Home » Not So Fast! \ Tags: , , , , , , ,

Not So Fast!

The Legacy of Progressivism

Progressivism is not progress

By William Anderson
Published: 2 September 2009
The Legacy of Progressivism

The national debt runs out of control.  The Federal Reserve System has purchased hundreds of billions of dollars of private assets by creating new money out of thin air.  The number of prisoners in the nation’s jails continues to grow to new records every year.  Government at all levels systematically erodes our liberties.

All these things and more are symptomatic of the modern age, but the problems we face today are the legacy of a movement that occurred more than a century ago: the Progressive Era, which ran from the late 1800s to the end of World War I.  Because most people are not aware of Progressivism and its legacies, I would like to educate the readers a bit.

First, and most important, Progressivism is portrayed by historians as a time of “reform,” in which people fought against the alleged ills created by industrial growth and capitalism.  According to the pundits, American businesses were monopolizing the economy, “gobbling up the wealth,” and leaving most Americans worse off in their wake.  Railroads supposedly were victimizing Americans with their rebates and long and short-haul rates.

Second, Progressives believed that they could apply “scientific principles” to political-economic decisions in order to make U.S. society a better place to live.  Among the things that Progressives advocated were a stronger executive branch (exemplified by the Progressives’ Progressive Teddy Roosevelt), centralization of the political structure, and the creation of “independent” agencies supposedly insulated from politics.  The crown jewel of the agencies was the Federal Reserve System.

The notion was that market systems and the relatively decentralized and congressionally dominated political system of the United States were “outdated” and could not be quickly marshaled for Progressive causes.  Furthermore, the relatively decentralized systems of education, both government and private, were unacceptable to Progressives, such as John Dewey, who believed that children must be trained to serve the state, which was to be the embodiment of all of society.

In 1913, thanks to a number of congressional initiatives and addition of amendments to the Constitution, the United States saw the establishment of the Fed, the national income tax, and direct election of U.S. senators, who until then were appointed in most states by the state legislatures.  It was, according to Prof. Thomas DiLorenzo, the “Revolution of 1913.”

Perhaps it is not surprising that a great Progressive cause, World War I, followed soon afterward, with the United States entering in 1917.  As Murray Rothbard noted in his essay “World War I as Fulfillment,” the war permitted the intellectuals to impose nearly all their ideas, from industrial cartelization to prohibition of alcoholic beverages, on American citizens.

Although many of the features of the war economy disappeared during the 1920s, the Fed and the income tax remained, and the former would play a major role in dragging the United States into the Great Depression.  If World War I was the Progressives’ war, the Great Depression was the era in which many Progressive ideals could be put into place permanently.

Fast forward to 2009.  We have seen the Fed create two consecutive financial bubbles that have broken, the collapse of the Progressive-style entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and yet another attempt by the government to create that ultimate Progressive goal, nationalized medical care.  We have seen the executive branch operate almost unencumbered by Congress and the courts bail out one firm after another and create a number of “czars” to oversee everything from Wall Street to the automobile industry.

Indeed, the Progressive “solutions” to our current set of economic problems are no solutions at all; they are the cause of the economic downturn.  From the Fed to the staggering weight of government spending and debt, we can see that Progressivism truly has run its course.  Unfortunately, while it runs its course, Progressivism also is running this country into the ground.  The solution is not more government power.  The solution is liberty. It is high time we rediscovered our roots of freedom.

10 Comments »

  1. No rediscovery of freedom is likely so long as the state controls the schools, and thus the minds of generation after generation. Those running the state are deathly afraid of an independent thinking populace, one which would readily see through the lies our leaders tell us. Thus, public schools were hatched. The results speak for themselves.

    The only benefit of statist ideologies in general and Progressivism in particular is that they are inherently self-destructive. One look at the fiscal and monetary insanity of the current regime is all the proof one needs. Once Obama and Bernanke get done destroying the economy and our money, maybe then we can pick up the pieces and rebuild a vibrant society. To expect that we can reform the current system is sheer folly.

  2. Mr. Hogan,

    What you say is true, but I find little comfort in the fact that statist policies are inherently self destructive. The problem being that a great many people, through no fault of their own, will not be able to escape that destruction when it finally comes about. Hopefully there will be enough of us left to pick up the pieces and start over.

