This blog is LONG, but informative in a lot of areas of the start of Progressivism,and its tentacles reaching all areas of our lives.
Suggest printing it ALL out, including the linked information and make your own manual to study so that you can see and hear what Progressives are saying, their ideology and their goals.
Our Constitution is under attack. Our freedoms to speak may be encroached upon over the next four years.
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry
The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics
By Thomas G. West and William A. Schambra
July 18, 2007
Progressivism was the reform movement that ran from the late 19th century through the first decades of the 20th century, during which leading intellectuals and social reformers in the United States sought to address the economic, political, and cultural questions that had arisen in the context of the rapid changes brought with the Industrial Revolution and the growth of modern capitalism in America. The Progressives believed that these changes marked the end of the old order and required the creation of a new order appropriate for the new industrial age.
There are, of course, many different representations of Progressivism: the literature of Upton Sinclair, the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, the history of Charles Beard, the educational system of John Dewey. In politics and political thought, the movement is associated with political leaders such as Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt and thinkers such as Herbert Croly and Charles Merriam.
While the Progressives differed in their assessment of the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms. The existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy.
At the same time, the old system was to be opened up and made more democratic; hence, the direct elections of Senators, the open primary, the initiative and referendum. It also had to be made to provide for more revenue; hence, the Sixteenth Amendment and the progressive income tax.
Presidential leadership would provide the unity of direction — the vision — needed for true progressive government. “All that progressives ask or desire,” wrote Woodrow Wilson, “is permission — in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.”
Remarks by Thomas G. West
The thesis of our book, The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science, is that Progressivism transformed American politics. What was that transformation? It was a total rejection in theory, and a partial rejection in practice, of the principles and policies on which America had been founded and on the basis of which the Civil War had been fought and won only a few years earlier. When I speak of Progressivism, I mean the movement that rose to prominence between about 1880 and 1920.
Government’s main duty for the Founders is to secure that freedom — at home through the making and enforcement of criminal and civil law, abroad through a strong national defense. The protection of life and liberty is achieved through vigorous prosecutions of crime against person and property or through civil suits for recovery of damages, these cases being decided by a jury of one’s peers.
The Progressives regarded the Founders’ scheme as defective because it took too benign a view of nature. As Dewey remarked, they thought that the individual was ready-made by nature. The Founders’ supposed failure to recognize the crucial role of society led the Progressives to disparage the Founders’ insistence on limited government. The Progressive goal of politics is freedom, now understood as freedom from the limits imposed by nature and necessity. They rejected the Founders’ conception of freedom as useful for self-preservation for the sake of the individual pursuit of happiness. For the Progressives, freedom is redefined as the fulfillment of human capacities, which becomes the primary task of the state.
To this end, Dewey writes, “the state has the responsibility for creating institutions under which individuals can effectively realize the potentialities that are theirs.” So although “it is true that social arrangements, laws, institutions are made for man, rather than that man is made for them,” these laws and institutions “are not means for obtaining something for individuals, not even happiness. They are means of creating individuals…. Individuality in a social and moral sense is something to be wrought out.” “Creating individuals” versus “protecting individuals”: this sums up the difference between the Founders’ and the Progressives’ conception of what government is for.
3. The Progressives’ Rejection of consent and Compact as the Basis of Society
In accordance with their conviction that all human beings are by nature free, the Founders taught that political society is “formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good” (Massachusetts Constitution of 1780).
For the Founders, the consent principle extended beyond the founding of society into its ordinary operation. Government was to be conducted under laws, and laws were to be made by locally elected officials, accountable through frequent elections to those who chose them. The people would be directly involved in governing through their participation in juries selected by lot.
The Progressives treated the social compact idea with scorn. Charles Merriam, a leading Progressive political scientist, wrote:
The individualistic ideas of the “natural right” school of political theory, indorsed in the Revolution, are discredited and repudiated…. The origin of the state is regarded, not as the result of a deliberate agreement among men, but as the result of historical development, instinctive rather than conscious; and rights are considered to have their source not in nature, but in law.
5. Limits on Government and the Integrity of the Private Sphere
For the Founders, the purpose of government is to protect the private sphere, which they regarded as the proper home of both the high and the low, of the important and the merely urgent, of God, religion, and science, as well as providing for the needs of the body. The experience of religious persecution had convinced the Founders that government was incompetent at directing man in his highest endeavors. The requirements of liberty, they thought, meant that self-interested private associations had to be permitted, not because they are good in themselves, but because depriving individuals of freedom of association would deny the liberty that is necessary for the health of society and the flourishing of the individual.
For the Founders, although government was grounded in divine law (i.e., the laws of nature and of nature’s God), government was seen as a merely human thing, bound up with all the strengths and weaknesses of human nature. Government had to be limited both because it was dangerous if it got too powerful and because it was not supposed to provide for the highest things in life.
Because of the Progressives’ tendency to view the state as divine and the natural as low, they no longer looked upon the private sphere as that which was to be protected by government. Instead, the realm of the private was seen as the realm of selfishness and oppression. Private property was especially singled out for criticism. Some Progressives openly or covertly spoke of themselves as socialists.
Woodrow Wilson did so in an unpublished writing. A society like the Founders’ that limits itself to protecting life, liberty, and property was one in which, as Wilson wrote with only slight exaggeration, “all that government had to do was to put on a policeman’s uniform and say, ‘Now don’t anybody hurt anybody else.'” Wilson thought that such a society was unable to deal with the conditions of modern times.
