Open discussion: Was the Republican Party communist for a 30 year period?

In preparing for another blog posting, I am once again contrasting Progressivism with Communism as competing ideologies.

But every time I do this, I get a barrage of messages about how Progressivism is not different than Communism, and that I should treat them exactly the same. But if I do this, I need to know where the rest of you stand.

Many of the Republicans in the early 20th century, including but not limited to Jane Addams, Learned Hand, Felix Frankfurter, Hiram Johnson, Albert J. Beveridge, Boies Penrose, Alf Landon, Frank Knox, Hamilton Fish, Gifford Pinchot, and Theodore Roosevelt, were all progressives. Many of them were so loving of their progressive ideology, that they openly supported the Progressive Party - the Bull Moose Party - or they directly joined it. (Frankfurter is the only one who was not a republican, but he did support the Bull Moose Party)

There are several National Parks, protected lands, and even a tree in America is named after Gifford Pinchot. Do you believe that these are named after a communist?

Do you believe all that Jane Addams did all that she did in devotion to Karl Marx?

Do you believe that in 1924, Calvin Coolidge nominated a communist - a red - to the Supreme Court?

Do you believe that when you stood in front of Mount Rushmore, and you looked at one of the four heads, the one wearing glasses, that you saw the likeness of a devotee of the commune?

These are not the things that I believe. I believe that Progressivism is different than communism, I believe that Progressivism is worse than communism. But that's not what's important here.

For those of you who believe that Progressivism = Communism, I generally believe that you are talking about post 1960's Progressivism. Post 1960's, yes, Progressivism is mostly communist. But we cannot limit ourselves to life beyond the 60's, otherwise the progressives win. Let's just foist a white flag of surrender now, and forever hold our peace. Progressives need the shadows to hide in. I for one will not turn off the light.

But I really want to know what others believe. Do you believe that Progressivism is the same as Communism, and ALL that that implies? Because if this is truely what you believe, then you believe America's first Communist president came into office in 1900, and I don't really think very many people believe that. It also means that the Republican Party from the years of about 1895-ish to about the 1920's-1930's is also fond of the hammer and sickle.

F.A. Hayek dedicated The Road to Serfdom “to the socialists of all parties.” Socialists love to control the language, and “progressive” is a case in point. As socialists use the term, “progressive” refers to progress of, by and for the government. The framers of the Constitution were progressives - but they believed in progress of, by, and for the American (actually, for any) people. I offer in substantiation,Article 1 Section 8.: The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
That is the only reference to “progress” in the Constitution.
In reality socialism is an ideology of rejection of Theodore Roosevelt’s famous dictum,
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Socialists specialize in criticism, and as such they focus on the hole in the donut of anyone else’s performance. Exclusive focus on the negative precludes emphasis on doing things better, for fear of error as TR suggests above. But it is now known - should always have been obvious - that if you are not trying to improve, you aren’t staying the same. You are getting worse.
Any socialist ideology - call itself what it will - must be in fact reactionary and regressive.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.