Is “Progressive” the Politically Correct way of saying the “Divine Right of Kings”?
PROLOGUE TO PART 2
This is part two of a three part series. As many of the facts and premises for part two were laid out in part one, it will likely be helpful to read and/or review part one. You can go to Part 1 by clicking here http://goo.gl/ZWoC6C
As a quick refresher, we are evaluating 3 different governance doctrines in manner similar to purchasing a car. These 3 governance doctrines are:
- Divine Right of Kings;
- Consent of the Governed (Natural law);
To the best of his ability, the writer is attempting to frame these analyses in a manner that creates unity and constructive dialogue rather than emotional, political party-centric division. Whether you are a Progressive, an Occupy person, 99%er, a 1%er or a TEA Party person, this article should give you a great foundation to have constructive discussions. Further, the writer is attempting to have you, the reader, use your own powers of observation and reason to reach your own conclusions. This as opposed to managing and manipulating you in the manner of our current major media and the one and only one ruling class pretending to be two major political parties. In this writer’s humble opinion, the road to take back our country, restore the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, begins here.
We have already discussed and evaluated the governance doctrines of the Divine Right of Kings and Consent of the Governed. We have discussed the Populists movement, and pointed out that the conflicting sources indicate it ended during the Spanish-American war or morphed into the Progressive Era/Movement. We have discussed that the Populist Movement’s primary inspiration was the corruption of government and corporations with particular ire at the shenanigans of the “powers that be” involving our country’s money and the valuation of that money. Those shenanigans created hardship for rank and file Americans by enriching the “powers that be” at the expense of the poor and the middle class.
(After the writer finished the first part of this article, another physical source was made available to this writer by the library. It appears as the last item in the list of sources at the end of part 2 of this article. )
With that, let us discuss and evaluate our remaining governance doctrine of Progressivism.
KICKING THE TIRES CONTINUED
Before going farther, this writer reminds the reader that the credible sources are in dispute as to at least two major points:
- Did Populist Movement just fade away or did it morph into Progressivism;
- Whether there was a Progressive Movement, a Progressive Era and/or whether there were just various people and/or factions of people acting independently on different social, political, religious and/or economic projects that came to be considered “Progressive”.
As a further aside, this writer advises the reader that sometimes various elements and tenants of Progressivism are at odds with each other. This writer suggests to the reader a more organic feel for Progressivism and a better understanding of its nuances and the thought process they must engage in, may be had by taking the time to read this writer’s referenced physical sources. (Critical Thinking)
Let us begin our evaluation of Progressivism with this simple statement: Progressivism purports to protect labor (factory workers, farmers and small entrepreneurs) from exploitation by, and the corruption of, the trusts, big business and government itself.
Upon first impression, this new improved sporty, German engineered governance doctrine appears to be better than the reliable yet stylish perspective of reality that comes with the Consent of the Governed governance doctrine. Bright, shiny and full of vigor, vitality and new improvements, this 100+ year old governance doctrine of Progressivism certainly appears flashier and more user friendly to the average American than the 300+ year old Consent of the Governed.
But the devil is in the details; as we have learned in our lifetime of vehicle purchases; before we decide to purchase this governance doctrine (which could be used to govern us for eternity) we better kick the tires, check under the hood and read the fine print in its particular social contract.
In keeping with his intent to create unity rather than division, this writer believes that the following 7 points allow the unbiased reader to evaluate Progressivism in a non-partisan manner.
- Progressivism’s Nature of Man Premise and Foundation;
- The Influence of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution on Progressivism;
- The Role and Authority for Government under Progressivism;
- Progressive Education;
- Administrative Governance Vs Progressive Managerial Governance;
- Examples and Results of some early Progressive Legislation.
- PROGRESSIVISM’S NATURE OF MAN PREMISE AND FOUNDATION
Let us start with the foundation of Progressivism. Dewey and Cooley assert the characterization of Natural Man in the Natural State is as a social and altruistic animal. Do you find this to be true?
