[wagglebee]

In spite of the fact that Progressivism would go on to seize the commanding intellectual heights of the past century--in spite of the fact that law schools, political science departments, high-brow journals, and foundations alike told us to transcend and forget about the Founders' Constitution--it was still there beneath it all, still there largely intact, waiting for rediscovery, still the official charter of the Republic, no matter how abused and ridiculed.

And I might add that the ONLY hope is for conservatives to force the GOP to do this, because the RINOs would prefer to take us the way of the 'Rats.

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[knarf]

Only about a third of the way through this, but it affirms the early 1920's and 30's fear of Socialism being the creeping menace that would destroy America.

Thanx for the post, wag.

[trek]

This is a good piece. Especially in its exposition of the role of the Founder's Constitutionalism.

But consider the treatment of Ron Paul even on this forum (or perhaps more correctly especially on this forum). Ron Paul is the only candidate with even close to a national standing who faithfully reflects the views of the Founders. And yet, because of disagreements with his tactics for dealing with the Islamic threat, a threat which while by no means small is also by no means overwhelming, the vast majority of Freepers despise him even more than they despise the RINOs. This would seem to validate the author's view that Progressivism not the Founder's Constitutionalism now rules the minds of the citizenry. How sad, how very sad.

[Yardstick]

*Bump*

[A CA Guy]

Progressive today means, liberal democrat/socialist/communist/anarchist.

Democrats wanted to get away from liberal being the word is thought of as a radical and now are trying to hide radical in the word progressive.

Progressive = communist IMO.

[trisham]

Good article.

[bubman]

bump

[Billthedrill]

An outstanding article - thanks for posting it.

I am inclined to agree with West's assessment of the source and origin of Progressive thought in Hegel, although my own interpretation of Dewey isn't quite as the unabashed statist he appears in the article. It is this particular point that is key:

To this end, Dewey writes, "the state has the responsibility for creating institutions under which individuals can effectively realize the potentialities that are theirs."

This is, of course, the foundation of Marxism and the driving force behind its relentless political control of the individual. Marx honestly felt his was a philanthropic approach toward human actualization and most of his less worldly followers still feel this way despite the nearly universal horrors of his theories in application.

This is, frankly, an insurmountable problem for Progressivism in my opinion, for the following reasons. First, that the nature of the State under Hegel is not one whit less mystical than the mythical state of nature codified by Rousseau and held as the foundations of late Enlightenment philosophy that informed the Founders. As a human construct one might expect the State to be less influenced by the various geists with which Hegel's treatment imbued it. It is not apparent to me how a human mechanism driven by spirits is an improvement on a state of nature driven the same way.

Second, that one cannot simultaneously deny the existence of individual human rights in favor of those dictated by an all-knowing and presumably benevolent State and pretend that it is individual welfare that is the State's ultimate objective. One has to cheat by re-defining the individual as purely an element in a collective entity, an economic class to a pure Marxist, a class dictated by power relationships to a neo-Marxist such as Lukacs. These collective entities fail as a description of human totality because of their inherently limited definitional characteristics - one may, for example, simultaneously be a homosexual (oppressed class) and a member of a ruling military elite (empowered class) - the Nazi government was full of them. Any attempt at analysis of the constituent individuals on the basis of class relationships fails due to the crossover. It turns out that human beings really are individuals and that any theoretical attempt to distill them into collective entities fails from inherent incompleteness.

And so to the discussion of the source of human rights. For Hegel these were a gift of the State (specifically the post-Revolutionary French state) in a historical reaction to the abuses of monarchy, wherein those rights, such as they were, were of a very different nature. An individualist may object that one cannot be granted by a construct something that one already has without it, whether as a gift of God or as a characteristic of a state of nature. For Hegel both God and nature were equally fictitious; for his critics so was his State.

