Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Bfgrn]

Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One

Volume (?)

1784-1796

Organizing the New Nation

THE ANNALS OF AMERICA
---------------------
Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.

100

Philip Freneau
Rules for Changing
a Republic [into a Democracy, then] into a Monarchy

Those who had opposed the constitution thought their fears justified by the conduct of the government that began to function in 1789. Under the aggressive leadership of Alexander Hamilton, the secretary of the treasury, economic measures were taken that favored the few, while a effective party machine was organized and the army strengthened in such a way as to suggest an intent to control rather than to represent the many. The whole tone of Washington's administration was aristocratic, favoring as it did the educated, the wealthy, the clergy, and the press, who were fearful of "mob rule" and preferred to see what Hamilton called "gentlemen of principle and property" in command. As Hamilton had at his service a newspaper - John Fenno's Gazette of the United States - to support his policies, his opponents, led by Jefferson and Madison, decided to establish a rival newspaper, the National Gazette. Philip Freneau, an experienced journalist of known democratic leanings, was chosen to edit the paper. The editorial, reprinted here, is typical of those in which Freneau criticized the Hamiltonian program from 1791 to 1793.

Source: American Museum, July 1792: "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One."


Rules for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one.

1. It being necessary in order to effect the change, to get rid of constitutional shackles and popular prejudices, all possible means and occasions are to be used for both these purposes.

2. Nothing being more likely to prepare the vulgar mind for aristocratical ranks and hereditary powers than titles, endeavor in the offset of the government to confer these on its most dignified officers. If the principal magistrate should happen to be particularly venerable in the eyes of the people, take advantage of that fortunate circumstance in setting the example.

3. Should the attempt fail through his republican aversion to it, or from the danger of alarming the people, do not abandon the enterprise altogether, but lay up the proposition in the record. Time may gain it respect, and it will be there always ready, cut and dried, for any favorable conjuncture that may offer.

4. In drawing all bills, resolutions, and reports, keep constantly in view that the limitations in the Constitution are ultimately to be explained away. Precedents and phrases may thus be shuffled in, without being adverted to by candid or weak people, of which good use may afterward be made.

5. As the novelty and bustle of inaugurating the government will for some time keep the public mind in a heedless and unsettled state, let the press during this period be busy in propagating the doctrines of monarchy and aristocracy. For this purpose it will be particular useful to confound a mobbish democracy with a representative republic, that by exhibiting all the turbulent examples and enormities of the former, an odium may be thrown on the character of the latter. Review all the civil contests, convulsions, factions, broils, squabbles, bickering, black eyes, and bloody noses of ancient, middle, and modern ages; caricature them into the most frightful forms and colors that can be imagined, and unfold one scene of horrible tragedy after another till the people be made, if possible, to tremble at their own shadows. Let the discourses on Davila then contrast with these pictures of terror the quiet hereditary succession, the reverence claimed by birth and nobility, and the fascinating influence of stars, and ribands, and garters, cautiously suppressing all the bloody tragedies and unceasing oppressions which form the history of this species of government. No pains should be spared in this part of the undertaking, for the greatest will be wanted, it being extremely difficult, especially when a people have been taught to reason and feel their rights, to convince them that a king, who is always an enemy to the people, and a nobility, who are perhaps still more so, will take better care of the people than the people will take of themselves.

6. But the grand nostrum will be a public debt, provided enough of it can be got and it be medicated with the proper ingredients. If by good fortune a debt be ready at hand, the most is to be made of it. Stretch it and swell it to the utmost the items will bear. Allow as many extra claims as decency will permit. Assume all the debts of your neighbors - in a word, get as much debt as can be raked and scraped together, and when you have got all you can, "advertise" for more, and have the debt made as big as possible. This object being accomplished, the next will be to make it as perpetual as possible; and the next to that, to get it into as few hands as possible. The more effectually to bring this about, modify the debt, complicate it, divide it, subdivide it, subtract it, postpone it, let there be one-third of two-thirds, and two-thirds of one-third, and two-thirds of two-thirds; let there be 3 percents, and 4 percents, and 6 percents, and present 6 percents, and future 6 percents. To be brief, let the whole be such a mystery that a few only can understand it; and let all possible opportunities and informations fall in the way of these few to cinch their advantages over the many.

