Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Bfgrn]

The regulations he is touting that limited corporate charters in length also gave those corporations a state backed monopoly that made competition illegal. Madison speaking against corporations means he was speaking up against a regulated market system that prevented competition and innovation, not against what we think of when we hear the same word today. I addressed that in a previous post, and he repeated the exact same talking points, and then tried to claim constitutional authority for his position by making a specious comparison.

Why encourage that?

I had decided to dismiss your absolute blather. But you felt a need to continue your ideological gymnastics. So in our founder's day government completely controlled corporations.

There is a difference between a government sanctioned monopoly and a completely controlled corporation.

Then you applaud the rules and regulations from Obama as laissez-faire doctrine...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I had decided to dismiss your absolute blather. But you felt a need to continue your ideological gymnastics. So in our founder's day government completely controlled corporations.

There is a difference between a government sanctioned monopoly and a completely controlled corporation.

Then you applaud the rules and regulations from Obama as laissez-faire doctrine...

In comparison to what?

 

[Bfgrn]

There is a difference between a government sanctioned monopoly and a completely controlled corporation.

Then you applaud the rules and regulations from Obama as laissez-faire doctrine...

In comparison to what?

Did you even READ them?

Modern liberalism in the United States evolved from the liberalism of the Founding Fathers who were willing to have government regulate the economy, to distribute power as widely as possible and keep all power within a system of checks and balances. Modern American liberals seek to prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of an economic elite and balance the power of market forces and businesses against that of government, so that no source of power may go unchecked. Like our Founding Fathers, modern American liberals see government regulation of certain aspects of the economy as essential towards providing positive freedom.

 

[Intense]

Then you applaud the rules and regulations from Obama as laissez-faire doctrine...

In comparison to what?

Did you even READ them?

Modern liberalism in the United States evolved from the liberalism of the Founding Fathers who were willing to have government regulate the economy, to distribute power as widely as possible and keep all power within a system of checks and balances. Modern American liberals seek to prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of an economic elite and balance the power of market forces and businesses against that of government, so that no source of power may go unchecked. Like our Founding Fathers, modern American liberals see government regulation of certain aspects of the economy as essential towards providing positive freedom.

Did you even READ them? Yes.
They need to studied and reviewed, by all sides. Obama and his advisers are too academic, with piss poor business knowledge and experience. Personally I wouldn't trust him to run a cookie drive. No offense.

Modern liberalism in the United States evolved from the liberalism of the Founding Fathers who were willing to have government regulate the economy, to distribute power as widely as possible and keep all power within a system of checks and balances.

Yes and no. The Constitution was to define and limit the Power of Government, protect Society from the Encroachment from the appetites of that Government. Individual Rights and Property Rights were Paramount to the Classic Liberal of those days, they have actually been reversed by Progressive Statists, who now make the will of the State Paramount, sort of confusing the Power of the State with the Power of God. The State is not , nor ever will be Almighty. Deal with it. Those Checks and Balances concern the Accountability of The Federal Government first. Regulation of Commerce is by consent, and by charge, Impartial. You sort of dropped the ball way back there on Impartiality. The Referee is not there to predetermine the outcome of the game, but to keep the play fair. The Referee does not bet on the game, give handicaps, or field Ringers while refereeing, that is, unless the Referee is a real lowlife.

Modern American liberals seek to prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of an economic elite and balance the power of market forces and businesses against that of government, so that no source of power may go unchecked.

Say that again in English. It is not the Government's role to Limit Success. It is not the Government's role to undermine the Free Market Place. Fair Competition levels the playing field better than Government can with convoluted Schemes, crooked books, cover-ups and entitlements. Unfair Advantage serves no good. Scams, schemes, and Government Payoffs corrupt the economy. There is really no excuse for it or the incompetence we are forced to live with because of Government Obstruction and Arbitrary, contradictory, meddling. If you can't be a fair referee, move out of the way so someone more competant can give it a try.

Like our Founding Fathers, modern American liberals see government regulation of certain aspects of the economy as essential towards providing positive freedom.

Your only connection with Freedom is in denying it. You have thrown Individual Liberty under the Bus, in favor of how the State may benefit instead, stealing it while labeling it sacrifice. You Attack Private Property, as if it stands in the way of the Prosperity of the State, again Theft, while mismanaging what you have, It, never being enough to satisfy your addiction. You trash Federalist Principles, while trying against the will of the awake, a Kingdom, where you think your intentions justify anything you want to mandate, without fair review or consideration.

 

[Intense]

Hey, don't get me wrong here, my message is about establishing and maintaining Justice. That includes Government, Business, and Society. Pre determined outcome, Equal outcome, have nothing to do with Justice. It is not Governments place to determine Providence or steal from it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then you applaud the rules and regulations from Obama as laissez-faire doctrine...

In comparison to what?

Did you even READ them?

Modern liberalism in the United States evolved from the liberalism of the Founding Fathers who were willing to have government regulate the economy, to distribute power as widely as possible and keep all power within a system of checks and balances. Modern American liberals seek to prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of an economic elite and balance the power of market forces and businesses against that of government, so that no source of power may go unchecked. Like our Founding Fathers, modern American liberals see government regulation of certain aspects of the economy as essential towards providing positive freedom.

No, because we are talking about two different things. How will going back to government sanctioned monopolies lessen the concentration of power? Do you honestly believe that a corporation that was granted an exclusive charter for 15 years would not figure out a way to renew that charter?

If you ever want to discuss actual real life modern issues and the proper level of regulation, we might have a discussion, As long as you insist that we should go back to what we had in the 18th century you will continue to look like you are an idiot.