Wilson rejected the earlier view that “the ideal of government was for every man to be left alone and not interfered with, except when he interfered with somebody else; and that the best government was the government that did as little governing as possible.” A government of this kind is unjust because it leaves men at the mercy of predatory corporations. Without government management of those corporations, Wilson thought, the poor would be destined to indefinite victimization by the wealthy. Previous limits on government power must be abolished. Accordingly, Progressive political scientist Theodore Woolsey wrote, “The sphere of the state may reach as far as the nature and needs of man and of men reach, including intellectual and aesthetic wants of the individual, and the religious and moral nature of its citizens.”
However, this transformation is still in the future, for Progress takes place through historical development. A sign of the Progressives’ unlimited trust in unlimited political authority is Dewey’s remark in his “Ethics of Democracy” that Plato’s Republic presents us with the “perfect man in the perfect state.” What Plato’s Socrates had presented as a thought experiment to expose the nature and limits of political life is taken by Dewey to be a laudable obliteration of the private sphere by government mandate. In a remark that the Founders would have found repugnant, Progressive political scientist John Burgess wrote that “the most fundamental and indispensable mark of statehood” was “the original, absolute, unlimited, universal power over the individual subject, and all associations of subjects.”
**This has been edited for length and emphasis added for focal points**
In the 1960’s Radical Progressives pushed their agenda. The likes of Bill Ayers (Weather Underground), Bernadine Dohrn, Cornel West, Carl Davidson and Frances Fox Piven.
Frances Fox Piven and her now deceased husband Richard Cloward devised the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
September 18, 2012
The Cloward-Piven way
By Bruce Johnson
If the Cloward and Piven agenda were being implemented, would it look any different?
In all likelihood, they would be delighted with the massive deficits and the “spillage” that is the lax implementation of government entitlements.
A 1966 Article by Columbia Professors Cloward and Piven was a hot topic for awhile, but has since fell from attention. But isn’t now the time to reconsider exactly how this administration is steering people into record government program participation?
Some quotes from the 1966 article that reveal the mission. Increase the entitlement roles, redistribute wealth, guarantee income, and reduce qualifications for participating in these programs. Use organizing, demonstrating and a “climate of militancy”.
“…a political crisis would result that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income”
“Advocacy must be supplemented by organized demonstrations to create a climate of militancy that will overcome the invidious and immobilizing attitudes which many potential recipients hold toward being “on welfare.”” — Occupy and ACORN
“The ultimate aim of this strategy is a new program for direct income distribution.”
“We tend to overlook the force of crisis in precipitating legislative reform, partly because we lack a theoretical framework by which to understand the impact of major disruptions.”
“By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.”
This explains the Occupy Movement, and the tacit approval of the Obama Administration.
This explains the gutting of the Clinton era Welfare requirements by the Obama administration.
This explains the lack of diligence by administrators in determining who exactly qualifies for Disability. Encouraging people to get on unemployment, then when your 99 weeks are up, go to disability. We won’t check if you meet the requirements.
This explains why there is a concerted effort to get as many people as possible on Food Stamps, and the lack of oversight diligence here as well.
Add some “words” of Empathy:
So how did the Progressives/Marxists/Socialists enact their ideology and agenda? Through the gradual drip, drip, drip method called gradualism.
Add Saul Alinsky, an admired Community Organizer who started in the backyards of Chicago.
Saul Alinsky admired an Italian Communist named Antonio Gramsci. He like other communists realized that Americans would not accept Communism outright, so through gradual systems promoted as socialism, Americans were nudged into believing this was a good thing.
For anyone fighting the progressives, Saul Alinsky realized he needed power behind the message. Alinsky studied under Frank Nitti of the Al Capone mob under the guise of doing college graduate work. Alinsky learned mob tactics and persuasion by intimidation.
Marxism in America through Gradualism and Dialectic Process Ideology of Antonio Gramsci (Italian Communist). Saul Alinsky Tactics based on Gramsci.
Tailer to the documentary: Agenda
How much of the following is TRUE today?
Knowledge is POWER.
Utopian Slavery Through Infantalizing via Progressivism/Socialism. Obama and the Progressives Know Exactly what They are Doing to Americans.
**A MUST WATCH VIDEO**
Former KGB agent from Russia goes over the steps to Communism and totalitarianism
Trouble viewing video? Click Here
Institutionalist and Collectivist Societies: Institutionalist Societies believe that Bigger is Better, that the Individual is Wrong and the Rule Book is Right, and that a Difference is a Danger.
Marxists Infiltrating our Churches:
Infiltrate American Churches and infuse with Marxism gradually to persuade and influence parishioners
Teaching Social Justice and Shared Abundance (Socialism) Through Faith: Obama’s Community Organizing Faith Initiative Supporters
Progressivism/Marxism/Communism Through Faith: Jim Wallis (Sojourners), the Gamaliel Foundation etc.
Indoctrinating our Youth through Education System:
Indoctrinate the YOUTH to learn Progressivism starting in Kindergarten to High School and beyond.
THEN you send your child to college. They meet professors such as this one…..
Peter McLaren of UCLA: ***Highly recommend you click on this link:**
David Harvey at CUNY: (City University of New York)
David Harvey is the author of several books. LOOK at the list here.
Cornel West Princeton University:
An interview with IRANIAN Green Movement: Admits West is a member of Democratic Socialists of America!