7. It must not be forgotten that the members of the legislative body are to have a deep stake in the game. This is an essential point, and happily is attended with no difficulty. A sufficient number, properly disposed, can alternately legislate and speculate, and speculate and legislate, and buy and sell, and sell and buy, until a due portion of the property of their constituents has passed into their hands to give them an interest against their constituents, and to ensure the part they are to act. All this, however, must be carried on under the cover of the closest secrecy; and it is particularly lucky that dealings in paper admit of more secrecy that any other. Should a discovery take place, the whole plan may be blown up.


Cont.......

Freneau: Changing a Republic into a Monarchy (1792)

Fascinating...this game plan was followed to the T by Ronald Reagan.

Think bigger.

The enemy of We the People is not JUST big government. Thomas Jefferson was aware of the forces that create an aristocracy.


Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington
16 Jan. 1787Papers 11:48--49

The tumults in America I expected would have produced in Europe an unfavorable opinion of our political state. But it has not. On the contrary, the small effect of those tumults seems to have given more confidence in the firmness of our governments.

The interposition of the people themselves on the side of government has had a great effect on the opinion here. I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty.

The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.

I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, and restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did any where. Among the latter, under pretense of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor.


I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.
President John F. Kennedy (Speaking at a White House dinner for Nobel Prize winners, 1962)

 

[Freedomlover]

Check out the 1912 platform of the American Socialist Party and you will find that most of it ended up at some point in time in the platform of the Democrat Party starting primarily with the FDR administration. To say that Democrats today are not socialists is to ignore history. They are just more open about it than in the past.

 

[Intense]

Check out the 1912 platform of the American Socialist Party and you will find that most of it ended up at some point in time in the platform of the Democrat Party starting primarily with the FDR administration. To say that Democrats today are not socialists is to ignore history. They are just more open about it than in the past.

To make that claim is to ignore History and Reality.

 

[Intense]

Fascinating...this game plan was followed to the T by Ronald Reagan.

Think bigger.

The enemy of We the People is not JUST big government. Thomas Jefferson was aware of the forces that create an aristocracy.


Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington
16 Jan. 1787Papers 11:48--49

The tumults in America I expected would have produced in Europe an unfavorable opinion of our political state. But it has not. On the contrary, the small effect of those tumults seems to have given more confidence in the firmness of our governments.

The interposition of the people themselves on the side of government has had a great effect on the opinion here. I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty.

The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.

I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, and restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did any where. Among the latter, under pretense of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor.


I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.
President John F. Kennedy (Speaking at a White House dinner for Nobel Prize winners, 1962)

True. Communication, Transparency, Accountability, a defense against Tyranny, the Division between Wolves and Sheep, when left to Our Lower Nature. We All have the Civic Responsibility to be informed and Involved. Government, Monopoly, Conglomerates, left to their own device, will serve Their Interests, not ours. That is a primary reason why things should not be Centralized or Nationalized, just because. You would do better supporting Small Enterprise.

 

[Parvus]

Pitirim A. Sorokin holds that economy run by the managerial class is decentralized totalitarianism
while communistic and fascist totaliarianism have a centralized economy

 

[Foxfyre]

Pitirim A. Sorokin holds that economy run by the managerial class is decentralized totalitarianism
while communistic and fascist totaliarianism have a centralized economy

And modern day Progressivism invariably promotes increasing totalitarianism hinging on Marxist concepts more than Fascist. It is only within the framework of progressivism that a managerial class can obtain a foothold and power.

But Classical Liberalism recognizes and secures the unalienable right of everybody rendering the wolves harmless to the sheep, and promotes a free market system in which all run the economy and there is no managerial class but there is rather negotiations between employer and employee and consumer for the mutual advantage of all.

 

[Parvus]

The concept of "a free market system" is a fallacy - most of the time. How about small entrrpreneurs
joining their forces and uniting?

 

[Foxfyre]

The concept of "a free market system" is a fallacy - most of the time. How about small entrrpreneurs
joining their forces and uniting?

As a small entrepreneur myself, I can assure you that free market concepts are alive and well and work as well now as they ever did.

 

[bripat9643]

Progressives favored a government empowered to redistribute private property under the banner of social justice. R.J. Pestritto compares and contrasts progressivism and socialism:

The liberal's favorite phrase "Social Justice" I hate that stupid phrase more than anything they say. What does that mean? Liberals get to decide what it means, and then they can impose it on all of us through the all-powerful federal government. The evil of liberalism =big government tyranny

Liberal Dictionary:
================================
Social Justice - injustice.

You don't need to put any qualifiers before he word "justice." A given act is either just or it's not. The qualifier can only mean that without it the act referred to would be unjust.