 

[Bfgrn]

In comparison to what?

Did you even READ them?

Modern liberalism in the United States evolved from the liberalism of the Founding Fathers who were willing to have government regulate the economy, to distribute power as widely as possible and keep all power within a system of checks and balances. Modern American liberals seek to prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of an economic elite and balance the power of market forces and businesses against that of government, so that no source of power may go unchecked. Like our Founding Fathers, modern American liberals see government regulation of certain aspects of the economy as essential towards providing positive freedom.

Did you even READ them? Yes.
They need to studied and reviewed, by all sides. Obama and his advisers are too academic, with piss poor business knowledge and experience. Personally I wouldn't trust him to run a cookie drive. No offense.



Yes and no. The Constitution was to define and limit the Power of Government, protect Society from the Encroachment from the appetites of that Government. Individual Rights and Property Rights were Paramount to the Classic Liberal of those days, they have actually been reversed by Progressive Statists, who now make the will of the State Paramount, sort of confusing the Power of the State with the Power of God. The State is not , nor ever will be Almighty. Deal with it. Those Checks and Balances concern the Accountability of The Federal Government first. Regulation of Commerce is by consent, and by charge, Impartial. You sort of dropped the ball way back there on Impartiality. The Referee is not there to predetermine the outcome of the game, but to keep the play fair. The Referee does not bet on the game, give handicaps, or field Ringers while refereeing, that is, unless the Referee is a real lowlife.

Modern American liberals seek to prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of an economic elite and balance the power of market forces and businesses against that of government, so that no source of power may go unchecked.

Say that again in English. It is not the Government's role to Limit Success. It is not the Government's role to undermine the Free Market Place. Fair Competition levels the playing field better than Government can with convoluted Schemes, crooked books, cover-ups and entitlements. Unfair Advantage serves no good. Scams, schemes, and Government Payoffs corrupt the economy. There is really no excuse for it or the incompetence we are forced to live with because of Government Obstruction and Arbitrary, contradictory, meddling. If you can't be a fair referee, move out of the way so someone more competant can give it a try.

Like our Founding Fathers, modern American liberals see government regulation of certain aspects of the economy as essential towards providing positive freedom.

Your only connection with Freedom is in denying it. You have thrown Individual Liberty under the Bus, in favor of how the State may benefit instead, stealing it while labeling it sacrifice. You Attack Private Property, as if it stands in the way of the Prosperity of the State, again Theft, while mismanaging what you have, It, never being enough to satisfy your addiction. You trash Federalist Principles, while trying against the will of the awake, a Kingdom, where you think your intentions justify anything you want to mandate, without fair review or consideration.

We, the People ARE that government you demonize. Maybe you just 'forgot'. Our founding father's seminal achievement to address the needs of We, the People IS government, not a private entity. They realized that We, the People are stakeholders in this country, not shareholders in a 'for profit' self centered entity.

The Boston Tea Party was a rebellion over tax cuts for the largest transnational corporation in the world at that time. The colonists rejected the 'individual' freedom to buy the lowest priced tea for the protection of the collective and the betterment of community.

You are not talking like a Federalist, you are talking like a Social Darwinist. The law of the jungle is NOT a civil society.

The best explanation I have heard for the role of the President and our elected representatives comes from the President whose assassination was the beginning of the end of the America our founder's envisioned. He quoted one of our most plain spoken defenders of We, the People.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Mr.Nick]

One is a capitalist the other is a socialist...

If anyone says otherwise they're liars.

 

[Bfgrn]

One is a capitalist the other is a socialist...

If anyone says otherwise they're liars.

Simple minded people see simple minded things. That would be YOU.

 

[Sallow]

Hey, don't get me wrong here, my message is about establishing and maintaining Justice. That includes Government, Business, and Society. Pre determined outcome, Equal outcome, have nothing to do with Justice. It is not Governments place to determine Providence or steal from it.

You seem to miss the part were a good many founders cautioned against the unbridled accumulation of wealth into a few hands.

They saw that as destructive to the state.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey, don't get me wrong here, my message is about establishing and maintaining Justice. That includes Government, Business, and Society. Pre determined outcome, Equal outcome, have nothing to do with Justice. It is not Governments place to determine Providence or steal from it.

You seem to miss the part were a good many founders cautioned against the unbridled accumulation of wealth into a few hands.

They saw that as destructive to the state.

Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us. That doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

[Intense]

Did you even READ them?

Modern liberalism in the United States evolved from the liberalism of the Founding Fathers who were willing to have government regulate the economy, to distribute power as widely as possible and keep all power within a system of checks and balances. Modern American liberals seek to prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of an economic elite and balance the power of market forces and businesses against that of government, so that no source of power may go unchecked. Like our Founding Fathers, modern American liberals see government regulation of certain aspects of the economy as essential towards providing positive freedom.

Did you even READ them? Yes.
They need to studied and reviewed, by all sides. Obama and his advisers are too academic, with piss poor business knowledge and experience. Personally I wouldn't trust him to run a cookie drive. No offense.



Yes and no. The Constitution was to define and limit the Power of Government, protect Society from the Encroachment from the appetites of that Government. Individual Rights and Property Rights were Paramount to the Classic Liberal of those days, they have actually been reversed by Progressive Statists, who now make the will of the State Paramount, sort of confusing the Power of the State with the Power of God. The State is not , nor ever will be Almighty. Deal with it. Those Checks and Balances concern the Accountability of The Federal Government first. Regulation of Commerce is by consent, and by charge, Impartial. You sort of dropped the ball way back there on Impartiality. The Referee is not there to predetermine the outcome of the game, but to keep the play fair. The Referee does not bet on the game, give handicaps, or field Ringers while refereeing, that is, unless the Referee is a real lowlife.



