Posted on 01/17/2020 9:03:40 AM PST by bitt
It’s no exaggeration to say that American politics has operated in Herbert Croly’s and FDR’s shadow ever since the Great Depression—nearly a century.
What’s striking about this election cycle’s Democratic presidential primary debates is how much they’ve been absolutely dominated by a man who’s been dead for 90 years. That man is Herbert Croly, the intellectual godfather of the progressive movement and the first editor of The New Republic. Croly’s most influential work, The Promise of American Life (which would have been even more wildly influential had Croly only had a halfway decent editor to cut down his meandering, ponderous prose), provided the intellectual foundation for the Progressive Movement.
Croly’s main argument is found in chapter seven of the book; in substance, he advocates what I term “effective freedom”—the conditions under which a person in modern, industrial America can be truly free in substance, not merely formally free on paper.
To that end, he proposed that the federal government take a more active role in regulating and managing the country’s economic life so that people might become actually free; for Croly, freedom was the result of conditions created by an active government, not simply the protection of natural rights (which progressives, like political scientist Charles Merriam, have always derided as nonsense). In other words, real freedom is only possible with government assistance.
Progressives have advocated Croly’s vision of collectivist politics and antagonistic social relations ever since his book was first published in 1909—including during the most recent Democratic debate on January 14. Wealth taxes, breaking up big banks, free college and healthcare, campaign finance reform, and ever more regulations to manage the nation’s economic activity—these are the stuff of Croly’s dreams. And the list goes on.
(Excerpt) Read more at amgreatness.com ...
p
“Progressive Movement”...is just another brand name for COMMUNISM.
We have met the enemy and they are called “progressives”.
A cancer in the American body politic since the 19th century and one that has now metastasized.
Yeah? So why have we never heard of this guy versus say a Alinsky ?
They have been AntiConstitutionalists since the beginning. Which is why they keep using that ridiculous phrase “Living Constitution”. It allows them to fake their Oath to it.
The problem with an All Powerful Progressive Government that is tasked with making People free is the necessity of making other People less free in the process.
Limited Government is a necessary Evil. All powerful Progressive Government is the embodiment of Evil.
Progressive = Communist, never forget it. When you are talking to any Liberal / Progressive you are talking to a wannabe Stalin in the flesh. All they are lacking is the power over you. Once they attain that, look out.
“Living Constitution”.
The only reason they call it that is that they have been making a concerted effort to kill it for a couple od centuries. When they can figure out how to work around it completely, they will pronounce it dead.
rwood
“Living Constitution”.
The only reason they call it that is that they have been making a concerted effort to kill it for a couple od centuries. When they can figure out how to work around it completely, they will pronounce it dead.
rwood
The 19th century “progressives” were indeed against the Republic. They wanted something more French where the government had general power to do anything.
Frankly, a swap where we took the relatively small number of Frenchmen who liked our Limited Government and we gave up those early progressives who liked the French would have been a really good thing.
“natural rights (which progressives, like political scientist Charles Merriam, have always derided as nonsense)”
That actually explains a lot. The left/right debate would be much more honest, if it just focused on that. It seems to be at the root of matters.
I haven’t read Merriam, but if there are no natural rights, what is left? Artificial ones? In that context, how is “artificial” different from “pretend” or “fake”?
it’s like a bowel movement, but smellier and not as useful.
The problem with early 'progressives' is they never sat down and thought through the incentives involved in making their plans work.
For instance - we HAVE free public education K-12. A system of education that's one of the worst in the world - AND the most expensive.
Our K-12 is based on progressive ideas. And it doesn't work. We also have the one of the world's best higher education systems (grades 13-21) based on a mix of capitalism, Christian Ethics, Merit and Socialism.
Progressives judge their plans based ONLY on 'stated wishes for outcome...' Which doesn't work and leads to the totalitarian nightmares we've seen over the last hundred years. Bad AND costly is not the way to go... imitating the worst of our K-12 education systems - rather than the best of our higher education system.
“Progressives” believe in one thing and one thing only—some pigs are more equal than others.
The New Republic a.k.a. the single party dictatorship.
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.