Why is Progressive Nationalism so misunderstood?

PGA Weblog ^

[ProgressingAmerica]

Your response is not proof in the opposite.

One of those phrases in your reply, “it’s interests”, is where all of the big government centralization and collectivism is at. And TR, as many other nationalists, was not an individualist but he was a collectivist. In general there is no big “it” for individualism.

Two common refrains are a government takeover of the banks, and often times a government takeover of transportation generally or the trains specifically. Or you might find the use of the imposition of martial law in order to enforce correctthink, because of a distrust in individuals.

[rollo tomasi]

BRUTUS in Antifederalist Paper 17 destroyed Madison's argument. Eventually Madison agreed and switched over to the Democrat-Republican Party once the after the Constitution was ratified because he started to witness first hand of how the weaknesses in the Constitution were being exploited by the Federalist.

"How far the clause in the eighth section of the first article may operate to do away with all idea of confederated States, and to effect an entire consolidation of the whole into one general government, it is impossible to say. The powers given by this article are very general and comprehensive, and it may receive a construction to justify the passing almost any law. A power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution all powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, is a power very comprehensive and definite, and may, for aught I know, be exercised in such manner as entirely to abolish the State legislatures. Suppose the legislature of a State should pass a law to raise money to support their government and pay the State debt; may the Congress repeal this law, because it may prevent the collection of a tax which they may think proper and necessary to lay, to provide for the general welfare of the United States? For all laws made, in pursuance of this Constitution, are the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of the different States to the contrary notwithstanding. By such a law, the government of a particular State might be overturned at one stroke, and thereby be deprived of every means of its support."

The Necessary and Proper Clause led to the creation of the "Deep State".

[heavy metal]

it’s not misunderstood...

it’s proven untrustworthy...

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I would not be surprised if we had a time machine and could go back and ask the world’s biggest tyrants - Khan - Pharoah - Caesar - King George III; they would all agree. Government is society. I bet they would all agree.

Yes, they would all agree - for the simple reason that the difference between “society” and “government” is freedom. No difference between society and government? No freedom.

[nicollo]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but TR's starting point and the challenges he thought he faced were different from ours.

Of course, TR thought he faced unique challenges that required unique solutions: that's what he thought about everything.

But that's not the point here. His terms "national" and "nationalism" were about centralizing authority. That's what he wanted, right or wrong.

To excuse his impulses because it is what "he thought" was needed equally ignores what his contemporaries "thought" to the contrary. So, ultimately, you're just taking sides, like the rest of us.

[otness_e]

There are two on there, actually: Jefferson was actually a proto-Progressive if Liberty: The God that Failed by Christopher A. Ferrara is of any indication (not to mention sang praises for the Jacobins, the proto-Progressives of his time, even when the other founding fathers started to turn against the Jacobins’ brutality starting with the September Massacres). Heck, there’s even evidence to suggest he flat out LIED about the Jacobins being like us due to being in Paris on the very event that Bastille Day happened on the spot, which had them parading with freshly severed body parts of the guards THEY murdered. In some ways, Roosevelt’s progressive politics were the descendant of Jefferson’s.

It’s actually pretty fortunate that Jefferson was NOT involved in the Constitutional Delegation at the time, as otherwise, we WOULD have had our own French Revolution there, and all that that implies. Heck, he actually helped draft the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which is actually part of the reason behind his falling out with John Adams (who despite never setting foot in France during that time turned out to be far more accurate in his analysis of what would actually turn out from THAT event).

Unlike you, I don’t despise Jefferson because he isn’t a progressive. If anything, I despise him because he himself TRIED to implement progressivism long before Roosevelt did. I can also call him a proto-Marxist as well.

[ProgressingAmerica]

I'm just curious, but if the anti-federalists were really correct that the Constitution would enable all that's been said that the anti-federalists foresaw, then why have the progressives moved heaven and earth to get around this obstacle known as the United States Constitution?

There's a disconnect somewhere. It might be me.

[ProgressingAmerica]

The challenges are always different. It’s the sought-after solutions which decide whether or not one is guilty or not.

I’m not giving progressives the benefit of the doubt. I would’ve done so over a decade ago before I really started digging into their works. But I’ve yet to find a progressive who wasn’t plotting and scheming more than they let on and engaged in _some kind_ of deception.

[otness_e]

Trust me when I say this, this has been going on LONG before progressivism. In fact, Voltaire, Diderot, and D’Alembert (to say little about Rousseau, who is actually an angel compared to those guys) pretty much did progressivism’s “plotting and scheming more than they let on and engaged in _some kind_ of deception” long before progressivism was such a thing, as Barruel can attest to in this book:

https://archive.org/details/BarruelMemoirsIllustratingTheHistoryOfJacobinism

Heck, even Thomas Jefferson did that with the Jacobins and siding with them while conveniently leaving out the fact that they outright BUTCHERED the Bastille guards and paraded on the streets with their severed limbs in mob elation despite most likely bearing witness to it while on site at Paris at the time, claimed all this time that the Jacobins were like the Minutemen when they were not (in fact, to compare the Jacobins to the Minutemen, who actually DID give the Brits a fair trial over the Boston Massacre DESPITE John Adams having a lot of reasons to hate the British instead of lynching them then and there, is an ultimate INSULT to the work of the American Minutemen, and that particular thing Jefferson should have been fully aware of, that we didn’t do mob lynchings, certainly not encourage them).