Say that again in English. It is not the Government's role to Limit Success. It is not the Government's role to undermine the Free Market Place. Fair Competition levels the playing field better than Government can with convoluted Schemes, crooked books, cover-ups and entitlements. Unfair Advantage serves no good. Scams, schemes, and Government Payoffs corrupt the economy. There is really no excuse for it or the incompetence we are forced to live with because of Government Obstruction and Arbitrary, contradictory, meddling. If you can't be a fair referee, move out of the way so someone more competant can give it a try.

Like our Founding Fathers, modern American liberals see government regulation of certain aspects of the economy as essential towards providing positive freedom.

Your only connection with Freedom is in denying it. You have thrown Individual Liberty under the Bus, in favor of how the State may benefit instead, stealing it while labeling it sacrifice. You Attack Private Property, as if it stands in the way of the Prosperity of the State, again Theft, while mismanaging what you have, It, never being enough to satisfy your addiction. You trash Federalist Principles, while trying against the will of the awake, a Kingdom, where you think your intentions justify anything you want to mandate, without fair review or consideration.

We, the People ARE that government you demonize. Maybe you just 'forgot'. Our founding father's seminal achievement to address the needs of We, the People IS government, not a private entity. They realized that We, the People are stakeholders in this country, not shareholders in a 'for profit' self centered entity.

The Boston Tea Party was a rebellion over tax cuts for the largest transnational corporation in the world at that time. The colonists rejected the 'individual' freedom to buy the lowest priced tea for the protection of the collective and the betterment of community.

You are not talking like a Federalist, you are talking like a Social Darwinist. The law of the jungle is NOT a civil society.

The best explanation I have heard for the role of the President and our elected representatives comes from the President whose assassination was the beginning of the end of the America our founder's envisioned. He quoted one of our most plain spoken defenders of We, the People.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

We, the People ARE that government you demonize. Maybe you just 'forgot'. Our founding father's seminal achievement to address the needs of We, the People IS government, not a private entity. They realized that We, the People are stakeholders in this country, not shareholders in a 'for profit' self centered entity.

Do we vote for our Representatives or our Keepers? Our Founders did not Deny Individual Liberty, they Fought and Died for it. Grow up. You give more importance to the mechanism we created to Secure Liberty and Justice than for the Ideals Themselves. Why are you Threatened by what you can't control? You cannot defend against Tyranny if You cannot protect Private Property.

The Boston Tea Party was a rebellion over tax cuts for the largest transnational corporation in the world at that time. The colonists rejected the 'individual' freedom to buy the lowest priced tea for the protection of the collective and the betterment of community.

The Boston Tea Party was also about Taxation without Representation.

You are not talking like a Federalist, you are talking like a Social Darwinist. The law of the jungle is NOT a civil society.

Constructive Liberty, Government by the Consent of the Governed. Why the jump to the Law of the Jungle? Disingenuous at best. Again you have abandoned Principle for the Convenience of the State. You throw Individual Liberty and Private Property under the bus, to serve the whims and fantasies of the State, a Construct, being misused to accumulate more Power.

The best explanation I have heard for the role of the President and our elected representatives comes from the President whose assassination was the beginning of the end of the America our founder's envisioned. He quoted one of our most plain spoken defenders of We, the People.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

So much for Limited Government, Rule of Law, and Due Process, huh. The President want's something, everyone, open up your check books, out with those Pin Numbers, and Credit Cards. .... It's nice to want things...... Wanting something is not enough in a Republic. Make your case, state your cause. Convince with argument, win over the Society, with your brilliance, not Mandate. You Corrupt the State, with the argument that you know best, the End does not justify the Means, not if you value Principle.

 

[Intense]

Hey, don't get me wrong here, my message is about establishing and maintaining Justice. That includes Government, Business, and Society. Pre determined outcome, Equal outcome, have nothing to do with Justice. It is not Governments place to determine Providence or steal from it.

You seem to miss the part were a good many founders cautioned against the unbridled accumulation of wealth into a few hands.

They saw that as destructive to the state.

Until the Campaign Contributions started rolling in. You confuse the Right to Your Property with Monopoly and Manipulation. How is stripping your Rights as an Individual and your Personal Property Rights serve Justice? You are being played, told by the State, that It's will, supersedes what is Right, rather than defend Principle, it turns it into their Principal. Their Possession. Where does that leave you? On bread lines and Unemployment lines, while Government Workers increase. Good one. So you have the Elite manipulating Government to feed off of the Ex Middle Class, while their wealth is safely stored away. Kill the Monopolies and open competition if you want to do something that matters.

 

[Intense]

Hey, don't get me wrong here, my message is about establishing and maintaining Justice. That includes Government, Business, and Society. Pre determined outcome, Equal outcome, have nothing to do with Justice. It is not Governments place to determine Providence or steal from it.

You seem to miss the part were a good many founders cautioned against the unbridled accumulation of wealth into a few hands.

They saw that as destructive to the state.

Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us. That doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

What applies to Corporations should apply to Organizations and Unions. Impartiality, see how that works out for you.

 

[Bfgrn]

Did you even READ them? Yes.
They need to studied and reviewed, by all sides. Obama and his advisers are too academic, with piss poor business knowledge and experience. Personally I wouldn't trust him to run a cookie drive. No offense.



