial Presidency?

Now go look up and verify what Dante says

Did you have a point with those examples? It can't be that repubs don't suffer from this disease because it's clearly in the OP that Teddy Roosevelt had it in spades. So, your point?

Teddy R., was a populist, some say liberal progressive. He is not usually considered a conservative.

Please, if you are going to attempt an informative discussion, learn to keep up.

Do not make me spank you in showing how the post is a shot across the bow of the OP.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1. The Progressive aim was to concentrate more and more power in the executive branch,...

Dick Cheney has been an advocate for a more powerful executive since I can remember. And wasn't it Richard Nixon who had conservative staff who pushed an Imperial Presidency?

Now go look up and verify what Dante says

Both men were a disgrace.

Dick Cheney claimed that deficits don't matter and Nixon took us off the gold standard so that the monopoly money could be used to avoid balancing budgets.

why go off on a rant and off topic?

 

[Tech_Esq]

oops!

That began to change with Nixon. Prominent conservatives began to see the executive as the conservative branch and set to work developing a conservative case for the imperial presidency. Right-wing ressentiment over Nixon’s downfall helped drive the shift. As the right-wing writer M. Stanton Evans quipped, “I didn’t like Nixon until Watergate.”

Conservatives started to consistently vote for major expansions of presidential strength, even when those expansions contradicted traditionally conservative positions. By the Reagan era, prominent Republicans were calling for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms. In the ’90s, then-Speaker Newt Gingrich led an unsuccessful effort to repeal the War Powers Act, even though that would have increased the powers of President Clinton. “I want to strengthen the current Democratic president,” Gingrich explained, “because he’s the president of the United States.”

Rant: Learning to Love the Imperial Presidency - Reason.com

I see that as a tactical response to a political dislocation caused by the the Dems owning the Congress for 60 years. As far as the Gingrich example goes, Repubs have long had a problem with the War Powers act. (Everyone should) it's too cute by half and plenty unconstitutional.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Dick Cheney has been an advocate for a more powerful executive since I can remember. And wasn't it Richard Nixon who had conservative staff who pushed an Imperial Presidency?

Now go look up and verify what Dante says

Did you have a point with those examples? It can't be that repubs don't suffer from this disease because it's clearly in the OP that Teddy Roosevelt had it in spades. So, your point?

Teddy R., was a populist, some say liberal progressive. He is not usually considered a conservative.

Please, if you are going to attempt an informative discussion, learn to keep up.

Do not make me spank you in showing how the post is a shot across the bow of the OP.

Nixon is not considered a conservative by anyone but left wing radicals. The man put wage and price controls in place for God's sake. And, Cheney was never what anyone would describe as a thought leader in the conservative movement. Strange, strange choices for examples.

TR was a Republican, and I would agree with liberal, progressive. Today he would be a Dem no doubt. All that Bismarkian crap is definitely up the liberal alley for sure.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

oops!

That began to change with Nixon. Prominent conservatives began to see the executive as the conservative branch and set to work developing a conservative case for the imperial presidency. Right-wing ressentiment over Nixon’s downfall helped drive the shift. As the right-wing writer M. Stanton Evans quipped, “I didn’t like Nixon until Watergate.”

Conservatives started to consistently vote for major expansions of presidential strength, even when those expansions contradicted traditionally conservative positions. By the Reagan era, prominent Republicans were calling for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms. In the ’90s, then-Speaker Newt Gingrich led an unsuccessful effort to repeal the War Powers Act, even though that would have increased the powers of President Clinton. “I want to strengthen the current Democratic president,” Gingrich explained, “because he’s the president of the United States.”

Rant: Learning to Love the Imperial Presidency - Reason.com

I see that as a tactical response to a political dislocation caused by the the Dems owning the Congress for 60 years. As far as the Gingrich example goes, Repubs have long had a problem with the War Powers act. (Everyone should) it's too cute by half and plenty unconstitutional.

An Imperial Presidency as a tactical response?

And it was William F. Buckley and others that backed the idea that the Congress is where conservatives were at home. Before the Reagan Admin, where VP Bush had an aide, C. Boyden Gray, who advised the GOP Senate on how to twist Senate rules in historically unheard of ways, and before Gingrich pushed canibalizing House rules and procedures for short term gains, the Congressional minority had a voice and influence.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Did you have a point with those examples? It can't be that repubs don't suffer from this disease because it's clearly in the OP that Teddy Roosevelt had it in spades. So, your point?

