Teddy Roosevelt - Socialist

[Maggie]

People's expectations for government change. Ascribing that change to a particular 'movement' is the result of myopia, especially when the ascription is made retrospectively. Also, it's unhelpful to believe that a specific role of government is correct, and all others are incorrect.

How very multicultural of you. Personally, I think some ideas about the proper role of government are superior to others. And shockerofandover0943 is actually correct.

The progressive movement - under a Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, and then a Democratic one, Woodrow Wilson - set forth a platform for modern liberalism to refound America according to ideas that were alien to the original Founders. The progressives emphasized not a separation of powers, which divided and checked the government, but rather a combination of powers, which would concentrate its authority and direct its actions. While seeming to advocate more democracy, the progressives of a century ago, like their descendants today, actually wanted the opposite: more centralized government control. The objective of progressive thinking, which remains a major force in modern-day liberalism, was to transform America from a decentralized, self-governing society into a centralized, progressive society focused on national ideals and the achievement of “social justice.” Sociological conditions would be changed through government regulation of society and the economy; socioeconomic problems would be solved by redistributing wealth and benefits.


And in many respects, they succeeded. What started under TR, was continued by Wilson, accelerated by FDR, codified in many respects by LBJ, then Clinton, and now Obama. The federal government, once limited to certain core functions, now dominates virtually every area of American life. Its authority is all but unquestioned, seemingly restricted only by expediency and the occasional budget constraint.

[RoyalShock]

Well said, Maggie.

[Kung Wu]

How very multicultural of you. Personally, I think some ideas about the proper role of government are superior to others. And shockerofandover0943 is actually correct.

The progressive movement - under a Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, and then a Democratic one, Woodrow Wilson - set forth a platform for modern liberalism to refound America according to ideas that were alien to the original Founders. The progressives emphasized not a separation of powers, which divided and checked the government, but rather a combination of powers, which would concentrate its authority and direct its actions. While seeming to advocate more democracy, the progressives of a century ago, like their descendants today, actually wanted the opposite: more centralized government control. The objective of progressive thinking, which remains a major force in modern-day liberalism, was to transform America from a decentralized, self-governing society into a centralized, progressive society focused on national ideals and the achievement of “social justice.” Sociological conditions would be changed through government regulation of society and the economy; socioeconomic problems would be solved by redistributing wealth and benefits.


And in many respects, they succeeded. What started under TR, was continued by Wilson, accelerated by FDR, codified in many respects by LBJ, then Clinton, and now Obama. The federal government, once limited to certain core functions, now dominates virtually every area of American life. Its authority is all but unquestioned, seemingly restricted only by expediency and the occasional budget constraint.

Well said, Maggie.

Indeed.

[Maggie]

Well said, Maggie.

Thank you.

[Wu du Nord]

How very multicultural of you.

Thank you? ;-)

Personally, I think some ideas about the proper role of government are superior to others.

Of course, fair enough. People certainly have thoughts about the world they inhabit. That's a very human thing. Although, most politically minded folks have 'ideas about the proper role of government' and undoubtedly rank them. Surely, they can't all be correct, can they? If not, then what serves as a benchmark to determine correctness? Not surprisingly, the benchmark selected is invariably related to the initial claim, and a quick spinning eddy develops.

The progressive movement - under a Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, and then a Democratic one, Woodrow Wilson - set forth a platform for modern liberalism to refound America according to ideas that were alien to the original Founders.

IIRC, George Will once described conservatism as the notion that the dead should have a say in what's going on today (badly paraphrased I'm sure, forgive me). I've always liked that description, as it seems to map nicely, ontologically speaking, onto a great many water-cooler political/social discussions.

Heritage is undoubtedly important (albeit, too frequently and easily overlooked) and plays an significant role in everything we do, but the notion that things were awesomely, incontrovertibly honky-dory at one particular moment in history and ideologically superior to all other possible worlds forever and ever (amen) is, quite frankly, silly. It just cannot be the case. Many of the US's founding documents (and the discussion surrounding them) make sense to us - and are therefore seemingly obvious to us - in a particular post-enlightenment world.

