Someone was telling me the other day about something they heard on Glenn Beck which was about American "Progressivism". It is Glenn Beck's contention that this movement was begun at the turn of the 20th century by such men as Theodore Roosevelt and Wildrow Wilson. In fact, it is his contention that American policitics has been dominated by the progressives ever since so that essentially you have the agressive progressives and the more layed back variety.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/23936/
According the web site provided, the New Deal was the realization of the progressive movement begun many years before. The New Deal marked the source of bigger government and the welfare state we have today. In short, the progressives adopted the term "living constitution" as they wanted government to take over whatever role and scope the times demanded. "The progressives reasoned that people of the founding era may have wanted a limited government, given their particular experience with George lll, but they argued that people of their own time wanted a much more activist government, and that we should adjust accordingly". The article argues that men like President Wilson somewhat detested the checks and balances of the three branches of government due to their inefficient attributes thus favoring a more efficient centralized system.
For more on Progressivism, the article gives two books to read which are "American Progressivism", which Glenn Beck co-authored with American historian William Atto, and "Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism", which is a much more in depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.
Has anyone read either of these two books? If so, would you like to share?
Originally posted by whodeywikipedia offers a good analysis of progressivism:
Someone was telling me the other day about something they heard on Glenn Beck which was about American "Progressivism". It is Glenn Beck's contention that this movement was begun at the turn of the 20th century by such men as Theodore Roosevelt and Wildrow Wilson. In fact, it is his contention that American policitics has been dominated by the progressives ...[text shortened]... today.
Has anyone read either of these two books? If so, would you like to share?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States
Originally posted by generalissimoThanks for the link.
wikipedia offers a good analysis of progressivism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States
From what I am learning, it appears the movement is not just for big government in the states, rather, it is for a large global government in which the economies are so interlinked that it makes it unthinkable to go to war with another nation in terms of economic viability. The start of this was the League of Nations/UN and as we can see today, the entire global economy suffers if the economy of one country suffers. In short, I think the philosophy is that worlwiide progressivism will one day make war absolete. However, as we are seeing today, this philosophy has consequences that we are only just beginning to realize. As bad as war is, it is almost a cathartic experiecne when a wicked regime goes down to defeat. As it stands now, if no regimes can be overthrown, if they become "evil" in nature or become commit economic suicide via domestic policies, who will be there to overthrow them so we can start anew? Make no mistake, all governments are subject to going "bad". It is only a question of when and not if so if we are reduced to one global government at some point, God help us all!!
Originally posted by whodeyFrom what I am learning, it appears the movement is not just for big government in the states, rather, it is for a large global government
Thanks for the link.
From what I am learning, it appears the movement is not just for big government in the states, rather, it is for a large global government in which the economies are so interlinked that it makes it unthinkable to go to war with another nation in terms of economic viability. The start of this was the League of Nations/UN and as we can ...[text shortened]... en and not if so if we are reduced to one global government at some point, God help us all!!
I agree with your first statement, but I don't see how progressivism would ultimately lead to a global government.
Make no mistake, all governments are subject to going "bad".
Thats why having to rely on a large welfare state turns out to be problematic later on.
Originally posted by whodeyWhether war would be obsolete or not who can say since the masterminds at work creating one world govenment belong to the same outfit that caused most of the major wars in the last century. I have heard this called incrementalism but it sure isn't progress. The population is extremely ignorant of it and will argue against it. Just a lot eaisier to jump onto the left right paradigm than admit we have been fooled for a couple of centuries.
Thanks for the link.
From what I am learning, it appears the movement is not just for big government in the states, rather, it is for a large global government in which the economies are so interlinked that it makes it unthinkable to go to war with another nation in terms of economic viability. The start of this was the League of Nations/UN and as we can en and not if so if we are reduced to one global government at some point, God help us all!!
Originally posted by whodeySssshhh, you and the other rightwing extremists are not suppose to know about this.
...the movement is not just for big government in the states, rather, it is for a large global government in which the economies are so interlinked that it makes it unthinkable to go to war with another nation in terms of economic viability. The start of this was the League of Nations/UN ..... God help us all!!
We intended it to be our evil socialist progressive secret a little longer.
Not only do we intend to steal your freedom, and money - we will also steal your babyes and eat your brain.
Originally posted by Scheelcool
Sssshhh, you and the other rightwing extremists are not suppose to know about this.
We intended it to be our evil socialist progressive secret a little longer.
Not only do we intend to steal your freedom, and money - we will also steal your babyes and eat your brain.