 

[Parvus]

Thank you for comment. May I ask you a question? Do you pay any dues except taxes?

 

[bripat9643]

Understandably, as with most conservatives, Pestritto fails to understand that progressivism is fundamentally anti-dogmatic; that there is a static component of pragmatism which allows progressives the ability to adapt and change as society changes.

Progressives are opposed to reactionaryism and advocate embracing change rather than futilely resisting it, as is common with most conservatives.

There's no such thing as "reactionaryism." That's a non-word and a non-concept. Embracing change for change's sake is the ultimate stupidity. That Nazi's and the communists also embraced change. Change isn't always good. The call for change is little more than a demand that you drop your powers of logic and discrimination.

This is the basic reason why conservatives hate progressives: it has nothing to do with the positions progressives take on the issues per se, but the fact that progressives, unlike conservatives, don’t adhere blindly to sanctioned dogma.

Your Komrades in this forum give the lie to that claim. The idea that progressives don't adhere to dogma is the ultimate absurdity.

The intrinsic pragmatic nature of progressivism, therefore, renders false the accusation that progressives advocate a ‘one size fits all’ government approach to addressing national issues. In fact, this hasn’t been a staple of progressive thought for over 50 years.

"pragmatism" is once again a demand that you suspend your capacity for logic and rational discrimination and mindlessly adopt the agenda of the so-called "pragmatists." The accusation that progressives advocate a 'one size fits all" government is supported by their actions.

By the end of the 20th Century, progressivism had evolved into a synthesis of pragmatic doctrine representing ‘beliefs’ from across the political spectrum. Progressives are advocates of free markets, for example, but also realize that some government regulation is necessary.

So they believe in free markets, only not? Apparently what they believe in is weaseling out of taking a clear unambiguous stand on any issue. Progressiveness is obviously a synthesis of pure horseshit and irrationality.

In essence, progressives believe that no idea or solution should be rejected out of hand simply because that idea or solution comes from the ‘wrong’ political camp, as practiced by conservatives. Solutions should be based on the facts and evidence, indicating what will work, regardless its political origin.

We reject progressive ideas because they are stupid and irrational. history has proven them wrong time and time again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressive is a polite way of saying Marxist

 

[Parvus]

Is historical evolution a meaningless flux of change? It depends. There are many kinds
of evolution, such as biological, etc. The fallacy is to isolate one single factor as the
sole determinant of change.

 

[Parvus]

Is there "a free market system"? yes and no. It depends on what you are referring to. As to certain
natural resources like oil, for example, oligopoly prevails. The oil producers dictate the prices.

 

[Paulie]

My brain hurts now...lol.

I sort of see the Tea Party, as the closest representation to Classic Liberal Thinking.

Yeah maybe in its infancy.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Fascinating...this game plan was followed to the T by Ronald Reagan.

Think bigger.

The enemy of We the People is not JUST big government. Thomas Jefferson was aware of the forces that create an aristocracy.


Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington
16 Jan. 1787Papers 11:48--49

The tumults in America I expected would have produced in Europe an unfavorable opinion of our political state. But it has not. On the contrary, the small effect of those tumults seems to have given more confidence in the firmness of our governments.

The interposition of the people themselves on the side of government has had a great effect on the opinion here. I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves. The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty.

The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs through the channel of the public papers, and to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.

I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, and restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did any where. Among the latter, under pretense of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, judges and governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor.


I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.
President John F. Kennedy (Speaking at a White House dinner for Nobel Prize winners, 1962)

It's certainly amazing.....

 

[Bfgrn]

Understandably, as with most conservatives, Pestritto fails to understand that progressivism is fundamentally anti-dogmatic; that there is a static component of pragmatism which allows progressives the ability to adapt and change as society changes.

Progressives are opposed to reactionaryism and advocate embracing change rather than futilely resisting it, as is common with most conservatives.

There's no such thing as "reactionaryism." That's a non-word and a non-concept. Embracing change for change's sake is the ultimate stupidity. That Nazi's and the communists also embraced change. Change isn't always good. The call for change is little more than a demand that you drop your powers of logic and discrimination.

This is the basic reason why conservatives hate progressives: it has nothing to do with the positions progressives take on the issues per se, but the fact that progressives, unlike conservatives, don’t adhere blindly to sanctioned dogma.

Your Komrades in this forum give the lie to that claim. The idea that progressives don't adhere to dogma is the ultimate absurdity.



