The Progressive Movement In Amerika

[slackjawed]

Yesterday Glenn Beck discussed the American Progressive Movement on His show and laid the blame for our problems today on the actions of the Progressive presidents then. He was pretty hard on Both Roosevelts and Woodrow wilson and said that Their Progressive policies were to blame for the financial problems we have today. I believe that is the position of the Libertarian party in this country, and Beck has stated that is his party.
In addition, he showed Hillary during the primary debate, stating she was a modern Progressive.
Here is a link to part of the show, you will be able to find the rest of the show from there as well, although it isn't really required to discuss this issue, it doesn't have anything to do with Beck really.
Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com

Now, he went as far as to say that Progressive thinking leads to Fascism, and that we as Americans should be worried.
I am interested in your opinions on this subject. I am not interested in your opinions on Beck in this thread, there are at least two other threads for that.

 

[Garinold]

I have seen discussions of this nature before. You can drag Roosevelt's dead body, along with Wilson's, and beat the worms out of it but in all honesty the situation is more complex. Firstly, if you look at history you will find that it was actually the Supreme Court that opened the flood gates to massive Gov't intervention in the economy. The responsibility doesn't fall completely on the Presidents and the sessions of Congress at the time. Back prior the 1937 there was the doctrine of Economic Substantive Due-Process & the fundamental right of free contract that protected the private sector from all sorts of Gov't intervention (even minimum wage laws were struck down in this era as unconstitutional, which today we'd take for granted and pale in comparison to the extend of Gov't intervention).

Secondly, I believe the libertarians speak in excess when they say Americans should be worried about fascism. Should Americans be worried about a massive Administrative, Regulatory, Social-Welfare Nany state? Yes. Should Americans be worried that American businesses, small and large won't be able to compete with businesses from abroad that operate in more competitive labor and regulatory markets? Yes. Should Americans be worried about the continued exportation of jobs abroad to more competitive labor and regulatory markets? Yes. Should Americans be worried about hyperinflation? A very unfortunate yes.....Should Americans be worried about fascism...No.

The reason why I would argue that Americans need not be worried about fascism, at least in the sense of one party rule in the complete and total absence of accountability, oversight, and the democratic process of elections, is that every successful major political movement is build on three pillars.

Pillar one consists of a leadership structure. Every major political movement to bring about change needs strong, educated, relatively charismatic, and protected leadership. Pillar two consists of a practical factor. There must be a practical factor that influences the need for the political change the movement is advocating. More times than not this practical factor in history has been economic problems. Economic hardship and inequity was the practical factor that contributed to rise of many political movements in Germany, and eventually the ascension of the Nazi party (I can rattle off other examples, but I won't bloviate). The third pillar is usually harder to pin down, and consists of an abstract factor. The abstract factor in major political movements functions to give the movement a sort of legitimacy with the majority of the people outside of the immediately practical realm, and has usually manifest itself throughout history as political ideals or sometimes religious or social ideals. The importance of the abstract factor can't be overstated. It is imperative for a major political movement to have some measure of political, social, or religious legitimacy in order to succeed. The reasoning behind this is that economic hardship isn't always enough to get people to take up weapons and get themselves killed in the streets overthrowing the current political order.

Case example: Iranian Revolution

Pillar one - Leadership: Ruhollah Khomeini, Ali Shariati, Mortaza Motahhari, Mohammad Beheshti, Mostafa Chamran (to name just a few)

Pillar two - Practical factor: Severe economic inequity & hardship, no foreseeable attempts or plans by the current political system to remedy the problems of the country

Pillar three - Abstract factor: Political Islam (a return to a more conservative Muslim ideal - use the five pillars of Islam as the foundation of a new & just society etc) & the drive to throw off western influence in its political, social, and cultural forms - these were all abstract influences that added a level of legitimacy to the revolution/movement that garnered the massive support it needed from the people

The fact of the matter is if you accept the validity of this paradigm in predicting successful major political movements, it is very difficult to envision the possibility of fascism ascending in America. There maybe a psycho fascist secret society willing to take up the reigns of leading a political movement in the future. There may be political instability & economic hardship in the future providing for an immediate practical justification for massive fundamental change. There will never be an abstract factor supporting fascism in this country. I can't imagine, giving the history & diversity that exists in this country, there ever being a unifying social, cultural, religious, or political factor establishing the legitimacy of fascist governance that a majority of Americans will support with violence. It is simply unthinkable.