Yes and no. The Constitution was to define and limit the Power of Government, protect Society from the Encroachment from the appetites of that Government. Individual Rights and Property Rights were Paramount to the Classic Liberal of those days, they have actually been reversed by Progressive Statists, who now make the will of the State Paramount, sort of confusing the Power of the State with the Power of God. The State is not , nor ever will be Almighty. Deal with it. Those Checks and Balances concern the Accountability of The Federal Government first. Regulation of Commerce is by consent, and by charge, Impartial. You sort of dropped the ball way back there on Impartiality. The Referee is not there to predetermine the outcome of the game, but to keep the play fair. The Referee does not bet on the game, give handicaps, or field Ringers while refereeing, that is, unless the Referee is a real lowlife.



Say that again in English. It is not the Government's role to Limit Success. It is not the Government's role to undermine the Free Market Place. Fair Competition levels the playing field better than Government can with convoluted Schemes, crooked books, cover-ups and entitlements. Unfair Advantage serves no good. Scams, schemes, and Government Payoffs corrupt the economy. There is really no excuse for it or the incompetence we are forced to live with because of Government Obstruction and Arbitrary, contradictory, meddling. If you can't be a fair referee, move out of the way so someone more competant can give it a try.


Your only connection with Freedom is in denying it. You have thrown Individual Liberty under the Bus, in favor of how the State may benefit instead, stealing it while labeling it sacrifice. You Attack Private Property, as if it stands in the way of the Prosperity of the State, again Theft, while mismanaging what you have, It, never being enough to satisfy your addiction. You trash Federalist Principles, while trying against the will of the awake, a Kingdom, where you think your intentions justify anything you want to mandate, without fair review or consideration.

We, the People ARE that government you demonize. Maybe you just 'forgot'. Our founding father's seminal achievement to address the needs of We, the People IS government, not a private entity. They realized that We, the People are stakeholders in this country, not shareholders in a 'for profit' self centered entity.

The Boston Tea Party was a rebellion over tax cuts for the largest transnational corporation in the world at that time. The colonists rejected the 'individual' freedom to buy the lowest priced tea for the protection of the collective and the betterment of community.

You are not talking like a Federalist, you are talking like a Social Darwinist. The law of the jungle is NOT a civil society.

The best explanation I have heard for the role of the President and our elected representatives comes from the President whose assassination was the beginning of the end of the America our founder's envisioned. He quoted one of our most plain spoken defenders of We, the People.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

Do we vote for our Representatives or our Keepers? Our Founders did not Deny Individual Liberty, they Fought and Died for it. Grow up. You give more importance to the mechanism we created to Secure Liberty and Justice than for the Ideals Themselves. Why are you Threatened by what you can't control? You cannot defend against Tyranny if You cannot protect Private Property.



The Boston Tea Party was also about Taxation without Representation.

You are not talking like a Federalist, you are talking like a Social Darwinist. The law of the jungle is NOT a civil society.

Constructive Liberty, Government by the Consent of the Governed. Why the jump to the Law of the Jungle? Disingenuous at best. Again you have abandoned Principle for the Convenience of the State. You throw Individual Liberty and Private Property under the bus, to serve the whims and fantasies of the State, a Construct, being misused to accumulate more Power.

The best explanation I have heard for the role of the President and our elected representatives comes from the President whose assassination was the beginning of the end of the America our founder's envisioned. He quoted one of our most plain spoken defenders of We, the People.

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

So much for Limited Government, Rule of Law, and Due Process, huh. The President want's something, everyone, open up your check books, out with those Pin Numbers, and Credit Cards. .... It's nice to want things...... Wanting something is not enough in a Republic. Make your case, state your cause. Convince with argument, win over the Society, with your brilliance, not Mandate. You Corrupt the State, with the argument that you know best, the End does not justify the Means, not if you value Principle.

I have NOT advocated government confiscating private property. You are going off the deep end.

 

[Intense]

I have NOT advocated government confiscating private property. You are going off the deep end.

Actually Progressiveness does, very strongly. Read the OP.

Hold onto your Faith, it will pull you through where reason fails.

The attack on Private Property are exactly where Progressivism splits from Classic Liberalism. It is a flat out reversal.

 

[Bfgrn]

I have NOT advocated government confiscating private property. You are going off the deep end.

Actually Progressiveness does, very strongly. Read the OP.

Hold onto your Faith, it will pull you through where reason fails.

The attack on Private Property are exactly where Progressivism splits from Classic Liberalism. It is a flat out reversal.

I suggest you do more reading on the Progressive era from historians that are not far right wing Glenn Beck propagandists.

Hating Woodrow Wilson
The new and confused attacks on progressivism.

Until now. Thanks largely to Glenn Beck, who in turn seems to have been influenced by a tiny cluster of academics at conservative outposts like Hillsdale College, Wilson has emerged as the Tea Party's No. 1 "President You Need to Hate," as he's described on the "Beck University" Web site, the talk-show host's repository of baroque counter-histories. Lambasting Wilson has become, according to Mark Leibovich of the New York Times, "a secret handshake among Beck followers." * The craggy-faced Virginian who became a leading political scientist and university president; the celebrated governor of New Jersey who, as president, led the nation to victory in World War I, is faulted for the income tax, the Federal Reserve, bureaucrats, socialists, eugenics, and even the rise of Nazism.

