PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
With election season in full swing, the editorial in today's WSJ is on point, and a reminder to all of us that there decisions that will detemine the future of this great nation.
Simply put, individual liberty, or serving the collective.
From the Op-Ed by Professor Pestritto
1. ... the original progressivesincluding leaders such as Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Rooseveltrejected America's founding principles....today's leftist policies are the culmination of a journey begun by progressives over a century ago.
2. The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of individual liberty and limited government that were the basis of the American republic. America's original progressives were convinced that the country faced a set of social and economic problems demanding a sharp increase in federal power. They also said that there was too much emphasis placed on protecting the liberty of individuals at the expense of broader social justice.
3. ... in his 1887 essay, "Socialism and Democracy," Wilson considered the socialist principle"that all idea of limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view"to be entirely consistent with democratic principles: "In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. . . . Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none."
4. ...in his famous "New Nationalism" speech of 1910, [Roosevelt] said it was necessary that there be "a far more active governmental interference" with the economy. "It is not enough," he said, that a fortune was "gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."
5. To achieve their ends, progressives understood that the original constitutional limits on the scope of the federal government had to be breached. This is why Roosevelt railed against court decisions, like the famous Supreme Court case of Lochner v. New York (1905), that upheld individual property rights against progressive legislation ...
6. Today, a congressman such as Pete Stark can simply boast that the federal government "can do most anything in this country." And Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi won't even consider the constitutionality of a government takeover of health care a "serious question." Given this state of affairs, it does not seem unreasonable to reflect on the origins of the disdain for the Constitution in the Progressive Era.
Ronald Pestritto: Glenn Beck, Progressives and Me - WSJ.com
Simply put, individual liberty, or serving the collective.
From the Op-Ed by Professor Pestritto
1. ... the original progressivesincluding leaders such as Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Rooseveltrejected America's founding principles....today's leftist policies are the culmination of a journey begun by progressives over a century ago.
2. The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of individual liberty and limited government that were the basis of the American republic. America's original progressives were convinced that the country faced a set of social and economic problems demanding a sharp increase in federal power. They also said that there was too much emphasis placed on protecting the liberty of individuals at the expense of broader social justice.
3. ... in his 1887 essay, "Socialism and Democracy," Wilson considered the socialist principle"that all idea of limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view"to be entirely consistent with democratic principles: "In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. . . . Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none."
4. ...in his famous "New Nationalism" speech of 1910, [Roosevelt] said it was necessary that there be "a far more active governmental interference" with the economy. "It is not enough," he said, that a fortune was "gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."
5. To achieve their ends, progressives understood that the original constitutional limits on the scope of the federal government had to be breached. This is why Roosevelt railed against court decisions, like the famous Supreme Court case of Lochner v. New York (1905), that upheld individual property rights against progressive legislation ...
6. Today, a congressman such as Pete Stark can simply boast that the federal government "can do most anything in this country." And Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi won't even consider the constitutionality of a government takeover of health care a "serious question." Given this state of affairs, it does not seem unreasonable to reflect on the origins of the disdain for the Constitution in the Progressive Era.
Ronald Pestritto: Glenn Beck, Progressives and Me - WSJ.com