This, as opposed to John Locke’s Consent of the Governed (Natural Law) premise that individual people are social animals, with tendencies toward “reason and tolerance”, but who can be selfish. Or do you take the position of Hobbes (Divine Right of Kings), who believed man tends to be selfish, may sometimes be altruistic and is not by nature NOT a social animal. Which of these premises as to the Nature of mankind do you believe is most correct?
Again, we are referring to the Nature of Man in the State of Nature; that is, before there were governments. You ponder, “How can you observe the Nature of Man in the Natural State and from those observations, use your reasoning to select which characterization of the Nature of Man is most correct?”
Perhaps somewhere in the world there exist a people living in the Natural State? However, do you have the time and the money to go observe them?
Perhaps we could conceive of the Natural Man in the Natural State to be similar to that of children, before being imprinted with social customs and without intervention of parents and/or other adults? If you put 10 children, 2 to 5 years of age, alone in a room with food but without adult supervision for a few days, would you describe their individual behaviors as being selfish or altruistic? From your observations, which of these 3 governance doctrine foundations is most similar to your understanding of the Nature of Man in the Natural State?
Don’t like that analogy? Try to visualize prehistoric man? Did the individual prehistoric man leave his things of value lying about, or did he hide them and/or keep them on or near his person at all times? Was it fear of repercussions or altruism that prehistoric man depended upon to cause others to not steal from him? If prehistoric man had the invention of locks, would he have used them? From your observations, which of these 3 governance doctrine foundations is most similar to your understanding of the Nature of Man in the Natural State?
Or, is the behavior the natives exhibited towards Columbus when Columbus first landed in the Caribbean islands of the new world, a better analogy? In the warm tropics, the natives greeted Columbus in awe, as a God. Living in this lush environment, initially the natives freely traded away their possessions, even gold. Was this behavior altruistic? Was the behavior of the natives “worshipping a God”, “best behavior in front of company” or example of their nature to be altruistic? As environment necessarily affects behavior, Does their lush tropical, environment represent the environment of the majority of the world, or a small fraction of the world. In most places of the world, can you walk around naked year round? Can you pick fruit in the wild and net fish year round? Can we accept the natural behavior of the natives greeting Columbus as being representative of the nature of man throughout the world? Was the population small enough, so there was virtually 100% transparency and accountability for the individual’s behavior? What was the nature of the Mayans, Aztecs and the Inca’s a short distance away? Would the year 950BC be sufficiently ancient to accept the actions of men at that time as being representative of the nature of man in the natural state? If so, would the rape of the Sabine women by the Romans be considered selfish or altruistic? From your observations, which of these 3 governance doctrine foundations is most similar to your understanding of the Nature of Man in the Natural State?
Don’ like that analogy? Locke stated in Natural Law that Kings/Queens were in their Natural State when interacting with Kings/Queens of other Nations? From history, were the interactions between Kings/Queens of other Nations primarily selfish and/or altruistic? Were most treaties and alliances periods of cooperation representing long term expressions of true altruism? Or were they just non-aggression pacts based on parity of power intended to wait for and/or prepare an opportunity to press selfish advantage? And/or were these treaties and alliances based on weakness/uncertainty and used to “buy time” to recover and wait for and/or create opportunity to press selfish advantage? From your observations, which of these 3 governance doctrines’ characterizations of the Nature of Man is most similar to your understanding of the Nature of Man in the Natural State?
Carrying that line of thought a little farther; “Do our elected Federal and State Officials approach the Natural State as Kings/Queens do?” If so, what observations of their nature can we make? For instance, “Do Democrats and Republicans act selfish or altruistically towards each other?” Do elected officials risk not getting elected and tell the truth, even when the truth will likely result in their not being elected or re-elected? Faced with a financial crisis, do our elected officials vote to make budget cuts now (altruism) or vote to pass the deficit on to future generations (selfishness) for their own personal gain? When faced with increased campaign contributions for voting in the best interests of a contributor rather than the best interests of rank and file Americans, will elected officials vote for their personal gain (selfish) or for the best interests of rank and file Americans (altruism)? From your observations, which of these 3 governance doctrine foundations is most similar to your understanding of the Nature of Man in the Natural State?
