Progressivism and Limited Government

This post is the next in a series of posts about freedom, America, and what threatens our freedom today. If you missed the previous posts, I hope you are able to go back and read them, as they lay the groundwork for this and future posts.

The Constitution and Limited Government

Since 1787, there have been many countries across the world that have decided to institute constitutional governments for their people, seeing the good that it has done in the United States. They have looked to our constitution as a model of how to do that. Thus, we could say, and rightly so, that the Constitution has been our country's most valuable export. Truly, the Lord inspired "wise men" to write the Constitution and he did so "for the rights and protection of all flesh" (D&C 101:77). In speaking of the enormous blessings that the Constitution would bring to people across the entire earth, the Lord stated that it, the Constitution, "belongs to all mankind" (D&C 98:5). Pause for a moment and think of what the world would be like without it.

The U.S. Constitution was written to give governmental framework to the universal truths found in the Declaration of Independence. Those principles rest safely upon, and only upon, the three main pillars of the Constitution, which are limited government, representation, and the separation of powers. These ideas and the truths stated in the Declaration constitute the "just and holy principles" upon which The Lord stated he had founded the Constitution (D&C 101:77). Thus, "anything more or less than" these principles "cometh of evil" (D&C 98:7).

Many of the grievances that the colonists had with with King George III were related to the large and overpowering nature of the government that he had placed over them. The Founders understood that the only way that a government could be "of the people, by the people, and for the people," as Lincoln put it, is if that government were limited. If the government becomes too large, it becomes bigger than the people and no longer able to be controlled by the people.

The Founders thought that the way to make sure that government stays limited, was by establishing a government of "enumerated powers." Government, for the Founders, is created by free people who consent to be ruled on condition that the government protect their God-given rights; that being the sole purpose for which “Governments are instituted among Men,” as stated in the Declaration. To accomplish that, the people would authorize the government to do certain things, but sovereignty would remain with the people, along with all other powers not specifically granted by the Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton, one of the authors of the Constitution, originally argued that including a Bill of Rights with the Constitution was not consistent with our form of government (The Federalist Papers, Number 84). He felt that having a list of things that the government cannot do was a moot point; being that a government of enumerated powers means that, if the Constitution does not give the government a specific power, then it does not have that power. For example, if the Constitution does not grant the government power to restrict the freedom of the press, then it cannot restrict the freedom of the press. The retaining of power by the people was the rule; the granting of it, the exception. Hamilton felt that the retention by the people of powers not enumerated was both fundamental and already implicit in the Constitution. The whole point of this key aspect of the Constitution was to ensure that the government sticks to its principle purpose of securing the rights of the people. This great pillar of the Constitution is all but lost in our day.

Progressivism and Limited Government

The gradual erosion of the concepts of limited government and the enumeration of powers began in the late 1800’s with the rise of the Progressive Movement in the United States. The driving force behind this gradual loss stems from a change in the country’s thought as to the purpose of government. As stated above, the Founders believed that government’s primary purpose was to secure the fundamental rights that God had given to free individuals. Progressives, on the other hand, thought that the main purpose of government was to be a problem solver. For them, we are to look to government to fix all of the problems that arise in modern society, problems that are unique to each age in history. The Founders could not have given us a government capable of solving these problems, because they could not have envisioned the things we face. Thus, for progressives, we need to discard the old political ideas and adopt new principles that can meet the challenges of our day. This change in the country’s view of the purpose of government may very well be the single most influential thing that progressivism has brought about in America.

With the purpose of government being to solve problems, progressives felt that it needed to be freed from all restraints that kept it from performing that task effectively. The following quotes from leading progressives demonstrate how they thought about what government should be. The first is from Woodrow Wilson. In an essay comparing socialism with democracy he stated:

 ‘State socialism’ is willing to act through state authority as it is at present organized. It proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view, and that the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile in its universal superintendence alike of individual and of public interests. The thesis of the state socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory.
Applied in a democratic state, such doctrine sounds radical, but not revolutionary. It is only an acceptance of the extremest logical conclusions deducible from democratic principles long ago received as respectable. For it is very clear that, in fundamental theory, socialism and democracy are almost, if not quite, one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none. (Socialism and Democracy, 1887)

Thus, for Wilson, and many other progressives, Socialism and Democracy are “one and the same” in the sense that their should be no limitations placed on government as it benevolently acts in “its universal superintendence alike of individual and public interests.”

The next quote is from Theodore Roosevelt. In his autobiography, he spoke about his view of the role he had as President of the country. He stated:

The most important factor in getting the right spirit in my Administration, next to the insistence upon courage, honesty, and a genuine democracy of desire to serve the plain people, was my insistence upon the theory that the executive power was limited only by specific restrictions and prohibitions appearing in the Constitution or imposed by the Congress under its Constitutional powers. My view was that every executive officer, and above all every executive officer in high position, was a steward of the people bound actively and affirmatively to do all he could for the people, and not to content himself with the negative merit of keeping his talents undamaged in a napkin. I declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for the Nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it. My belief was that it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws. Under this interpretation of executive power I did and caused to be done many things not previously done by the President and the heads of the departments. I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power. In other words, I acted for the public welfare, I acted for the common well-being of all our people, whenever and in whatever manner was necessary, unless prevented by direct constitutional or legislative prohibition...I believed in invoking the National power with absolute freedom for every National need; and I believed that the Constitution should be treated as the greatest document ever devised by the wit of man to aid a people in exercising every power necessary for its own betterment, and not as a straitjacket cunningly fashioned to strangle growth. (The Presidency: Making an Old Party Progressive, in Rough Riders, an Autobiography)

This view of the Presidency became known as “the Stewardship Theory.” It is essentially the exact opposite of the concept of a government of enumerated powers. For T.R. and the progressives, the government having the power to do whatever was needed was the rule; the specific constitutional limits were the exception. This kind of government is know as a government of plenary power, or of general power. It brought back to America the old principle of the Prerogative of the Crown; government being able to do anything it deems necessary, so long as it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Thus, the way the Founders viewed the Constitution was “a straitjacket cunningly fashioned to strangle growth.”

Limited Government Today

Very large numbers of people today, whether Democrat or Republican, inside or outside the government, believe that government's main purpose to be a problem solver, rights are secondary. For progressives today, government is for eradicating the ills of society and the problems of modern life, as history rolls on towards an eventual state of virtual perfection. And if that is government's role, then all limits to it's power should be removed, so as not to hamper its ability to serve the public good. 

In 2009, Representative Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, was at one point taking questions from reporters about the healthcare reform law. During those questions one reporter asked her, "Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact and individual health insurance mandate?" She look at him and, with impatience and derision in her voice, said, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" She then shook her head and took a question from another reporter.

If we, as a nation, do not decide to restore the Founders view of government as being one of enumerated powers, instituted for the express purpose of securing our rights, we risk finding ourselves under a government that will gladly cast those rights aside in the name of the greater good. The choice is ours as a nation, and it depends upon people understanding clearly the options placed before them. Please try to educate those you know on the nature of that choice. I pray that the principles that fostered the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world will be restored in the hearts and minds of its people.