"pragmatism" is once again a demand that you suspend your capacity for logic and rational discrimination and mindlessly adopt the agenda of the so-called "pragmatists." The accusation that progressives advocate a 'one size fits all" government is supported by their actions.

By the end of the 20th Century, progressivism had evolved into a synthesis of pragmatic doctrine representing ‘beliefs’ from across the political spectrum. Progressives are advocates of free markets, for example, but also realize that some government regulation is necessary.

So they believe in free markets, only not? Apparently what they believe in is weaseling out of taking a clear unambiguous stand on any issue. Progressiveness is obviously a synthesis of pure horseshit and irrationality.

In essence, progressives believe that no idea or solution should be rejected out of hand simply because that idea or solution comes from the ‘wrong’ political camp, as practiced by conservatives. Solutions should be based on the facts and evidence, indicating what will work, regardless its political origin.

We reject progressive ideas because they are stupid and irrational. history has proven them wrong time and time again.

You are a Glenn Beck pea brain.

A State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.
Edmund Burke

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Understandably, as with most conservatives, Pestritto fails to understand that progressivism is fundamentally anti-dogmatic; that there is a static component of pragmatism which allows progressives the ability to adapt and change as society changes.

Progressivism is fundamentally anti dogmatic? Do you even know how absurd it is to say that? Dogmatism means that you accept a point of view as fundamentally true, kinda of like you you just asserted that progressivism is anti dogmatic. In order for progressivism to be truly anti dogmatic it would have to assert that its own belief system is false. The fact that ipeople have to assume that what they believe is true always leads to them not examining their beliefs sufficiently unless they make a conscious effort to do so. The only belief system I have ever encountered that urges people to challenge their own beliefs all the time is Christianity, and even that system is dogmatic.

Progressives are opposed to reactionaryism and advocate embracing change rather than futilely resisting it, as is common with most conservatives.

Sounds like dogmatism to me.

This is the basic reason why conservatives hate progressives: it has nothing to do with the positions progressives take on the issues per se, but the fact that progressives, unlike conservatives, don’t adhere blindly to sanctioned dogma.

That is definitely dogmatic, you are assuming things about others without examining their beliefs because it is inconceivable to you that your progressive beliefs might be wrong.

The intrinsic pragmatic nature of progressivism, therefore, renders false the accusation that progressives advocate a ‘one size fits all’ government approach to addressing national issues. In fact, this hasn’t been a staple of progressive thought for over 50 years.

Of course it does, which is why they all oppose Obamacare.

Wait, they don't.

By the end of the 20th Century, progressivism had evolved into a synthesis of pragmatic doctrine representing ‘beliefs’ from across the political spectrum. Progressives are advocates of free markets, for example, but also realize that some government regulation is necessary.

That was funny.

Didn't you just point out that progressives are fundamentally opposed to conservatives? How can they adopt beliefs that are against their fundamental nature? Do you even understand that by arguing for regulated markets, you are arguing against free markets?

In essence, progressives believe that no idea or solution should be rejected out of hand simply because that idea or solution comes from the ‘wrong’ political camp, as practiced by conservatives. Solutions should be based on the facts and evidence, indicating what will work, regardless its political origin.

Yet you just rejected a solution out of hand by insisting that markets have to be regulated. Do you not even see how stupid and dogmatic that is?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Liberalism has always been about the maximum amount of freedom, and in balancing individual capitalism. Liberalism has always been wary of limited liability corporations. You ought to actually read what our founders inserted in articles of incorporation of the companies that were building canals. Liberalism and progressivism aren't mutually exclusive. The progressive movement was about female suffrage, combating institutional racism (including slavery), and limiting the damage of unbridled capitalism.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberalism has always been about the maximum amount of freedom, and in balancing individual capitalism. Liberalism has always been wary of limited liability corporations. You ought to actually read what our founders inserted in articles of incorporation of the companies that were building canals. Liberalism and progressivism aren't mutually exclusive. The progressive movement was about female suffrage, combating institutional racism (including slavery), and limiting the damage of unbridled capitalism.

The only problem with your analysis is that modern American liberalism seeks to limit and balance capitalism by limiting freedom to exercise it. In fact, modern American liberalism seeks to limit freedoms in almost every aspect of human life in America whether that is the right to smoke or eat what we like or say what we think or express our religious faith wherever we like or achieve great financial success or establish a community that reflects our personal sense of values and morality. Too many who call themselves 'progressives' do not extend unalienable rights to anything other than their own agenda and those who express their own ideology.