Not surprisingly, much of the brief against Wilson is not just bad as an interpretation of the facts but also demonstrably inaccurate. With the recent spike in Wilson-hating, correctors of the record are emerging from their carrels; Wilson biographer John Milton Cooper, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, and others have picked apart Beck's more outré Wilson-centered fantasies, while Dana Milbank has had fun shooting fish in Beck's cracker-barrel history. In moments of candor, Beck himself all but owns up to his longstanding ignorance. On one program he seemed unsure whether Birth of a Nation was "the first big silent movie" or "the first silent movie," and said he'd read that it was "based on Wilson's writings"—something one of his guests, uneasily, said he hadn't "verified." (For the record, Griffith borrowed some language from Wilson's History of the American People for the title cards, but the movie was based on a contemporary novel, The Clansman, and Wilson's take on Reconstruction and the Ku Klux Klan was much more moderate than the film's.) "Two years ago," Beck confessed on another occasion—before he read conservative writers like Ronald J. Pestritto who are deeply hostile to Wilson's progressivism—"I knew nothing about Woodrow Wilson." If he now fashions himself wiser, it remains a hastily acquired expertise.

The debunking of crackpot history is necessary, and ridicule fully deserves its place. But it's also important to recognize the nub of truth amid the distortion in the right's Wilson-bashing. After all, Wilson, along with Theodore Roosevelt—who, perhaps because he was a Republican, draws considerably less vituperation from Beck and his ilk—unquestionably bolstered the powers of the presidency and the state in early 20th-century America. While nothing at all like the tyrants of the Tea Party's fever-dreams, these presidents looked upon their predecessors (excepting a few, like Lincoln) as captive to an outmoded view of the presidency. Facing a rapidly industrializing economy, a swelling and diverse populace, and unstoppably powerful corporations, they sought to introduce public accountability and regulation to enhance individual freedom and opportunity.

The signal challenge of the age was the overwhelming power of the corporations. Unchecked by the government, their pursuit of profit created great wealth but consigned millions to misery and injustice. As cruel working conditions and widespread economic unfairness increasingly defied justification, Democrats and Republicans alike turned to reformist politicians—specifically Roosevelt and Wilson—who believed that political leadership meant tackling these problems. They wanted to maintain a dynamic capitalist economy while protecting laborers, farmers, consumers, and others who lacked recourse. Such reformers came to be called progressives.

Roosevelt and Wilson had plenty of differences, but in the long view of history their affinities loom large. For Roosevelt, presidential activism meant cracking down on the railroads, regulating food and drugs, breaking up trusts, protecting lands from exploitation, and arbitrating labor disputes. For Wilson, it involved regulating finance and the money supply, limiting the corporations' demands on their laborers, aiding farmers, preventing monopolistic practices, and making the new federal income tax a graduated one. Just three months ago, I wrote in Slate that over the last century, almost no one has questioned these achievements; clearly, I hadn't been watching enough Fox. Nonetheless, it's telling that these Progressive Era reforms have enjoyed such an enduring and uncontroversial place in our sense of what government should do. Their long-reigning acceptance shows better than anything else just how deeply reactionary Beck and company are.

Of course, even those who happily admit to wanting to repeal a century's worth of regulation have to reckon with a fundamental flaw in today's Wilson hatred: It's completely ahistorical. The right's habit is to view Wilson through the lens of today's politics—to blame his commitment to a Federal Reserve Bank, for example, for giving us Ben Bernanke's decisions, or to equate Wilson's "progressivism" with the left-wing views of today's self-described progressives. But the Federal Reserve and the meaning of the word progressive—and so much else about American life—have changed dramatically since Wilson's day. Which is why you have to look at political figures in the context of their times: What problems did they face? What alternative paths were available to them? What did they and their contemporaries think they were up to?

If you consider the political currents of the Progressive Era, the portrait of Wilson as either a radical or a precursor of fascism looks especially absurd. At the turn of the century, problems like the exploitation of labor, the blight of urban tenements, and the dangers of economic concentration cried out for reform. Social science was illuminating new solutions to intractable social problems, such as or creating parks and libraries or improving factory conditions to limit disease. Public opinion demanded a stronger role for government, which was the only institution possessing the resources to make a difference. Properly situated in this context, Wilson and other progressives emerge as not as proto-fascists or wild renegades but as tempered, moderate reformers. They implemented major changes, but those changes were in tune with the mainstream of public sentiment.

 

[Intense]

I have NOT advocated government confiscating private property. You are going off the deep end.

Actually Progressiveness does, very strongly. Read the OP.

Hold onto your Faith, it will pull you through where reason fails.

The attack on Private Property are exactly where Progressivism splits from Classic Liberalism. It is a flat out reversal.

I suggest you do more reading on the Progressive era from historians that are not far right wing Glenn Beck propagandists.

Hating Woodrow Wilson
The new and confused attacks on progressivism.

Until now. Thanks largely to Glenn Beck, who in turn seems to have been influenced by a tiny cluster of academics at conservative outposts like Hillsdale College, Wilson has emerged as the Tea Party's No. 1 "President You Need to Hate," as he's described on the "Beck University" Web site, the talk-show host's repository of baroque counter-histories. Lambasting Wilson has become, according to Mark Leibovich of the New York Times, "a secret handshake among Beck followers." * The craggy-faced Virginian who became a leading political scientist and university president; the celebrated governor of New Jersey who, as president, led the nation to victory in World War I, is faulted for the income tax, the Federal Reserve, bureaucrats, socialists, eugenics, and even the rise of Nazism.

