This post is the next in a series of posts having to do with freedom in America and the things that threaten that freedom in our days. Please see the previous posts, especially the one on constitutionalism, for a brief explanation of the principles that I will be discussing in the next few posts on progressivism. Also, remember that The Lord taught that he established the Constitution of the United States based on "just and holy principles" (D&C 101:77-80) and that "whatsoever is more or less than [the Constitution], cometh of evil" (D&C 98:7). By sharing this I don't necessarily mean that people who do not agree with the constitution are in every case evil, or that the Constitution is in every word perfect; often those that promote progressive ideas are trying to do good. However, I do mean that those ideas that aim to destroy the principles on which the Constitution is based and the essential governmental framework that it establishes do come of evil, and, if we are not careful, we will someday sorrow for our lack of loyalty to that great charter. In the words of President Ezra Taft Benson "once freedom is lost, only blood--human blood--will win it back" (A Witness and a Warning, Oct 1979).
Progressivism
Shortly after the Civil War, some of the same animus towards the principles of the Constitution that drove the Confederate fight for slavery started to appear again in the form of new ideas and new criticisms against the concepts in our founding documents. These ideas coalesced into a movement known today as the Progressive Movement. It began to pick up speed in the late 1800s and had its first big successes in the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. It has continued to grow steadily, though slightly changed and somewhat veiled, until the present day.
The essential core of the ideas put forward in the Progressive Movement was to "progress" or move beyond the political thinking of the Founding. They felt that we needed to do this because the Founders never envisioned the problems that we face today, and so could never have given us a government that could handle those modern challenges. For the progressives, Government's main purpose was to be a problem solver; not to secure the natural rights of citizens, as the Declaration teaches. Thus, we needed a new approach to government that could tackle present problems. In a campaign speech during his run for President in 1912, Woodrow Wilson gave a good summary of how progressives felt and thought. He said:
We are in the presence of a new organization of society. Our life has broken away from the past. The life of America is not the life that it was twenty years ago; it is not the life that it was ten years ago. We have changed our economic conditions, absolutely, from top to bottom; and, with our economic society, the organization of our life. The old political formulas do not fit the present problems; they read now like documents taken out of a forgotten age. (The New Freedom, pg 3)
For Wilson, and many other progressives, the principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are from "a forgotten age," and we have to move beyond them if we hope to navigate modern societal waters.
German Historicism and Societal Evolution
The progressives had great confidence in the progress of history. Many of them were either educated in Germany themselves or by someone else educated in Germany. There they espoused the ideas of G.W.F. Hegel, German historicism, and the German theory of the State; the same ideas that produced the Germany of both World Wars and that heavily influenced the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin, and the China of Mao. For example, Woodrow Wilson, John Dewey, and Frederick Jackson Turner were all educated at Johns Hopkins University, a school founded specifically for the purpose of bringing German education and principles to America. They believed that history was on an ever-improving track, continuously trending towards a better future. Thus, the Founding principles would inevitably be superseded by new and better principles as humanity progresses through time.
Progressives were also very influenced by Darwin's theory of evolution, and they applied its principles, not just to biology, but to government and society as well. The following quote is again from Woodrow Wilson, and it expresses the evolutionary view of government that the progressives held:
The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist
and move by virtue of the efficacy of “checks and balances.” The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against itself, as checks, and live. (What is Progress?, The New Freedom)
Thus, for the progressives, the principles of evolution dictate that we must move beyond the separation of powers, the checks and balances established by the Constitution, so that the Government can adapt to its historical environment, solve modern problems, and survive to the next phase in its onward progression. Progressives believed that, because society is a product of the historical conditions of its own age, if we create a Government that can dominate the conditions, we can control society's evolution and shape it towards a Utopian state. That objective is what determines the power that Government should have and no means should be off limits in reaching that end and eliminating the ills of society.
Progressivism and Natural Rights
If the progressives were going to accomplish their regulatory and redistributive agenda to achieve a better society, they knew that they had to erode the limitations that the Constitution placed on them. To do so, they knew that they had to dissolve the principles of the Declaration upon which the Constitution is based. Thus, the ideas of human equality, rule by consent, and natural rights founded in "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God" had to be refuted.
The following three quotes are examples of the progressive's efforts to do so. The first is from Woodrow Wilson in a speech in 1911 to The Jefferson Club in Los Angeles, "honoring" Thomas Jefferson and his hand in writing the Declaration of Independence. Wilson stated, "If you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface." The preface of the Declaration is the first few paragraphs that contain the statements about "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God," "all men are created equal," and "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Wilson wants us to not repeat that part, so that we can understand the Declaration. The rest of the Declaration is the list of grievances with King George; in other words, the problems of that particular time in history.
