Posted on 10/03/2021 8:37:06 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
After four years of arduous work, the solo recording of Herbert Croly's The Promise of American Life is now completed. From the viewpoint of "what is progressive ideology", this book explains it better than perhaps any other I could offer. This book is entirely free, it is in the public domain. This is NOT. for sale.
The book can be downloaded from here, and using what I could find which was written by others, I wrote the following book summary:
The book is said to "offer a manifesto of Progressive beliefs" that "anticipated the transition from competitive to corporate capitalism and from limited government to the welfare state." By Croly’s death in 1930, only 7,500 copies of The Promise of American Life had been sold. Despite this, the book was immensely influential, even influencing Theodore Roosevelt to adopt the platform of The New Nationalism.
This is a pretty accurate summary of the work. Why this book is so important, is that it had implications for at least three of the very first progressive presidents in America: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. A book that has that kind of reach MUST be more widely known among conservatives, and what better way to accomplish the necessary task, than to read it to you?
You need to read this. You need to know this. I'll read it to you, I did the hard work for you! It's that important. If you don't like audiobooks, hey that's great now you have options, you can download the PDF or the text and read it, it's all yours. You're missing an important one if you don't. You're missing a very important one here. Here's the book review that former President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in regard to this book. Writing in The New Outlook, an essay titled Nationalism and Popular Rule, he wrote: (p. 96)
In Mr. Herbert Croly's "Promise of American Life," the most profound and illuminating study of our National conditions which has appeared for many years, especial emphasis is laid on the assertion that the whole point of our governmental experiment lies in the fact that it is a genuine effort to achieve true democracy - both political and industrial.
So if nothing else, let's recognize the importance of this work. This book has it all. Progressive education, the need for wealth redistribution, the subjugation of industry to the Nation, the domination of government in the lives of individuals. It's all here. It's ALL here, in these pages. What is happening to our country? The answers are here in these pages. Now it is true that over the years progressives have changed in some ways, but they're still the same. This is not an old outdated irrelevant story from a distant day of "what was". They are still here and this is still current.
We as conservatives, we have a lot of confusion among our people as to whether or not progressivism and socialism is the same thing (which it is not) and this book can clear a lot of that noise up. It's time to part the clouds here.
In the Art of War, chapter 3, Sun Tzu wrote:
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
We can't win if we're calling them socialists. That's not historically accurate, then or now.
My first audiobook Philip Dru was useful in that it puts into the form of a novel what the goals of progressivism are. But that's a filter. This book is unfiltered. It's just, let's dominate everything, that's what progressives want.
This book is scary. For those of us who want government limitations and free markets, this is a very chilling work. I hope you enjoy. When you are finished with the book, for those of you who take it up, you will come away having learned something and realizing what we're actually up against. These people, are, I'll tell you what. I'll put it to you this way. Progressives are not kidding around. They mean what they say and they mean what they write. They really actually believe this stuff.
It's been over 100 years since this book was published, and we know the progressives actually believe this stuff because so much of it has been implemented. It's horrific to live with.
Text:
THE PROMISE OF AMERICAN LIFE
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/14422/14422-h/14422-h.htm
https://archive.org/details/ThePromiseOfAmericanLife
Good reading, if a bit of a slog, as Croly never used one word when three could be made to fit. However, if you want to see the entire “Progressive” (e.g., Fabian Socialist) playbook the American left has been running for the past century laid out in clear detail, this book is it.
"Progressive" is just a word that can mean whatever you might want it to mean today."
This is probably the foundational issue you and I face. You believe progressives are just playing cute games with a soft-sounding word. I do not. This word is just as meaningful in describing bureaucratic despotism/administrative state as it was during the Progressive era. Because of this singular word's meaningfulness, Hillsdale College distributes educational videos describing the specific dangers of the ideology of Progressivism and their rejection of the U.S. Constitution. With all of that said, Croly's "Promise" is one of the most important books by progressives outlining progressivism.
In Nationalism and Popular Rule, Theodore Roosevelt recommended Croly's Promise this way:
In Mr. Herbert Croly's "Promise of American Life," the most profound and illuminating study of our National conditions which has appeared for many years, especial emphasis is laid on the assertion that the whole point of our governmental experiment lies in the fact that it is a genuine effort to achieve true democracy—both political and industrial.
Knowing that the Roosevelt Presidency was so terrible is not as important as knowing why it was so terrible. It was terrible because it was so progressive, this book recommendation says it all and gives meaning and substance to the word.
Progressive ideology is both a very real threat, as well as a very specific thing. I recorded this audio book specifically for people such as yourself, except, but for those who do actually want to know. This book is very much a "communist manifesto" of sorts for Progressivism.
Like pretty much every other politically charged word -- "fascist", "Nazi", "Communist", etc. -- "Progressive" can mean whatever people want it to mean, either positively or negatively.
Even "MAGA" -- which to me sounds totally positive -- in the hands of a skilled Democrat propagandist can be turned into something sinister and threatening.
So, Point #1: One man's definition of "progressive" is not the final word on what it might mean to anyone anywhere.
Point #2: both Herbert Croly's "The Promise of American Life" (published in 1909) and Teddy Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" (1910), came AFTER TR's two terms as president, both represent significant new ideas that Roosevelt did not use as president.
Point #3: In 1912, when Teddy Roosevelt ran for President as a "New Nationalist" and "Bull Moose Progressive", he lost.
ProgressingAmerica: "This word is just as meaningful in describing bureaucratic despotism/administrative state as it was during the Progressive era.