So we on the individualist side are reduced to Jefferson's somewhat hopeful formulation that certain rights are self-evident (they aren't), or as a gift of God whether one believes in Him or not. They may, in fact, be axiomatic, which leads directly toward the notion of a social contract, which has its own difficulties with respect to mysticism. After all, no one is presented, at birth, with a copy of the Constitution and a choice as to whether he or she wishes to accept that as life rules. It isn't a real contract. Anyone can opt out of its requirements and remain a citizen, and many on the radical Left do precisely that.

But that's as close as we are likely to get to the sort of pragmatic, rough-and-ready arrangement on which to build a real nation of inherently flawed human beings. It will satisfy no theoretical philosopher on either side. What of that? Philosophy, especially political philosophy, is no less an artificial construct than the State it purports to build. Theorists tend to forget that.

Surely the court of human opinion has come down on the side of the pragmatic on this issue in the tendency to vote with one's feet against a State that claims to promote human welfare toward a State that actually shows the results, however flawed theoretically. To a theorist that is a sign of the flawed nature of humanity. To the rest of us it's a sign of common sense.

[Disambiguator]

While the Progressives differed in their assessment of the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms. The existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy.

At the same time, the old system was to be opened up and made more democratic; hence, the direct elections of Senators, the open primary, the initiative and referendum. It also had to be made to provide for more revenue; hence, the Sixteenth Amendment and the progressive income tax.

Presidential leadership would provide the unity of direction--the vision--needed for true progressive government. "All that progressives ask or desire," wrote Woodrow Wilson, "is permission--in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word--to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine."

Three short paragraphs to describe the philosophical origins of so much misery and social dysfunction in our society today.

[tpaine]

"-- Today, people who call themselves conservatives and liberals alike accept much of the Progressive view of the world.
Although few outside of the academy openly attack the Founders, I know of no prominent politician, and only the tiniest minority of scholars, who altogether support the Founders' principles. --"

the ONLY hope is for conservatives to force the GOP to do this, ---

Well put. Excellent article.

[Old Professer]

The Safety Net is fast turning into a Hefty bag.

[AzaleaCity5691]

I’d take issue with one part of the article.

It incorrectly states when the whole government involvement movement started. It actually started with the radical Congress in the 1860’s, the men who decided the federal government had a role to play in “reconstructing” a certain region.

It was in Reconstruction that the notion of big government was born, though it certainly had a pre-adherent with Hamilton and later Jackson.

[eleni121]

Bookmark and respond later to this most significant article.

Thanks for posting it Wagglebee.

[CGVet58]

bttt

[Zionist Conspirator]

Okay . . . I'm the farthest thing from a "progressive," but West's description of the Founders' belief in liberty and equality coming from nature does indeed seem unrealistic and even artificial. Man is not born free; he is born dependent, coming into the world on an umbilical cord. West's description of the Founders does indeed make them seem in some way the ancestors of contemporary liberalism.

Since the Progressives held that nature gives man little or nothing and that everything of value to human life is made by man, they concluded that there are no permanent standards of right. Dewey spoke of "historical relativity." However, in one sense, the Progressives did believe that human beings are oriented toward freedom, not by nature (which, as the merely primitive, contains nothing human), but by the historical process, which has the character of progressing toward increasing freedom. So the "relativity" in question means that in all times, people have views of right and wrong that are tied to their particular times, but in our time, the views of the most enlightened are true because they are in conformity with where history is going.

So that explains why it was all right to be against homosexuality fifty years ago but not today, and why the elites get to establish the orthodox ethical stands of each generation.

Once again the mischief of all non-Theistic moral/ethical systems is revealed for all to see. On what grounds to atheists see human history as teleological???

[Morgan in Denver]

Thank you for the catch and posting of this. I know numerous Democrats who claim the Progressive mantle but I doubt they realize or understand what they are supporting.

[Huck]

bump

[nw_arizona_granny]

Ping.

[Cacique]

btt

[Beckwith]

Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton ran away from the "liberal” tag during Monday night’s Democratic debate, claiming instead that she is a "progressive.”

THAT'S WORSE!

and WORST!