Not surprisingly, much of the brief against Wilson is not just bad as an interpretation of the facts but also demonstrably inaccurate. With the recent spike in Wilson-hating, correctors of the record are emerging from their carrels; Wilson biographer John Milton Cooper, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, and others have picked apart Beck's more outré Wilson-centered fantasies, while Dana Milbank has had fun shooting fish in Beck's cracker-barrel history. In moments of candor, Beck himself all but owns up to his longstanding ignorance. On one program he seemed unsure whether Birth of a Nation was "the first big silent movie" or "the first silent movie," and said he'd read that it was "based on Wilson's writings"—something one of his guests, uneasily, said he hadn't "verified." (For the record, Griffith borrowed some language from Wilson's History of the American People for the title cards, but the movie was based on a contemporary novel, The Clansman, and Wilson's take on Reconstruction and the Ku Klux Klan was much more moderate than the film's.) "Two years ago," Beck confessed on another occasion—before he read conservative writers like Ronald J. Pestritto who are deeply hostile to Wilson's progressivism—"I knew nothing about Woodrow Wilson." If he now fashions himself wiser, it remains a hastily acquired expertise.

The debunking of crackpot history is necessary, and ridicule fully deserves its place. But it's also important to recognize the nub of truth amid the distortion in the right's Wilson-bashing. After all, Wilson, along with Theodore Roosevelt—who, perhaps because he was a Republican, draws considerably less vituperation from Beck and his ilk—unquestionably bolstered the powers of the presidency and the state in early 20th-century America. While nothing at all like the tyrants of the Tea Party's fever-dreams, these presidents looked upon their predecessors (excepting a few, like Lincoln) as captive to an outmoded view of the presidency. Facing a rapidly industrializing economy, a swelling and diverse populace, and unstoppably powerful corporations, they sought to introduce public accountability and regulation to enhance individual freedom and opportunity.

The signal challenge of the age was the overwhelming power of the corporations. Unchecked by the government, their pursuit of profit created great wealth but consigned millions to misery and injustice. As cruel working conditions and widespread economic unfairness increasingly defied justification, Democrats and Republicans alike turned to reformist politicians—specifically Roosevelt and Wilson—who believed that political leadership meant tackling these problems. They wanted to maintain a dynamic capitalist economy while protecting laborers, farmers, consumers, and others who lacked recourse. Such reformers came to be called progressives.

Roosevelt and Wilson had plenty of differences, but in the long view of history their affinities loom large. For Roosevelt, presidential activism meant cracking down on the railroads, regulating food and drugs, breaking up trusts, protecting lands from exploitation, and arbitrating labor disputes. For Wilson, it involved regulating finance and the money supply, limiting the corporations' demands on their laborers, aiding farmers, preventing monopolistic practices, and making the new federal income tax a graduated one. Just three months ago, I wrote in Slate that over the last century, almost no one has questioned these achievements; clearly, I hadn't been watching enough Fox. Nonetheless, it's telling that these Progressive Era reforms have enjoyed such an enduring and uncontroversial place in our sense of what government should do. Their long-reigning acceptance shows better than anything else just how deeply reactionary Beck and company are.

Of course, even those who happily admit to wanting to repeal a century's worth of regulation have to reckon with a fundamental flaw in today's Wilson hatred: It's completely ahistorical. The right's habit is to view Wilson through the lens of today's politics—to blame his commitment to a Federal Reserve Bank, for example, for giving us Ben Bernanke's decisions, or to equate Wilson's "progressivism" with the left-wing views of today's self-described progressives. But the Federal Reserve and the meaning of the word progressive—and so much else about American life—have changed dramatically since Wilson's day. Which is why you have to look at political figures in the context of their times: What problems did they face? What alternative paths were available to them? What did they and their contemporaries think they were up to?

If you consider the political currents of the Progressive Era, the portrait of Wilson as either a radical or a precursor of fascism looks especially absurd. At the turn of the century, problems like the exploitation of labor, the blight of urban tenements, and the dangers of economic concentration cried out for reform. Social science was illuminating new solutions to intractable social problems, such as or creating parks and libraries or improving factory conditions to limit disease. Public opinion demanded a stronger role for government, which was the only institution possessing the resources to make a difference. Properly situated in this context, Wilson and other progressives emerge as not as proto-fascists or wild renegades but as tempered, moderate reformers. They implemented major changes, but those changes were in tune with the mainstream of public sentiment.

I don't need Beck to see what is wrong with Progressive Policy. Progressive Assault on Individual Liberty, Private/Personal Property Rights, rich and Poor alike, and the Assault on Religion, God say it all. I know you don't like competition, I get it. My perspective is just different than yours, I see it as the Disease not the Cure. I don't need Beck or FOX for that. We are not Commodities for Anyone to play with.

An Audit of the Federal Reserve and making it Transparent, will end allot of the Illusion quicker than you can say 1000 point drop.

 

[Bfgrn]

Actually Progressiveness does, very strongly. Read the OP.

Hold onto your Faith, it will pull you through where reason fails.

The attack on Private Property are exactly where Progressivism splits from Classic Liberalism. It is a flat out reversal.

I suggest you do more reading on the Progressive era from historians that are not far right wing Glenn Beck propagandists.

Hating Woodrow Wilson
The new and confused attacks on progressivism.

Until now. Thanks largely to Glenn Beck, who in turn seems to have been influenced by a tiny cluster of academics at conservative outposts like Hillsdale College, Wilson has emerged as the Tea Party's No. 1 "President You Need to Hate," as he's described on the "Beck University" Web site, the talk-show host's repository of baroque counter-histories. Lambasting Wilson has become, according to Mark Leibovich of the New York Times, "a secret handshake among Beck followers." * The craggy-faced Virginian who became a leading political scientist and university president; the celebrated governor of New Jersey who, as president, led the nation to victory in World War I, is faulted for the income tax, the Federal Reserve, bureaucrats, socialists, eugenics, and even the rise of Nazism.

