jjotto: "And Progressives then were not exactly what we think of as Progressives today, by a long shot."
I'm sorry, I can't sign on to this. In a Senate Speech, Laurence Sherman noted that "Suffice it to know Philip Dru is an autobiography of the colonel himself and solves the Conundrum how to get rid of the Constitution."
Going back to Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, very little has changed about the progressives. They have always hated the Constitution and that is just the same today. Progressives hate the constitution. The only difference is the methods, which are merely clothing the emperor swaps out when necessity dictates to try to achieve the purpose.
In reality, the emperor has no clothes.
And that doesn't really scratch the surface of the charge that Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were hidden communists.
fieldmarshaldj: "I don’t really see a difference between Communism and “Progressivism.”"
Most of us don't see differences between communism and fascism either. Yet they are there and academically they are important points of discussion.
Just because there are differences though, doesn't mean they are exceptionally great at the end of the day. Government tyranny is government tyranny. Still, even Theodore Roosevelt was a globalist.
What exactly are the differences between communism and fascism? They can’t be significant other than the sublimation of enforcing atheism (Mussolini openly claimed “God does not exist” while in power as a fascist) to the more rapid attainment of power; the notability of private companies being permitted to operate is not significant when Lenin’s New Economic Policy is looked at, as well as Red China’s post-Mao economic policies.
I have a slightly more nuanced view of TR. He did seem to be an anti-Communist, though domestically he was of the left. I never viewed him as outright evil, like Wilson. TR was a warmonger, but part of that stemmed from the fact that he did well while out on the field. Once his son was killed, that took the luster away.
Perhaps I should’ve prefaced my point about “Progressivism” in the pre- and Soviet era. Post-Soviet, especially after the 1930s, I would indeed call it unapologetically Communist/pro-Soviet. The 1910s version seemed to be more the cult of TR (the ones who split from the Taftist GOP) and were the ones who believed that government and societal ills could be cured with the “right” policies. A “good government” (Socialist-lite) agenda.
In some cases, something as simple as being opposed to a corrupt or semi-corrupt urban political machine. The example of Milwaukee, which openly embraced (German) Socialism and under the party banner, when it came to urban policies, it wasn’t some hardcore Communist agenda, but basically a good government agenda and putting utilities under municipal control. Now the urban vs. federal was a different story (where their Congressman, Victor Berger, was more a subversive leftist).
Of course, what is seen as a benevolent ideology or agenda in the short run can become a malevolent one in time, as leftism did.