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
Friendly ping, considering our recent conversation.
I’ve attempted to make this as easy as possible.
From your about page:
“The American people have been led to believe that “progressive” means that one is “for progress.” Its a political philosophy - Progressivism is America’s cancer.”
I have no disagreement. I too have noted the ambiguity of the chosen label of the Progs. Perhaps far too often and in a few more ways.
If you read my about page, published 25 years ago and never updated, you may see in it an implication of what Progs aim to achieve, although at that time I wasn’t connecting them to any individual, only that it was likely the complete demise of our republic would likely arise unless we got wise. I might revise it today and compare Marius to Obama and Sulla to Trump, but without the bloodshed. Nevertheless, only a short time later that republic ended in fact. But why bother? I still don’t have the solution I hoped would arise. Some see it in Trump. I remain skeptical.
I suggested a need to ally with any others who recognized the danger. The TEA Party movement came close, but the Swamp made it very difficult to form a leader. Then in 2015 Trump, largely self financed — although he thanked a seeming disbelieving MSM for its free takedown of his primary rivals — wound up its de-facto leader under the MAGA banner.
It was so smooth in fact, that I remain skeptical in that even his administrations could be part of the Prog plan. They want constitutional restrictions, and thus their obstructions, so weakened it be effectively gone.
What I’d like to learn from you is what you suspect might be the best way to get the Prog plan to unravel? To get its fellow schemers to turn on each other and actually do what Trump could be doing better without his braggadocio and faux pas and possible constitutional weakening.
I agree with you that the answer has to be found in individuals taking responsibility to preserve their rights in the face of the ongoing onslaught to enslave us all.
I don’t know all the details of their scheming, and I cannot see gaining much from filling in all blanks. I already have a fairly general awareness that I have inferred from reading, but even more from enduring all that has happened in my 80 years.
Maybe you are hoping that after reading all you’ve made available that someone will find the answer against them? Maybe you will.
But let me ask you. You must know a good deal more after reading and producing audio books. WHAT? Beyond making all the details of their scheming available, what have YOU conceived might be a possible, even probable cure?
I remain at a loss of any effective way to turn individual Progs (like Musk? maybe?) around. So I ask you: what do you know from what has been written that would either get them to repent? Or lead their victims to unite against this ongoing threat?
As I cannot conceive of any of it can be defeated without very much pain. And that, my new FRiend, will scare off the bulk of our contemporaries. Our society is a far cry away from the valor that arose in the era of our Founders.
I could add a good deal more insights, but this is already way too long. I apologize. In all my years here I haven’t run into someone like you. Hence my frequent absence.
If only a reformed American society could happen overnight. Such a dream may lay beyond us mortals yet must be pursued.
Read your “about”. I’ve never heard of Sulla before - I don’t read much Roman history beyond the pre-Caesar republic and even then, very little.
Thank you for sharing all of this.
I myself got started back during the Tea Party, I had at the time driven several times to Washington D.C. for protests.(Drove across 5 states to get there) Protesting is very enjoyable. Went to the March for Life 2020 also.
In any case a lot has changed since I started. Even back then there were not a lot of people truly interested in progressivism and now, even less. My original thoughts back then were that if I could expose their writings to YouTube more people would see it. Even now I’m still doing that, just a few weeks ago was completed a book by John Ryan extolling the virtues of a redistributive scheme of a living wage.
But I do spend more time pushing the creation of Founding Fathers(and adjacent) audio books anymore.
As to a solution, I’ve grappled with that question for some 15 years and I think only recently came up with an answer. Progressives were never liberals. They stole that word. They are thieves.
The word “Postliberal” has become popular in some quarters in the last 5 years and upon having seen this word it struck me that it does actually apply to progressives. I think if we can separate progressives from their camoflage, “liberalism”, that will “right” a lot of the problems we have with the ship.
I’ve had on my page since day one, it has never changed, a quote from Sun Tzu. I had listened to the Art of War audio book some time shortly before finally doing my earliest publications, the Tzu quote says: “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 - Sun Tzu (Art of War, Chapter 3)”
We can’t even see the enemy, much less know him. They hide under the word “liberal” and we still to this day call him that. The enemy is not a liberal and in fact he hates liberalism. It’s all in the books of the progressives, they desire to get PAST liberalism, to get BEYOND liberalism. I really haven’t had a high quality one-word summation this whole time. Postliberal. Progressives are Postliberals. It’s correct. It passes the test and isn’t just my personal opinion; progressives are postliberals. They enjoy ambiguity and they enjoy hiding. Just like chameleons.
I’ve been going back into my old writings to try to put together a sort of a greatest hits from progressives of them talking down to individual rights, talking down the constitution, the Founders, and other related things. It is not hard to demonstrate that they hate liberalism.
We need to be able to call the enemy by its name. When the progressives were still calling themselves progressives at the beginning of 1920s, Coolidge was able to wipe the floor with them.
We can repeat that floor wiping. I do not think that’s an accident of history, a “one timer”. Why else would they have changed their name and gone into hiding for over a century and at that, they hide behind a word that’s strongly associated with good things. It’s not that the progressives are gone. They’re still here, they are still Wilsonians and Rooseveltians. And they still hide there. What are they hiding from. They must still fear a huge loss if they took off their masks. So the mask needs to be ripped off - finally, for all time.
Personal life has gotten a lot more busy as of late so I haven’t gotten to full completion yet of the writeup I’m hoping to complete and I do regard the audio books as a higher priority than typing anything up. A couple hundred people at best will read anything I type. Tens of thousands will listen once I complete an audio book as, also, some websites treat the audio books as podcasts. They end up going multiple places.
And I will say, I am always looking for new collaborators. I’m not alone, and it does not require doing any audio recording. Not sure if you’d like to do something that has a little more impact but let me know.
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.