 

[JBeukema]

Yesterday Glenn Beck discussed the American Progressive Movement on His show and laid the blame for our problems today on the actions of the Progressive presidents then

You mean like washington and lincoln?

In addition, he showed Hillary during the primary debate, stating she was a modern Progressive.

she may have co-opted the word, but it does not fit her

Now, he went as far as to say that Progressive thinking leads to Fascism, and that we as Americans should be worried.

yep, freein' them slaves, civil rights, women's suffrage, workers' rights, OSHA, getting lead out of the paint, cleaning up the meat industry, motor vehical slavery.. progssive policies sure have brought lotsa suffering...

 

[mightypeon]

Concerning the topic of fascism in America, well, I am German and propably more sensitive regarding this than Americans are (one could even say that Germans in general may be the least nationalistic people) but several key identifiers of situations which could faciliate a fascist rise seemed to be there:
-Labelling dissenters as harmfull to national security (To quote Göring: "It is easy to lead a nation to war, no matter if they are fascist, democratic, monarchist or communist. Make the people belief they are under attack, instigate strong national feelings and label anyone who dissents as harmfull to national security")
-Scapegoating immigrant minority groups
-Scapegoating religious minority groups (both are in the eyes of the observer, one may add scapegoating France to that list )
-Creating gouverment agencies with dictator like powers (Homeland security, FEMA)
-Creating precedents in which vital civil rights are terminated

Under Obama, we now have a fairly direct federal grab for control of economic power via the Stimulus package.

I am not neccessarly against states having a degree of control over the economy, in most nations, you have an "economic power" usually made up by big buisness and an "administrative" or "military" power made up by the state, which, under ideal circumstances prevent each other from overly exploiting the common population.
Prior to the financial crisis, it would appear that the economic power dominated the administrative one. Now there seems to be a backlash.

 

[editec]

Fascism is just another variant of totalitarianism.

There is nothing inherently unique about the German/Italian/Spanish Fascist version of totalitarianism.

Those states employed every trick of population control that had been used by representational governments and monachies long before those states found themselves wearing brownshirts and jackboots.

And to some extent the same population control games are played (only not writ so large) right here in the USA even today.

Population control by propaganda and fear and greed is just the game that governments play, and to some extent our government MUST play those games to maintain order, too.

At what point government moves from simply having enough control to keep society humming, to becoming a totalitarian nation really depends on how much order one thinks a society needs.

The opposite of absolute totalitarianism is complete anarchy.

We on this board are all, I think, willing to lose some freedom for some order.

The more freedom we are willing to give up, the more we lean toward totalitarianism.

The less freedom we are willing to give up, the more we lean toward being anarchists.

 

[Iriemon]

Under Obama, we now have a fairly direct federal grab for control of economic power via the Stimulus package.

I personally don't think the Obama administration is trying to take economic power because they think its fun, but to avoid an economic catastrophe.

My guess is Obama would rather be spending the money on things like fixing health care than saving banks. Just my .02.

 

[editec]

Under Obama, we now have a fairly direct federal grab for control of economic power via the Stimulus package.

I personally don't think the Obama administration is trying to take economic power because they think its fun, but to avoid an economic catastrophe.

My guess is Obama would rather be spending the money on things like fixing health care than saving banks. Just my .02.

I sincerely hope you're right.

But the niggling concern that keeps me wondering is the way that this crises keeps rolling over small banks and giving the insider banks greater and greater market share of that industry.

Given that many of these insider banks were insolvent, except that we've bailed them out, I have my suspicions about this whole plan.