  3. MBA,

    There is no doubt that Americans are in for a very rude awakening. Jobless, homeless and clueless is not where one wants to be.

    On the other hand, someone in desperate straights is more likely to open his mind to why he finds himself in such a predicament. Hunger and despair have a way of concentrating the mind.

    Whether people rightfully conclude that the state is the source of their troubles is not assured, though they will at least be asking the right questions. That alone is a positive step.

    The danger, of course, is that decivilization is so extreme that we end up with another Hitler or Napoleon running the show. Revolutions are fertile ground for egomaniacs and demagogues. The alternative is that we revert to our country’s founding principles. Either way, we’re in for some interesting times.

  4. From THE MEANING OF “PROGRESSIVE” POLITICS:

    And progressive? The term has today re-emerged to once again denote any person, organization, or idea left of moderate. It was the centrist liberalism of the Clinton Administration — e.g., the (proposed) neo-Progressive cartelization of medicine, the intervention in the Balkans, the North American Free Trade Agreement — that brought forth self-designated “progressives” who opposed anything less than full socialization of all medicine, the deployment of U.S. troops anywhere, and the rise of the global economy. The only real change in the term is how commodious it has become. It encompasses everyone from an ever-leftward social democrat to a Communist-without-a-Party to such relatively recent arrivals as the colorless “radical feminist” (i.e., white bourgeois female) fighting the Patriarchal Occupational Government, the Queer activist fighting “heteronormality,” the multiculturalist fighting Western civilization, and the Deep Ecologist fighting all civilization. It even includes ideologically exhausted leftists-without-an-ism such as philosopher Richard Rorty, who allows that the “best we can hope for is more of the same experimental, hit-or-miss, two-steps-forward-and-one-step-back reforms that have been taking place in the industrial democracies since the French Revolution.” What’s left is a “progressive” Left that can progress in any number of directions — or with none at all.

    Which raises the question of just what progressive really tells us. Something that means everything, means nothing. Even as a synonym for all things leftist, can it logically include, for example, the Marxist crucifixion of Malthus and the Green resurrection of him? Or both pacifism and militarism (the “armed struggles” of socialist forces)? How can we speak of as “progressive” striving for a Communist future that is already past – or yearning to drive humanity “back to the Pleistocene” (an Earth First! slogan)? And exactly how long can a concept sit on the shelf until you can’t continue to market it as “progressive”? Presumably, labeling one’s position “progressive” endows it with the virtue of being forward-looking, “relevant,” while conversely rendering any opposing position backward, “reactionary” – all in all, a superficially more sophisticated alternative to “good” and “evil.” In a public square increasingly devoid of common referents, forward-and-back, much like left-and-right, reveals neither where someone is coming from nor what he’s going after. For the mere honesty of the debate, what we need is a political vocabulary whose terms actually describe the ideas on the table – a proposal evidently more daunting than its modest tenor would suggest.

  5. It may be interesting to speculate on how such self destruction may come about. Statist movements always have the best of intentions at the start, and lure people in with promises of a better civilization. But, as you say, they are always self-destructive. And so someone ends up being blamed for those failures. We are too sophisticated to blame Jews or Capitalists for our problems these days. Today we blame births. The Economist had a debate recently about “overpopulation,” and revealed that 80% of their readers believe that the world is overpopulated. This, it seems to me, will be the beginning of the new purge. My response to the Economist debate was this:

    This view is nihilistic in the extreme, the ultimate extreme of which is a form of purge akin to genocide. Once it is accepted as self evident (meaning, no longer needing to be proven) that overpopulation is a real problem, then the discussion will shift to focus on how to bring about the desired population. This can only result in a group of elites deciding who can have babies, and imposing punishments for those who break the rules. It should be asked of all those who support this view, do they see themselves as contributing to overpopulation, and are they willing to take the necessary steps to prevent their impact? Better they voluntarily remove themselves for their beliefs rather than force others to follow their edicts involuntarily.

    At root, this view defines a fundamental difference between how collectivists and free peoples look at life. For collectivists of all stripes, another birth is another person that must be supported by the state, and so is a burden. Therefore, it is a privilege given to you by the state to be allowed to exist at all.

    For free peoples, people are the greatest resource that a society has. They represent the future wealth that they will bring to society if allowed to freely pursue their own interests, and the society is privileged to have them.