Originally posted by ScheelDon't get me wrong, I think the original ideas were based on ideas with good intensions, but as the saying goes, "the road to hell is paved with good intensions". Whether it be war or a global oligarchy that will gradually lead to terrany, it seems we cannot seem to expunge what ails us.
Sssshhh, you and the other rightwing extremists are not suppose to know about this.
We intended it to be our evil socialist progressive secret a little longer.
Not only do we intend to steal your freedom, and money - we will also steal your babyes and eat your brain.
Having said that, it seems odd to me that Woodrow Wilson's ideas would be so influential in the movement considering that his policies seem to have lead to the League of Nations and the soon to be debacle of the second world war.
Originally posted by whodeyBackers of the Iraq war have made similar arguments - but in this case, the magic formula for ending all war is to remove all the dictators and replace them with democratic systems
Thanks for the link.
From what I am learning, it appears the movement is not just for big government in the states, rather, it is for a large global government in which the economies are so interlinked that it makes it unthinkable to go to war with another nation in terms of economic viability. The start of this was the League of Nations/UN and as we can en and not if so if we are reduced to one global government at some point, God help us all!!
Actually, we are pretty much have reached the point where nations don't really go to war against other nations anymore. The wars of the 21st century will be mostly civil conflicts that occur within a nation -- whether it be rival gangs battling over a diamond mine in Africa, or Shiite and Sunni groups battling for power within Iraq, or Israelis and Palestinians lobbing rockets at each other within Israel -- OR they will involve global operations by terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, or by various super-gangs dealing in stuff like drugs or prostitution, using violence to protect their enterprises vs rivals or governments
I don't believe we'll ever have a single world government -- consider the keystone cop operation we call the UN. But the effort to combat terror and minimize the toll from civil wars will require a lot of cooperation among many nations -- the US isn't going to get much done if it tries to act alone
Originally posted by MelanerpesSo you can honestly say that the 21st century will be more "civil" than the 20th century which was the bloodiest century in the history of mankind? My friend, you have some gonades. 😉
Backers of the Iraq war have made similar arguments - but in this case, the magic formula for ending all war is to remove all the dictators and replace them with democratic systems
Actually, we are pretty much have reached the point where nations don't really go to war against other nations anymore. The wars of the 21st century will be mostly civil con ...[text shortened]... operation among many nations -- the US isn't going to get much done if it tries to act alone
Global government is a good idea because it would put in place an effective way to resolve international conflicts -- which we don't have right now. The UN is totally inadequate -- an unelected body, for one.
To make such a thing work, one would need an Earth/World Constitution, an Earth/World Bill of Human Rights, Earth/World Supreme Court, direct election of (UN) representatives, separation of powers, etc. All this is emminently do-able, and the more democracies the world consists of, the closer we get to having that discussion.
But beware of thinking we can get rid of war. Even under such a scenario, civil war could always occur. It might be less likely but is certainly still possible.
The greatest thing about such an achievement would be that most of the energy we currently spend on conflict would be redirected into more productive arenas. That would be fun.
First of all, Glenn Beck is an idiot.
That being said it was "small government" Conservatives like Reagan and W. Bush who grew our government to unprecedented levels.
Catch phrases like "socialism" make for great sound bites but they are at odds with the actual definition of Socialism, which is when the state owns the means of production and distribution.
The correct label for progressive ideology is "collectivist", but unfortunately for Republicans that doesn't sound menacing and scarey enough. So they resort to the former, dishonest label.
Ironically both Republicans and Democrats have governed using collectivist ideology, although Republicans claim to be individualist.
The Libertarian platform truely is one of individualist ideology. But unfortunately for them there is not one, single example of a modern, successful country who has governed by Libertarian principles. IMO their ideas look great on paper but in the real world they don't work.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWhy do you call him an idiot but then just reinforce everything he is saying by what you say in regard to progressivism? His arguement is that it has dominated American politics for the last century in both parties. His arguement is that there is precious little difference in the two party system.
[b]First of all, Glenn Beck is an idiot.
That being said it was "small government" Conservatives like Reagan and W. Bush who grew our government to unprecedented levels.
Catch phrases like "socialism" make for great sound bites but they are at odds with the actual definition of Socialism, which is when the state owns the means of production an ...[text shortened]... governed using collectivist ideology, although Republicans claim to be individualist.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe Founding Fathers could be called Libertarians for a variety of reasons. Of course, no modern day examples can be found and I thinnk in US politics with the two party stranglehold none will be given an opputunity.
The Libertarian platform truely is one of individualist ideology. But unfortunately for them there is not one, single example of a modern, successful country who has governed by Libertarian principles. IMO their ideas look great on paper but in the real world they don't work.[/b]