Teddy R., was a populist, some say liberal progressive. He is not usually considered a conservative.

Please, if you are going to attempt an informative discussion, learn to keep up.

Do not make me spank you in showing how the post is a shot across the bow of the OP.

Nixon is not considered a conservative by anyone but left wing radicals. The man put wage and price controls in place for God's sake. And, Cheney was never what anyone would describe as a thought leader in the conservative movement. Strange, strange choices for examples.

TR was a Republican, and I would agree with liberal, progressive. Today he would be a Dem no doubt. All that Bismarkian crap is definitely up the liberal alley for sure.

If you refuse to see things in the context of their time then you will only derail reasonable and rational discussion.

Nixon led the charge against the liberals in the GOP. Did he have some policies that could be considered liberal now and back then of course. Most reasonable and rational people are not one-dimensional ideologues pining for a :cuckoo" Utopian view of things where leaders are one-dimensional cut-outs.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Teddy R., was a populist, some say liberal progressive. He is not usually considered a conservative.

Please, if you are going to attempt an informative discussion, learn to keep up.

Do not make me spank you in showing how the post is a shot across the bow of the OP.

Nixon is not considered a conservative by anyone but left wing radicals. The man put wage and price controls in place for God's sake. And, Cheney was never what anyone would describe as a thought leader in the conservative movement. Strange, strange choices for examples.

TR was a Republican, and I would agree with liberal, progressive. Today he would be a Dem no doubt. All that Bismarkian crap is definitely up the liberal alley for sure.

If you refuse to see things in the context of their time then you will only derail reasonable and rational discussion.

Nixon led the charge against the liberals in the GOP. Did he have some policies that could be considered liberal now and back then of course. Most reasonable and rational people are not one-dimensional ideologues pining for a :cuckoo" Utopian view of things where leaders are one-dimensional cut-outs.

I was comparing him to conservative leaders of the time like Goldwater and Reagan. Nixon sounded like neither of them. Nor did he pursue policies that were consonant with conservative ideals of that time and place. Listen to Reagan's speeches in 1964 even. Neither Goldwater nor Reagan would have created the EPA, fixed wages and prices or half the other things Nixon did.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nixon is not considered a conservative by anyone but left wing radicals. The man put wage and price controls in place for God's sake. And, Cheney was never what anyone would describe as a thought leader in the conservative movement. Strange, strange choices for examples.

TR was a Republican, and I would agree with liberal, progressive. Today he would be a Dem no doubt. All that Bismarkian crap is definitely up the liberal alley for sure.

If you refuse to see things in the context of their time then you will only derail reasonable and rational discussion.

Nixon led the charge against the liberals in the GOP. Did he have some policies that could be considered liberal now and back then of course. Most reasonable and rational people are not one-dimensional ideologues pining for a :cuckoo" Utopian view of things where leaders are one-dimensional cut-outs.

I was comparing him to conservative leaders of the time like Goldwater and Reagan. Nixon sounded like neither of them. Nor did he pursue policies that were consonant with conservative ideals of that time and place. Listen to Reagan's speeches in 1964 even. Neither Goldwater nor Reagan would have created the EPA, fixed wages and prices or half the other things Nixon did.

You are wrong even when you attempt to discuss people in the context of their own time. How is that?

You have the nerve to want to be treated seriously when you claim Reagan was considered a conservative, by conservatives of his time?

Read what leading conservatives of the time were saying and writing about Reagan, not what the Reagan Legacy Project would have you believe. October 1988

The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
Edit event

As the end of President Reagan’s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their own—a crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But recent events—Reagan’s recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.

Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get “soft” officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed.

Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of “moral disarmament” and Safire mocking Reagan’s rapport with Gorbachev: “He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachev’s eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination.” It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]


Conservative Opposition - Hardline conservatives protest Gorbachev’s visit to Washington, and the signing of the treaty, in the strongest possible terms. When Reagan suggests that Gorbachev address a joint session of Congress, Congressional Republicans, led by House member Dick Cheney (R-WY—see 1983), rebel. Cheney says: “Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.”

Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee is more blunt in his assessment of the treaty agreement: “Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.” Conservative pundit William F. Buckley calls the treaty a “suicide pact.”

Fellow conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan “wildly wrong” in his dealings with the Soviets.

Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call “summit fever,” accusing Reagan of “appeasement” both of communists and of Congressional liberals, and protesting Reagan’s “cutting deals with the evil empire” (see March 8, 1983). They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.
Senate Ratification and a Presidential Rebuke - All the protests from hardline opponents of the treaty come to naught.

[Scoblic, 200

George Will

 

[Tech_Esq]

If you refuse to see things in the context of their time then you will only derail reasonable and rational discussion.

Nixon led the charge against the liberals in the GOP. Did he have some policies that could be considered liberal now and back then of course. Most reasonable and rational people are not one-dimensional ideologues pining for a :cuckoo" Utopian view of things where leaders are one-dimensional cut-outs.

I was comparing him to conservative leaders of the time like Goldwater and Reagan. Nixon sounded like neither of them. Nor did he pursue policies that were consonant with conservative ideals of that time and place. Listen to Reagan's speeches in 1964 even. Neither Goldwater nor Reagan would have created the EPA, fixed wages and prices or half the other things Nixon did.

You are wrong even when you attempt to discuss people in the context of their own time. How is that?

You have the nerve to want to be treated seriously when you claim Reagan was considered a conservative, by conservatives of his time?

Read what leading conservatives of the time were saying and writing about Reagan, not what the Reagan Legacy Project would have you believe. October 1988

The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

1988: Reagan Abandoned, Mocked by Hardline Conservatives
Edit event

As the end of President Reagan’s final term approaches, conservatives and hardliners have radically changed their view of him. They originally saw him as one of their own—a crusader for good against evil, obstinately opposed to communism in general and to any sort of arms reduction agreement with the Soviet Union in specific. But recent events—Reagan’s recent moderation in rhetoric towards the Soviets (see December 1983 and After), the summits with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (see November 16-19, 1985 and October 11-12, 1986), and the recent arms treaties with the Soviets (see Early 1985 and December 7-8, 1987) have soured them on Reagan.

Hardliners had once held considerable power in the Reagan administration (see January 1981 and After and Early 1981 and After), but their influence has steadily waned, and their attempts to sabotage and undermine arms control negotiations (see April 1981 and After, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and April 1983-December 1983), initially quite successful, have grown less effective and more desperate (see Before November 16, 1985). Attempts by administration hardliners to get “soft” officials such as Secretary of State George Shultz fired do not succeed.

Conservative pundits such as George Will and William Safire lambast Reagan, with Will accusing him of “moral disarmament” and Safire mocking Reagan’s rapport with Gorbachev: “He professed to see in Mr. Gorbachev’s eyes an end to the Soviet goal of world domination.” It will not be until after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tearing down of the Berlin Wall (see November 9, 1989 and After) that conservatives will revise their opinion of Reagan, in the process revising much of history in the process. [Scoblic, 2008, pp. 143-145]


Conservative Opposition - Hardline conservatives protest Gorbachev’s visit to Washington, and the signing of the treaty, in the strongest possible terms. When Reagan suggests that Gorbachev address a joint session of Congress, Congressional Republicans, led by House member Dick Cheney (R-WY—see 1983), rebel. Cheney says: “Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.”

Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Committee is more blunt in his assessment of the treaty agreement: “Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.” Conservative pundit William F. Buckley calls the treaty a “suicide pact.”

Fellow conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan “wildly wrong” in his dealings with the Soviets.

Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call “summit fever,” accusing Reagan of “appeasement” both of communists and of Congressional liberals, and protesting Reagan’s “cutting deals with the evil empire” (see March 8, 1983). They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.
Senate Ratification and a Presidential Rebuke - All the protests from hardline opponents of the treaty come to naught.

[Scoblic, 200

George Will

what are you 22? Do you even know when Reagan's time was? Never mind, with all your bluster I thought you actually might know something about this stuff, but it turns out you are empty windbag. Have a nice day. I have to go to the range.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Shoot somebody in the face for us so we know you're a true blue conservative shooter

 

[Votto]

Dick Cheney has been an advocate for a more powerful executive since I can remember. And wasn't it Richard Nixon who had conservative staff who pushed an Imperial Presidency?

Now go look up and verify what Dante says

Both men were a disgrace.

Dick Cheney claimed that deficits don't matter and Nixon took us off the gold standard so that the monopoly money could be used to avoid balancing budgets.

why go off on a rant and off topic?

Because I hate the progressive ilk that has helped destroy the country.

Sickening.