Not surprisingly, much of the brief against Wilson is not just bad as an interpretation of the facts but also demonstrably inaccurate. With the recent spike in Wilson-hating, correctors of the record are emerging from their carrels; Wilson biographer John Milton Cooper, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, and others have picked apart Beck's more outré Wilson-centered fantasies, while Dana Milbank has had fun shooting fish in Beck's cracker-barrel history. In moments of candor, Beck himself all but owns up to his longstanding ignorance. On one program he seemed unsure whether Birth of a Nation was "the first big silent movie" or "the first silent movie," and said he'd read that it was "based on Wilson's writings"—something one of his guests, uneasily, said he hadn't "verified." (For the record, Griffith borrowed some language from Wilson's History of the American People for the title cards, but the movie was based on a contemporary novel, The Clansman, and Wilson's take on Reconstruction and the Ku Klux Klan was much more moderate than the film's.) "Two years ago," Beck confessed on another occasion—before he read conservative writers like Ronald J. Pestritto who are deeply hostile to Wilson's progressivism—"I knew nothing about Woodrow Wilson." If he now fashions himself wiser, it remains a hastily acquired expertise.

The debunking of crackpot history is necessary, and ridicule fully deserves its place. But it's also important to recognize the nub of truth amid the distortion in the right's Wilson-bashing. After all, Wilson, along with Theodore Roosevelt—who, perhaps because he was a Republican, draws considerably less vituperation from Beck and his ilk—unquestionably bolstered the powers of the presidency and the state in early 20th-century America. While nothing at all like the tyrants of the Tea Party's fever-dreams, these presidents looked upon their predecessors (excepting a few, like Lincoln) as captive to an outmoded view of the presidency. Facing a rapidly industrializing economy, a swelling and diverse populace, and unstoppably powerful corporations, they sought to introduce public accountability and regulation to enhance individual freedom and opportunity.

The signal challenge of the age was the overwhelming power of the corporations. Unchecked by the government, their pursuit of profit created great wealth but consigned millions to misery and injustice. As cruel working conditions and widespread economic unfairness increasingly defied justification, Democrats and Republicans alike turned to reformist politicians—specifically Roosevelt and Wilson—who believed that political leadership meant tackling these problems. They wanted to maintain a dynamic capitalist economy while protecting laborers, farmers, consumers, and others who lacked recourse. Such reformers came to be called progressives.

Roosevelt and Wilson had plenty of differences, but in the long view of history their affinities loom large. For Roosevelt, presidential activism meant cracking down on the railroads, regulating food and drugs, breaking up trusts, protecting lands from exploitation, and arbitrating labor disputes. For Wilson, it involved regulating finance and the money supply, limiting the corporations' demands on their laborers, aiding farmers, preventing monopolistic practices, and making the new federal income tax a graduated one. Just three months ago, I wrote in Slate that over the last century, almost no one has questioned these achievements; clearly, I hadn't been watching enough Fox. Nonetheless, it's telling that these Progressive Era reforms have enjoyed such an enduring and uncontroversial place in our sense of what government should do. Their long-reigning acceptance shows better than anything else just how deeply reactionary Beck and company are.

Of course, even those who happily admit to wanting to repeal a century's worth of regulation have to reckon with a fundamental flaw in today's Wilson hatred: It's completely ahistorical. The right's habit is to view Wilson through the lens of today's politics—to blame his commitment to a Federal Reserve Bank, for example, for giving us Ben Bernanke's decisions, or to equate Wilson's "progressivism" with the left-wing views of today's self-described progressives. But the Federal Reserve and the meaning of the word progressive—and so much else about American life—have changed dramatically since Wilson's day. Which is why you have to look at political figures in the context of their times: What problems did they face? What alternative paths were available to them? What did they and their contemporaries think they were up to?

If you consider the political currents of the Progressive Era, the portrait of Wilson as either a radical or a precursor of fascism looks especially absurd. At the turn of the century, problems like the exploitation of labor, the blight of urban tenements, and the dangers of economic concentration cried out for reform. Social science was illuminating new solutions to intractable social problems, such as or creating parks and libraries or improving factory conditions to limit disease. Public opinion demanded a stronger role for government, which was the only institution possessing the resources to make a difference. Properly situated in this context, Wilson and other progressives emerge as not as proto-fascists or wild renegades but as tempered, moderate reformers. They implemented major changes, but those changes were in tune with the mainstream of public sentiment.

I don't need Beck to see what is wrong with Progressive Policy. Progressive Assault on Individual Liberty, Private/Personal Property Rights, rich and Poor alike, and the Assault on Religion, God say it all. I know you don't like competition, I get it. My perspective is just different than yours, I see it as the Disease not the Cure. I don't need Beck or FOX for that. We are not Commodities for Anyone to play with.

An Audit of the Federal Reserve and making it Transparent, will end allot of the Illusion quicker than you can say 1000 point drop.

So the people back then were just too stupid to know what was wrong with society. Talk about ARROGANCE!

 

[Intense]

I suggest you do more reading on the Progressive era from historians that are not far right wing Glenn Beck propagandists.

Hating Woodrow Wilson
The new and confused attacks on progressivism.