  6. Money, Liberty and Personal Economics?

    The answers are in the Declaration of Independence.

    For the first time in history Americans fear the Government.

    http://www.themoneyforlifeblog.com/for-the-first-time-ever-americans-live-in-fear-of-the-government.html

  7. Are we not, as George Soros says: “Market Fundamentalists” ? I see this as an insightful compliment.

    We do ask for a submission to the invisible hand of market competition. The productive labor of free men and capitalists should be afforded reverence and awe.

    I teach my children to highly value the production of goods and provision of services freely
    bartered for.

    I teach them to see no value in the ransacking and redistribution of productive resources. Social security, medicare, national weather service, unemployment benefits, the whole rotten lot.
    See those collectivist products as forbidden fruit, the more we eat of it, the more we are cursed.

    Many of us are still like hardworking ants. The greatest of us capitalists and businessmen are honey bees. When the productive organisms create a land flowing with milk and honey you can be assured that the progressives will arrive, starting as grasshoppers. Hopping nimbly around promising amazing new rights and entitlements.

    Soon they become locusts, and will fully devour America and then await the birth of a new place such as India to arise as the leader of the free world, a land flowing with the abundance a free market provides. Unavoidably their people start to heed the sweet promises of the “fair and just” pests come to roost and devour them.

    “Stand by the crossroads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in them, and find rest for your souls.”
    Jeremiah 6.16

    Funny thing old testament prophets tended to subsist off diets of wild honey and locusts.

  8. An Alternative to Capitalism?

    The following link, takes you to a “utopian” article, entitled “Home of the Brave?” which I wrote and appeared in the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:

    http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm

    John Steinsvold

  9. @Finance Manager:

    Terrible epistemology and metaphors. How can someone who appears to espouse the virtues of freedom be so far off base as to couch his defense of it in the language of slavery?
    “We do ask for a submission to the invisible hand of market competition. The productive labor of free men and capitalists should be afforded reverence and awe.”
    “Submission” is a servile act. A truly free man demands or grants submission to nothing and no one, much less some imaginary concept. He will, however, transact business with you for a mutually agreeable price. The “invisible hand” is nothing more or less than shorthand for the exercised rational self-interest of multiple intelligent individual humans. A is A. Recognizing that fact does not require submission of any kind, on the contrary, it (merely) requires exercising human consciousness. The “productive labor of free men and(?) capitalists should be afforded reverence and awe”. Festering heaps of excrement! It should be afforded whatever it will bring in exchange in a free marketplace, unfettered by the evil machinations of Attila, the Witch Doctor, or their servants and minions. The entomological metaphors are ridiculous as well, and smack of historical (attempted) justifications for collectivism. One cannot build a road to individual liberty through that fetid swamp.

    -Abolitionist

  10. In my life at times I “submit” to a boss, creditor, wife, family, church; and to my own feeble attempts to aggregate my beliefs into something most rational people will accept as one possible right way to live. In my lifetime the surrogate powers that be have crafted such an anti-individual-freedom environment that there are very few places or times where I even feel “free”

    I think I lack the ability to create freedom for myself and am instead reliant on dwelling in the second hand freedom great individuals and groups create. I do advocate ways to

    Re:
    Perhaps the collectivist manner in which the abolition of slavery was imposed on freemen is itself one of the roots of where we went astray from individualism. I am not pro-slavery but am hard pressed to explain why a man is not free to deal with his children in what is right in his own mind. As long as there is no inhumane mistreatment of individuals or kidnapping, as long is there a finite time for this contract, why must it be forbidden to pay in advance for a child or man’s labors.

    I’m not speaking of the actual way that this human trade was conducted, but in the theoretical way it could be a legitimate form of labor agreement, and a way out of poverty for some families.

    I wonder how many men would accept money today for their prepaid labor. I.e. give me $100,000 today and I would owe 7 years of labor to the payor of this money.

    Why are American children forced to waste their most productive years on the family couch playing video games and talking on cell phones when they could be working under a capitalist and learning a valuable trade and skill? As long as the servitude selectees were non-discriminatorily selected it may be something to consider.

    Ironically your perceived “right” not be a slave and for no other man as well might be the right that is breaking society’s back and causing us to become bankrupt.

    All men are created equal but a good many develop into something unable to maintain this equality and fully provide for themselves and their progeny.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>