The progressives emphasized not a separation of powers, which divided and checked the government, but rather a combination of powers, which would concentrate its authority and direct its actions. While seeming to advocate more democracy, the progressives of a century ago, like their descendants today, actually wanted the opposite: more centralized government control. The objective of progressive thinking, which remains a major force in modern-day liberalism, was to transform America from a decentralized, self-governing society into a centralized, progressive society focused on national ideals and the achievement of “social justice.” Sociological conditions would be changed through government regulation of society and the economy; socioeconomic problems would be solved by redistributing wealth and benefits.

Unless you happen to be Mathew Spalding of the National Review, then you are a bald-faced plagiarizer. You are certainly welcome to copy and paste other people's materials, but failure to cite is - at least to me - distasteful.

And in many respects, they succeeded. What started under TR, was continued by Wilson, accelerated by FDR, codified in many respects by LBJ, then Clinton, and now Obama. The federal government, once limited to certain core functions, now dominates virtually every area of American life. Its authority is all but unquestioned, seemingly restricted only by expediency and the occasional budget constraint.

Narrative fallacy, unwarranted assumptions of causality, etc...

And, honestly, the claim that the authority of the US Government is 'all but unquestioned' is prima facie absurd. Tsk.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=NTNkMjM0ZTAwMDQ4MmRmYmUwODc0YjRmMTlhNGEyNGM=

[Maggie]

That was not intentional; sitting in a Houston airport on my phone invites, and in fact has, certain limitations.

The progressive movement, if you want to call it that and it should be called that, started 100 years ago. And frankly it has poisoned our society – it in did Europe shortly after WWII . Its theories are, in part, why places like Detroit (and where I was recently, albeit briefly, Houston – you can add any number of urban centers) are in such states of decay – not to mention Camden or Newark, N.J. Its theories, put into practice, are why places like Italy, Portugal, Greece, etc. struggle and it has to do with a change in the way they envision the role of government.

It invites dependency. It changes what our country was all about - and, frankly, flouts all empirical evidence that suggests it does more harm than good. Why? Power and Control – good for who or what?. This not only applies to the “downtrodden” but corporations, Wall Street titans – progressivism not only invites such insidious situations it engenders them.

And I can recite chapter and verse.

[Wu du Nord]

That was not intentional; sitting in a Houston airport on my phone invites, and in fact has, certain limitations.

Forgiven, but not forgotten.
As someone who truly enjoys spinning a phrase, honing specific locutions, and thinking for myself, I am ineffably horrified by those who plagiarize and those who imagine they can get away with it in this day and age... regardless of reason or venue.

I admit, I'm totally confused by the narrative you're foisting. It doesn't touch anything with which I am familiar.

How does an individualist find solace in blaming a collective for 'poisoning our society'? Surely, you can appreciate that brutal irony.

Also, I don't think you understand the European debt crisis very well. I hope you prove me wrong.

[pinstripers]

Good Lord.

[SB Shock]

Good Lord.

+1

[shockmonster]

The progressive movement, if you want to call it that and it should be called that, started 100 years ago. And frankly it has poisoned our society – it in did Europe shortly after WWII . Its theories are, in part, why places like Detroit (and where I was recently, albeit briefly, Houston – you can add any number of urban centers) are in such states of decay – not to mention Camden or Newark, N.J. Its theories, put into practice, are why places like Italy, Portugal, Greece, etc. struggle and it has to do with a change in the way they envision the role of government.

It invites dependency. It changes what our country was all about - and, frankly, flouts all empirical evidence that suggests it does more harm than good. Why? Power and Control – good for who or what?. This not only applies to the “downtrodden” but corporations, Wall Street titans – progressivism not only invites such insidious situations it engenders them.

And I can recite chapter and verse.

Anyone who doesn't include the good that came from the Progressive Era along with the bad is intellectually dishonest. Sure there were abuses and unintended consequences that came from the legislation, etc. during this movement. But to totally disregard the problems during this era can be blinding. Women not having the right to vote, the beginning of meat inspection (we've seen numbers of people killed by food during the modern age of inspections), trustbusting which limited big business but also labor unions, educating the masses which probably led to the U.S. era of prosperity, etc. were accomplishments. Now can an argument be made that the pendulum has swung too far. Absolutely but don't totally disregard that good came from the Progressive Era. I submit that proper balance is the key.