Because of this singular word's meaningfulness, Hillsdale College distributes educational videos describing the specific dangers of the ideology of Progressivism and their rejection of the U.S. Constitution."
Sure, and Hillsdale is perfectly entitled to use their own definitions of what is, or is not, "Progressivism".
I'm only saying that you'd be hard pressed to prove that Pres. Teddy Roosevelt believed even 10% of that while he was in office.
Further, you'd be hard pressed to find any politician today who does not accept at least 10% of the old Progressive agenda.
ProgressingAmerica: "Knowing that the Roosevelt Presidency was so terrible is not as important as knowing why it was so terrible.
It was terrible because it was so progressive, this book recommendation says it all and gives meaning and substance to the word."
Teddy Roosevelt's presidency was the opposite of "terrible".
What's truly terrible is the way idiots have distorted actual history to "prove" their own ideological nonsense.
Here are some facts to sober you up.
Federal spending averages, as percentage of GDP under:
None of that can be charged to Teddy Roosevelt.
ProgressingAmerica: "Progressive ideology is both a very real threat, as well as a very specific thing. "
Sure, today, but you cannot blame Republican Teddy Roosevelt (as starkly opposed to Democrat Franklin Roosevelt) for what Herbert Croly's "progressivism" has become over 100+ years since ex-President TR first learned of it in 1910.
ProgressingAmerica: "This book is very much a "communist manifesto" of sorts for Progressivism."
Maybe, but it is far from a "manifesto" for everything "progressivism" later became, nor does it accurately reflect Teddy Roosevelt's views and actions while President.
Bottom line: your overeagerness to condemn Republicans for the crimes of Democrats is a mental defect all too common among conservatives.
So, you need to get over that -- which is not to claim that Republicans are always blameless, only that we should not be blamed for what Democrats did after Republicans left office.
I appreciate the honesty.
There is nothing else left here.
"I'm only saying that you'd be hard pressed to prove that Pres. Teddy Roosevelt believed even 10% of that while he was in office."
Easy pressed. It's in his autobiography - which I referenced elsewhere directly to you so no need to re-hash it here.
Your belief that the word progressive is a "nothing" means there is nothing else left here. Our work is finished.
No. I defend conservative republicans against persons such as yourself and your smears and heinous comparisons, excuses and rationalizations for bad behavior and unconstitutional action. Guys like Reagan and Trump, Calvin Coolidge, Senators Cruz and DeMint, don't have anything to do with the ideological beliefs of a guy like Croly. They also do not deserve the insults your crew dish out.
You and your ilk are the ones who are the most ardent defenders of the John Boehners of the world. The progressive republicans. The Boehners, the Nixons, and the Roosevelts, the John McCains, and the Romneys and all the rest of them. They aren't worth a pile of bovine excrement.
Paul Ryan did everything he could to be just like Boehner. Him and Pierre Delecto is your kind of republican.
And let's not forget the Bush crime family and their henchman, Karl Rove.
"Manifesto" or not, you are assigning vastly more importance to Croly's book than it deserves, at least among Republicans.
So, you rightly point out that then ex-President Teddy Roosevelt adopted Croly's term "New Nationalism" for TR's 1912 Bull Moose Progressive Party campaign -- an election that Roosevelt lost.
What you don't mention is that already in 1914, Roosevelt split away from Croly over several issues, including:
Finally, a reminder of perspectives -- under Teddy Roosevelt, the US Federal spending averaged 2.3% of GDP, while today it is more than ten times that amount, and no politician today, regardless of how conservative they are, has ever proposed returning federal government to what it was under Teddy Roosevelt.
So, your claims that TR was just a wild-eyed radical progressive are losing all sight of the reality, then versus now.
""Manifesto" or not, you are assigning vastly more importance to Croly's book than it deserves, at least among Republicans."
No. The entire phrase "New Nationalism" was on loan from Croly, and the entire Progressive Party was mainly dissident former Republicans. Hiram Johnson, the veep was also a former republican. Albert J. Beveridge, Gifford Pinchot, Joseph M. Dixon, and many more. You don't even need to stay within the sphere of elected officials. Sculptor Gutzon Borglum was a republican turned hard-core big-government progressive.
If TR would've gotten his way, you and I would be registered Democrats today bashing republicans like Joe Biden and Barack Obama - but it didn't turn out that way as Wilson managed to concentrate progressivism in the Democrats instead. That's just how the history turned out.
I know you don't know these things and someone needs to tell you. I know you'll reject it because you don't like inconvenient facts but you can't say you weren't told at least once.
And yes, because Theodore Roosevelt went out there and told them "you gotta read this book from Croly" so many of them would have listened.
It's not like Roosevelt did this one singular time. Roosevelt went out there and recommended Croly's second book "Progressive Democracy" as well. He was the leader of the Croly revival.
Theodore Roosevelt was the leader of big government in his day. That's simply the fact.
No, that's simply nonsense.
The facts on Federal spending are:
As president, from 1901 to 1908, TR did not govern as a radical Progressive, but, certainly by today's standards, he was a very common-sense conservative.
Yes, in 1912, TR ran for president as a Bull Moose Progressive, under banners raised by radical Progressives like Herbert Croly.
However, already by 1914 TR fell out with Croly and his New Republic magazine because TR was not the Progressive Croly wanted.
So Democrats under Woodrow Wilson and later Franklin Roosevelt took up the Progressive banner that Teddy Roosevelt had dropped in 1914.
That's why, to my mind, TR and TRump are just two peas from the same pod, and I like them both, a lot.
IMHO, YRMV.
BM
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.