If one really wanted to save the economy, there might have been ways that didn't reward the incompetents which caused this mess to begin with.

We didn't do those....why not?

 

[Iriemon]

Under Obama, we now have a fairly direct federal grab for control of economic power via the Stimulus package.

I personally don't think the Obama administration is trying to take economic power because they think its fun, but to avoid an economic catastrophe.

My guess is Obama would rather be spending the money on things like fixing health care than saving banks. Just my .02.

I sincerely hope you're right.

But the niggling concern that keeps me wondering is the way that this crises keeps rolling over small banks and giving the insider banks greater and greater market share of that industry.

Given that many of these insider banks were insolvent, except that we've bailed them out, I have my suspicions about this whole plan.

If one really wanted to save the economy, there might have been ways that didn't reward the incompetents which caused this mess to begin with.

We didn't do those....why not?

I'm not sure specifically what you are referring to. Do you mean why didn't the Govt demand the resignation of management as quid pro quo for the bailout?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Just to clear up a few points in this thread. Glenn Beck hasn't claimed to be a member of the Libertarian Party, he's incorrectly claimed to be a Libertarian.

George Washington, who believed in limited-constitutional government, was not a progressive, Lincoln may have been.

As to the actual topic, I would say the Progressive philosophy of big government is certainly to blame for our economic conditions. It was under a "progressive" President that we got the 16th amendment, the Federal Reserve, and thrown into World War 1.

 

[Garinold]

It is perfectly fine to discuss the "Progressive" political movement in the first half of the 20th century and blame it for the expansion of Gov't. However, as I stated in my original post which I hope at least some of you will read before you continue to jump on this fascism is to come bandwagon, you can't talk about the expansion of Gov't without talking about the history of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is what opened the flood gates, and to simply beat the hell out of Wilson & Roosevelt without recognizing the role the Supreme Court played is nothing short of blanketed stupidity.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It is perfectly fine to discuss the "Progressive" political movement in the first half of the 20th century and blame it for the expansion of Gov't. However, as I stated in my original post which I hope at least some of you will read before you continue to jump on this fascism is to come bandwagon, you can't talk about the expansion of Gov't without talking about the history of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is what opened the flood gates, and to simply beat the hell out of Wilson & Roosevelt without recognizing the role the Supreme Court played is nothing short of blanketed stupidity.

You bring up a good point. The branch of government that is supposedly most beholden to the Constitution allowed the other two branches to run roughshod over the document. The Progressive movement would not have been able to gain the foothold it did without the Supreme Court allowing it to happen.

Of course, the founders knew that the checks and balances in the government would not be enough, and that's why they created a system of Federalism as well. However, that system was of course nearly destroyed by Abraham Lincoln and a compliant Supreme Court.

 

[mightypeon]

Interesting, the German supreme court usually works to counteract federal or (especially) European power grabs, because all of these power grabs would diminish the supreme courts own power in the end.
Since federal power grabs should also decrease the power held by the US supreme court, I do not neccesarly get their inclination to work against their own interests.

I am not disputing that the Supreme court did a lot regarding Wilson et. al.
In fact, I am totally ignorant of this topic, what you learn about the pre WW1 USA in Germany is: USA Sold arms to Britain, some US persons got rich doing so, German War advances meant that British debts may be in trouble, the persons whose assets where troubled launched a media campaign, that, coupled with some serious German diplomatic incidents (Lusitania, the telegraph affair), caused the USA to enter the war on behalf of the Entente. Prior to the PR campaign, the majority of the US population did not give a damn and was hugely opposed to entering the war on behalf of either side.
We are also inclinded to belief that a leader with more diplomatical skills than Wilhelm the 2 (actually, a number of persons in Germany wrongfully equated Bush with Hitler, I think that equating Bush and Wilhelm had much more in common) may have stopped a US intervention all together.

 

[Iriemon]

I ...The fact of the matter is if you accept the validity of this paradigm in predicting successful major political movements, it is very difficult to envision the possibility of fascism ascending in America. ...

