Mark Levin: Woodrow Wilson was the first Fabian Socialist President

Video link(shortened clip) ^ | November 5th, 2011 | Mark Levin

[ProgressingAmerica]

At 5:30 of Mark Levin's speech at the Defending the American Dream Conference(Full speech courtesy of Right Scoop, please click here and watch the whole thing), Mark Levin had some comments regarding Fabianism in the United States. Here is a short clip:

(Embed doesn't seem to show up in preview, click link above for the clip)

What he is referring to comes out of Woodrow Wilson's book "Constitutional Government In The United States". There are two things, actually. One of them is from page 16, which I made a posting about some time ago.

The other begins on page 4

The ideals of liberty cannot be fixed from generation to generation; only its conception can be, the large image of what it is. Liberty fixed in unalterable law would be no liberty at all. Government is a part of life, and, with life, it must change, alike in its objects and in its practices; only this principle must remain unaltered, — this principle of liberty, that there must be the freest right and opportunity of adjustment. Political liberty consists in the best practicable adjustment between the power of the government and the privilege of the individual; and the freedom to alter the adjustment is as important as the adjustment itself for the ease and progress of affairs and the contentment of the citizen.

There are many analogies by which it is possible to illustrate the idea, if it needs illustration. We say of a boat skimming the water with light foot, 'How free she runs,' when we mean, how perfectly she is adjusted to the force of the wind, how perfectly she obeys the great breath out of the heavens that fills her sails. Throw her head up into the wind and see how she will halt and stagger, how every sheet will shiver and her whole frame be shaken, how instantly she is "in irons," in the expressive phrase of the sea. She is free only when you have let her fall off again and get once more her nice adjustment to the forces she must obey and cannot defy. We speak of the 'free' movement of the piston-rod in the perfectly made engine, and know of course that its freedom is proportioned to its perfect adjustment. The least lack of adjustment will heat it with friction and hold it stiff and unmanageable. There is nothing free in the sense of being unrestrained in a world of innumerable forces, and each force moves at its best when best adjusted to the forces about it. Spiritual things are not wholly comparable with material things, and political liberty is a thing of the spirits of men; but we speak of friction in things that affect our spirits, and do not feel that it is altogether a figure of speech. It is not forcing analogies, therefore, to say that that is the freest government in which there is the least friction, — the least friction between the power of the government and the privilege of the individual. The adjustment may vary from generation to generation, but the principle never can. A constitutional government, being an instrumentality for the maintenance of liberty, is an instrumentality for the maintenance of a right adjustment, and must have a machinery of constant adaptation.

Wilson is wrong on all accounts. Levin's explanation of this is fabulous. Even the use of the word mastermind, is worth note. A progressive by the name of Edward House(who was Woodrow Wilson's favorite go-to guy) wrote the book "Philip Dru, Administrator". Mastermind is exactly the phrase used to describe Dru: (Page 148)

GENERAL DRU began at once the reorganization of his army. The Nation knew that the war was over, and it was in a quiver of excitement.

They recognized the fact that Dru dominated the situation and that a master mind had at last arisen in the Republic. He had a large and devoted army to do his bidding, and the future seemed to lie wholly in his hands.

This is not accidental. This is how central planners look at themselves. They're all masterminds.

[infowarrior]

Admire Mark... However, the first progressive President was T.R.

True... T.R. was a "Progressive" (oh, how I despise them all), but not likely a Fabian Socialist. Did he begin this death spiral? Perhaps, and perhaps the seeds were planted before his coming onto the scene. The actions, or inactions of presidents before him play into this as well...

the infowarrior

[SuperLuminal]

"True... T.R. was a "Progressive" (oh, how I despise them all), but not likely a Fabian Socialist."

I agree...While I didn't make that assignment, I was tempted to label him as an "enabler" for the Fabians.

However, T.R turned out to be the proverbial "camel's nose"...IMHO...