Until now. Thanks largely to Glenn Beck, who in turn seems to have been influenced by a tiny cluster of academics at conservative outposts like Hillsdale College, Wilson has emerged as the Tea Party's No. 1 "President You Need to Hate," as he's described on the "Beck University" Web site, the talk-show host's repository of baroque counter-histories. Lambasting Wilson has become, according to Mark Leibovich of the New York Times, "a secret handshake among Beck followers." * The craggy-faced Virginian who became a leading political scientist and university president; the celebrated governor of New Jersey who, as president, led the nation to victory in World War I, is faulted for the income tax, the Federal Reserve, bureaucrats, socialists, eugenics, and even the rise of Nazism.

Not surprisingly, much of the brief against Wilson is not just bad as an interpretation of the facts but also demonstrably inaccurate. With the recent spike in Wilson-hating, correctors of the record are emerging from their carrels; Wilson biographer John Milton Cooper, Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, and others have picked apart Beck's more outré Wilson-centered fantasies, while Dana Milbank has had fun shooting fish in Beck's cracker-barrel history. In moments of candor, Beck himself all but owns up to his longstanding ignorance. On one program he seemed unsure whether Birth of a Nation was "the first big silent movie" or "the first silent movie," and said he'd read that it was "based on Wilson's writings"—something one of his guests, uneasily, said he hadn't "verified." (For the record, Griffith borrowed some language from Wilson's History of the American People for the title cards, but the movie was based on a contemporary novel, The Clansman, and Wilson's take on Reconstruction and the Ku Klux Klan was much more moderate than the film's.) "Two years ago," Beck confessed on another occasion—before he read conservative writers like Ronald J. Pestritto who are deeply hostile to Wilson's progressivism—"I knew nothing about Woodrow Wilson." If he now fashions himself wiser, it remains a hastily acquired expertise.

The debunking of crackpot history is necessary, and ridicule fully deserves its place. But it's also important to recognize the nub of truth amid the distortion in the right's Wilson-bashing. After all, Wilson, along with Theodore Roosevelt—who, perhaps because he was a Republican, draws considerably less vituperation from Beck and his ilk—unquestionably bolstered the powers of the presidency and the state in early 20th-century America. While nothing at all like the tyrants of the Tea Party's fever-dreams, these presidents looked upon their predecessors (excepting a few, like Lincoln) as captive to an outmoded view of the presidency. Facing a rapidly industrializing economy, a swelling and diverse populace, and unstoppably powerful corporations, they sought to introduce public accountability and regulation to enhance individual freedom and opportunity.

The signal challenge of the age was the overwhelming power of the corporations. Unchecked by the government, their pursuit of profit created great wealth but consigned millions to misery and injustice. As cruel working conditions and widespread economic unfairness increasingly defied justification, Democrats and Republicans alike turned to reformist politicians—specifically Roosevelt and Wilson—who believed that political leadership meant tackling these problems. They wanted to maintain a dynamic capitalist economy while protecting laborers, farmers, consumers, and others who lacked recourse. Such reformers came to be called progressives.

Roosevelt and Wilson had plenty of differences, but in the long view of history their affinities loom large. For Roosevelt, presidential activism meant cracking down on the railroads, regulating food and drugs, breaking up trusts, protecting lands from exploitation, and arbitrating labor disputes. For Wilson, it involved regulating finance and the money supply, limiting the corporations' demands on their laborers, aiding farmers, preventing monopolistic practices, and making the new federal income tax a graduated one. Just three months ago, I wrote in Slate that over the last century, almost no one has questioned these achievements; clearly, I hadn't been watching enough Fox. Nonetheless, it's telling that these Progressive Era reforms have enjoyed such an enduring and uncontroversial place in our sense of what government should do. Their long-reigning acceptance shows better than anything else just how deeply reactionary Beck and company are.

Of course, even those who happily admit to wanting to repeal a century's worth of regulation have to reckon with a fundamental flaw in today's Wilson hatred: It's completely ahistorical. The right's habit is to view Wilson through the lens of today's politics—to blame his commitment to a Federal Reserve Bank, for example, for giving us Ben Bernanke's decisions, or to equate Wilson's "progressivism" with the left-wing views of today's self-described progressives. But the Federal Reserve and the meaning of the word progressive—and so much else about American life—have changed dramatically since Wilson's day. Which is why you have to look at political figures in the context of their times: What problems did they face? What alternative paths were available to them? What did they and their contemporaries think they were up to?

If you consider the political currents of the Progressive Era, the portrait of Wilson as either a radical or a precursor of fascism looks especially absurd. At the turn of the century, problems like the exploitation of labor, the blight of urban tenements, and the dangers of economic concentration cried out for reform. Social science was illuminating new solutions to intractable social problems, such as or creating parks and libraries or improving factory conditions to limit disease. Public opinion demanded a stronger role for government, which was the only institution possessing the resources to make a difference. Properly situated in this context, Wilson and other progressives emerge as not as proto-fascists or wild renegades but as tempered, moderate reformers. They implemented major changes, but those changes were in tune with the mainstream of public sentiment.

I don't need Beck to see what is wrong with Progressive Policy. Progressive Assault on Individual Liberty, Private/Personal Property Rights, rich and Poor alike, and the Assault on Religion, God say it all. I know you don't like competition, I get it. My perspective is just different than yours, I see it as the Disease not the Cure. I don't need Beck or FOX for that. We are not Commodities for Anyone to play with.

An Audit of the Federal Reserve and making it Transparent, will end allot of the Illusion quicker than you can say 1000 point drop.

So the people back then were just too stupid to know what was wrong with society. Talk about ARROGANCE!

It's not about Arrogance, unless you mean Government playing God.

Are you suggesting People can act stupidly when misinformed. Exactly.

The Blind cannot lead the Blind. Have Faith, Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst.

There is No Collective Salvation.