I agree. Validity of paradigm or not, it's difficult to envision fascism ascending in America. Unless you get your worldview from talk radio, which is not surprisingly the source of this inquiry in the OP.

 

[thinking]

Progressive gave us some very important regulations. Without Teddy, we wouldn't have any restrictions on consumer products or monopolies. I can't see why people are arguing for more deregulation when we've been getting deregulation since Reagan and are now in an economic crap hole. I blame deregulation for the failing of banks, if subprime mortages were more tightly restricted alot of this mess wouldn't have happened. I don't like how invovled the government is in the economy right now, but I believe it should certaintly regulate commerce.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Progressive gave us some very important regulations. Without Teddy, we wouldn't have any restrictions on consumer products or monopolies. I can't see why people are arguing for more deregulation when we've been getting deregulation since Reagan and are now in an economic crap hole. I blame deregulation for the failing of banks, if subprime mortages were more tightly restricted alot of this mess wouldn't have happened. I don't like how invovled the government is in the economy right now, but I believe it should certaintly regulate commerce.

Well it's not true that you wouldn't have any regulation on "monopolies" without Roosevelt, because the Sherman Antitrust Act was signed under Benjamin Harrison to combat those evil capitalists.

Oh, and by the way, we have an extremely regulated market. The Federal Reserve can create money out of thin air and change the interest rates on a whim.

 

[JBeukema]

freeing slaves: Progressivism
civil rights: progressivism
workers' rights: progressivism
OSHArogressivism
equalityrogressivism
separation of church and staterogressivism
anti-child labor laws: progressivism

all opposed by 'conservatives'
conservatism: resistance to change; preservation of the status quo

 

[editec]

I personally don't think the Obama administration is trying to take economic power because they think its fun, but to avoid an economic catastrophe.

My guess is Obama would rather be spending the money on things like fixing health care than saving banks. Just my .02.

I sincerely hope you're right.

But the niggling concern that keeps me wondering is the way that this crises keeps rolling over small banks and giving the insider banks greater and greater market share of that industry.

Given that many of these insider banks were insolvent, except that we've bailed them out, I have my suspicions about this whole plan.

If one really wanted to save the economy, there might have been ways that didn't reward the incompetents which caused this mess to begin with.

We didn't do those....why not?

I'm not sure specifically what you are referring to. Do you mean why didn't the Govt demand the resignation of management as quid pro quo for the bailout?

Nothing so small as that. Hanging those scum would be a good start though

No, I'm thinking more about Reconstituting the FED into a TRULY national bank.

Let the big boysprivate banks and the bond holders who gambled their money crash and burn just as our libertarians chums insist.

Trickle UP for a god damned change.

We should be borrowing from a private bank to buy a home in America.

We should be borrowing from the American people and paying THEM interest.

Who the fuck are these bankers and how did we let them gain such control over 300,000,000 people who were the most productive workers in the world?

This shit's gotta end, folks.

 

[thinking]

The Sherman Antitrust Act was woefully ineffective against trusts, it was actually used to break strikes. Its only important because it was the first piece of anti-trust legislation. And the lack of regulation I'm concerned about deals with loan approval in the financial sector.

 

[JBeukema]

our economy has gotten ever worse since the Big Fed deals of post-ww2

 

[Iriemon]

Progressive gave us some very important regulations. Without Teddy, we wouldn't have any restrictions on consumer products or monopolies. I can't see why people are arguing for more deregulation when we've been getting deregulation since Reagan and are now in an economic crap hole. I blame deregulation for the failing of banks, if subprime mortages were more tightly restricted alot of this mess wouldn't have happened. I don't like how invovled the government is in the economy right now, but I believe it should certaintly regulate commerce.

Well it's not true that you wouldn't have any regulation on "monopolies" without Roosevelt, because the Sherman Antitrust Act was signed under Benjamin Harrison to combat those evil capitalists.

Oh, and by the way, we have an extremely regulated market. The Federal Reserve can create money out of thin air and change the interest rates on a whim.

Currency is not a "market". It is a means to facilitate exchange.