When Bigots Become Reformers - The Progressive Era's shameful record on race.

Reason ^ | May 2006 | Damon W. Root

[Islander7]

The Progressive movement swept America from roughly the early 1890s through the early 1920s, producing a broad popular consensus that government should be the primary agent of social change. To that end, legions of idealistic young crusaders, operating at the local, state, and federal levels, seized and wielded sweeping new powers and enacted a mountain of new legislation, including minimum wage and maximum hour laws, antitrust statutes, restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol, appropriations for hundreds of miles of roads and highways, assistance to new immigrants and the poor, women’s suffrage, and electoral reform, among much else.

Today many on the liberal left would like to revive that movement and its aura of social justice. Journalist Bill Moyers, speaking at a conference sponsored by the left-wing Campaign for America’s Future, described Progressivism as “one of the country’s great traditions.” Progressives, he told the crowd, “exalted and extended the original American Revolution. They spelled out new terms of partnership between the people and their rulers. And they kindled a flame that lit some of the most prosperous decades in modern history.”

[Islander7]

Yet the Progressive Era was also a time of vicious, state-sponsored racism. In fact, from the standpoint of African-American history, the Progressive Era qualifies as arguably the single worst period since Emancipation. The wholesale disfranchisement of Southern black voters occurred during these years, as did the rise and triumph of Jim Crow. Furthermore, as the Westminster College historian David W. Southern notes in his recent book, The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900–1917, the very worst of it—disfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, lynching—“went hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism.” Racism was the norm, not the exception, among the very crusaders romanticized by today’s activist left.

-----------

A blast from the past to remind us who we are dealing with.

[Recovering_Democrat]

BUMP FOR A LATER READ.

[goodnesswins]

later

[Habibi]

This article was from 2006, but it is all too true. Remember that Hillary fashions herself as one of these....creatures (a progressive). Truth be told, one wonders why she would be welcomed in Africa, where she is currently traveling. Given the racist philosophies of the progressives, I would think she’d be persona non grata on that continent. Apparently, the natives haven’t done their homework on what she’s all about.

Scary stuff, and worth the read.

[Habibi]

This article was from 2006, but it is all too true. Remember that Hillary fashions herself as one of these turn of the century....creatures (a progressive). Truth be told, one wonders why she would be welcomed in Africa, where she is currently traveling. Given the racist philosophies of the progressives, I would think she’d be persona non grata on that continent. Apparently, the natives haven’t done their homework on what she’s all about.

Scary stuff, and worth the read.

[Question_Assumptions]

They also broke the government as envisioned by the Founders (A) by amending the Constitution to allow income taxes (16th Amendment), (B) by amending the Constitution so that the Senate is elected by direct vote rather than by state legislature (17th Amendment), and (C) by fixing the House at 435 members (via legislation).

While the effects of (A) are obvious (the Founders explicitly prohibited such taxes for a reason), the effects of (B) and (C) are just as disastrous. In the case of the Senate, senators went from representing their states to being at large representatives of the people. This has led not only to the confirmation circuses (as senators jockey for votes by playing politics with confirmations) but has also eliminated the natural bulwark against unfunded mandates (that Senators had to answer to state legislatures, not the people).

In the case of the House, where each Representative once represented 30,000 people, they now represent over 650,000 people, more than 20 times as many people. This not only further detaches them from their constituents but allows them to ignore many of their constituents. It also makes it easier to gerrymander districts that vote in a reliable way for the vast majority of seats. As an added bonus, it would be much more difficult for either party to strong-arm their members on votes and open up a lot of opportunities for new parties to win elections.

Want to fix the government? Repealing the 16th will be a hard sell so start by repealing the 17th Amendment and put the House back to one member for every 30,000 or so people. Yes, that would mean a House with around 10,000 members but that’s possible with modern technology and buildings. The big danger there is keeping staff under controll but a Representative with 30,000 constituents shouldn’t need as much staff as one with 650,000.

[Julia H.]

Today’s “progressives” are still marching behind policies that keep minorities enslaved to victim mentality, lack of self-efficacy, and poor initiative. They keep them dumbed down, brainwashed, and afraid of the conservative escape thanks to all the slanderous, scare-mongering tales liberals tell about their opponents. Today’s “progressives” hoist their entire party upon the backs of these slaves-that-need-not-be.

Any party that treats its supporters as means and not ends ought to be known as regressive, not progressive.

[Bullish]

Too bad liberals can’t take a little time to open a few history books. But I guess they’re way too busy re-writing history to be bothered with the truth.

[fieldmarshaldj]

A body of 10,000+ members would be ridiculously impossible to monitor and organize. In fact, I believe that would be more than the combined numbers of every House body in the country. I don’t think, however, it would be harmful to increase it to 501 and allow it to grow over time to 1,001 as a maximum figure (and perhaps 200-250 Senators, increasing the number of Senators to 3 per each state and apportioning the next 100 based upon population).

[Question_Assumptions]

A body of 10,000+ members would be ridiculously impossible to monitor and organize.

Yes, that's a feature, not a bug. The goal is not a smoothly running well-oiled machine but checks and balances that make it very difficult to get things done unless they are supported by a clear majority. Trying to horse-trade pork, give critical members a pass on certain votes, or even trying to manage a close vote would become much more difficult and that's a good thing. The goal is to make the House responsive to the people, not to the House leadership, their party leadership, or the Washington establishment. They should be representing the folks back home, not political stars on C-SPAN.

I'd also give DC representation in the House but no Senate representation and calculate it's electoral votes just like the states.

[Uncle Miltie]

Margaret Sanger.

Anything else?

[Paleo Conservative]

I don’t think, however, it would be harmful to increase it to 501 and allow it to grow over time to 1,001 as a maximum figure (and perhaps 200-250 Senators, increasing the number of Senators to 3 per each state and apportioning the next 100 based upon population).

You can't do that. It is prohibited to propose any constitutional amendment that would deprive a state of "its equal suffrage in the Senate".

Article 5.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Oh, you’d get gridlock. But I’d think we’d see an obscene increase in the number of moonbats. Imagine 27 members alone from San Francisco in varying degrees of Stalinist, or 217 members from Massachusetts (for which maybe 20 would be Republicans, and nearly all of those leftist RINOs), how about 279 members EXCLUSIVELY from New York City, with again, 90% of those being rabid leftists, and a smattering of liberal RINOs, 20 members from DC, half of which would be Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton racists, the other half being ignorant White liberal rodents, while the whole of Wyoming would only have 18 members (and not all of those would be Republicans).

Despite our best efforts, our elected officials are routinely to the left of their constituents, and I think 10,000 Congressmembers would be a nightmare of epic proportions. Ultimately, we’re probably better off with fewer politicians, not legions more.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Constitution ? What’s that ?

[Question_Assumptions]

Oh, you’d get gridlock. But I’d think we’d see an obscene increase in the number of moonbats.

We get those now. The percentage wouldn't increase and could actually go down, since the moonbats tend to concentrate and it would be harder to gerrymander normal people into their districts to nullify their votes. Ultimately, those 10,000 representatives would better represent their constituents, even if that makes more of them total moonbats, and that's what they are supposed to do.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Let's not forget Hollywood. Early filmmakers with their racist fare - The Birth of a Nation (1915), etc. I can't go through the whole history of racist movies, but Hollywood has a lot to answer for.

Those are your so-called "Progressives" for you! - depicting minorities in a variety of shameful roles.