The second quote is from John Dewey, a leading progressive and professor at Columbia University. He championed many of the ideas of G.W.F. Hegel, including historicism, moral relativism, and a denial of objective truth. In an essay he criticized earlier liberals (i.e. The Founders) and their statements of universal "self-evident" truths. He stated:
The earlier liberals lacked historic sense and interest...But disregard of history took its revenge. It blinded the eyes of liberals to the fact that their own special interpretations of liberty, individuality and intelligence were themselves historically conditioned, and were relevant only to their own time. They put forward their ideas as immutable truths good at all times and places; they had no idea of historic relativity, either in general or in its application to themselves. (The Papers of John Dewey: The Latter Works 1925-1953, Boydston)
For progressives, each age has its own truths that shape how Government should act; no truths are universal and applicable to all mankind at all times in history.
The third quote is from Frank Goodnow. Frank Goodnow was a prominent progressive at the turn of the 20th Century. He was the President of Johns Hopkins University and the first president of the American Political Science Association. In a speech given at Brown University Goodnow is contrasting the American view of liberty with the European view at the time. He teaches that, as usual, America is behind the times and that we need to catch up to European thinking. He stated:
In a word, man is regarded now throughout Europe, contrary to the view expressed by Rousseau, as primarily a member of society and secondarily as an individual. The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action. (The American Conception of Liberty, Goodnow)
Thus, for progressives, the Government and the law endow men and women with their rights, not God, and those rights are very much alienable if Government decides that the greater good of society requires it.
Defending the Founders
Now juxtapose the views held by these prominent progressives to the views held by two other prominent Americans of their time. The first is Abraham Lincoln. In a letter giving his thoughts on Thomas Jefferson and his role in writing the Declaration, Lincoln wrote:
All honor to Jefferson - to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression. (Letter to Henry Pierce, Lincoln)
The second is from Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge was President shortly after Wilson and he often had to refute progressive ideas. If you are like me, you will remember him being portrayed in history books in school, written by progressives, as being a lousy and inconsequential President; while progressive Presidents, such as the Roosevelts and Wilson, as being great men that saved the country during crises of war and economic disaster. It is amazing what you learn when you actually read the things that they wrote and believed. Coolidge, in a speech commemorating the the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, stated:
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
I will ask you to turn inward for a moment. Ask yourself the following questions, and give yourself a quiet moment to reflect. Which of the opposing views presented above, that of progressivism or that of Lincoln and Coolidge, rings more true to your heart? Which is more likely to secure and perpetuate freedom to the next generation? I invite you to act on the feelings that you have.
Progressivism Today
Since it's inception, progressivism has grown steadily in its influence in America. Many people today espouse the ideas made popular by these early progressives, both inside and outside of the Government, and in both the Democratic and Republican Party. For example, when asked by a journalist during a debate in the 2008 democratic primary if she was a "liberal," Hillary Clinton stated, "I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive." Another example of modern progressivism is found in the think-tank known as "The Center for American Progress." This large and influential organization has an entire project dedicated to preserving and perpetuating the ideas and legacy of the early progressives. These are just two of many, many examples of how progressivism is alive and stronger than ever in our society today.
Modern progressives are not as forthcoming as the earlier progressives in terms of their open opposition to the principles of the Founding. They couch their ideas behind nice sounding platitudes that only a fool or a reprobate would be opposed to; after all, who's against progress, or clean air, or affordable health care, or level playing fields. However, they don't tell you that accomplishing those objectives in the way they have in mind requires the abandonment of the principles established in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If we, as a people, are not vigilant in the protection of our freedom, we will likely lose it.
When Ezra Taft Benson was the Secretary of Agriculture for President Eisenhower, he was assigned the task of meeting with Nikita Khrushchev to help the Soviets improve how they farm. This is what Ezra Taft Benson said about that encounter:
As we talked face to face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his and all other grandchildren will live under freedom, he arrogantly declared in substance, "You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands."
Communism, socialism, Marxism, and progressivism have the same intellectual ancestry, found in Prussian/German philosophy, G.W.F Hegel, and others. If we do not hold fast to the principles of the American Founding, we will, as Coolidge and Khruschev intimate, move backward to a time "when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people." Only virtue, knowledge of the truth, and the courage to act on both will allow freedom to win the day. I pray that it will.
No comments:
Post a Comment