Don’t like that analogy? Per Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Population Genetics, the offspring of the most successful mating strategy will be disproportionately represented by the next generation. Since, over generations, the population will evolve towards individuals with the most successful mating strategy, perhaps identifying the nature of the mating ritual will provide insight into the nature of mankind. Men, when you seek female company (at a bar for instance), in competing for a woman is your attitude toward the vast majority of the other men selfish or altruistic? Women, especially those of you who came of age during the sexual revolution of the 1960s & 1970s, would you characterize the motivations of the vast majority of men who pursued you as selfish or altruistic? In the Natural State, which reproductive strategy for men is likely to be more successful (likely to result in more offspring); sex with multiple women or monogamous sex with one woman? From your observations, would you characterize these behaviors of men as being selfish or altruistic? From your observations, which of these 3 governance doctrine foundations is most similar to your understanding of the Nature of Man in the Natural State?
Don’t like that analogy? Were most pre-government societies dominated by men or women? In those societies were women and women equals? Did this occur because one sex agreed to be subordinate to the other? Or because one sex was physically stronger in being able to assert their own will and interests? In ancient tribes, was the motivation to become leader based more on personal self interest or the good of the tribe? In ancient societies, were most leaders selected by assent of the community, or the ability of the leader to physically impose his own selfish will? In the natural state did people ever enslave or subjugate other people? If you believe this to be a legitimate analogy, upon answering those questions, “Was the nature of these individuals, selfish or altruistic?”
For those with the time and inclination, perhaps a read of The Selfish Gene by Dawkins, and/or the study of Population Genetics, would be helpful in assessing your belief in the Nature of Man in the Natural State.
Whatever your manner of deducing your belief in the nature of man in the natural state, should that not be your guide in determining the legitimacy and/or authority of any governance doctrine? Using whatever method you deem produces the truth regarding the Nature of Man in their Natural State, do you agree or disagree with the Progressive foundational premise that mankind by nature is an altruistic, social animal. (Being careful to avoid unscientific, romanticized and/or “less humankind embarrassing” assessments) Before reading further, please form your own opinion. Yes, no, mostly yes, or mostly no?
From your observations, which of the 3 governance doctrine foundations we are assessing is most similar to your understanding of the Nature of Man in the Natural State?
To this writer’s mind, this is a non-political point of evaluation of any governance doctrine. Your perception of the nature of man is a foundation of determining your perception of reality. The decisions you make every day (behavior) are based upon your belief as to the nature of the majority of other people in your society. In a rational thought process, your choice of view of politics will be a reflection of your core beliefs, (such as the nature of mankind); as opposed to your political beliefs being the basis for your core beliefs (such as the nature of mankind). You Core beliefs are your established truths, your perception of reality. Do you establish truth for yourself, or do you let others, such as political parties, establish truth for you?
If the Foundation of Progressivism is that mankind is an animal that is social and altruistic in its natural state, and that does not reflect your perspective of reality, there is no need to consider Progressivism further; is there? If the foundation is bad, everything that is built upon it is unsound. Do you find that to be a correct reasoning process?
We continue the evaluation of this Progressive governance doctrine, which upon first impression appears to be “bright, shiny and full of vigor, vitality and new improvements”, for those who find the Nature of Man in the Natural State is one of altruism.
This writer will only mention religion for the purpose of acknowledging its role in Populism and Progressivism. It is clear that religious fervor was a driving factor in Populism and in the initial stages of Progressivism. However, many of the main personalities, and some of the persons who cultivated the thought process of Progressivism, tempered and/or renounced their religion later in the movement and/or their lives.
Further, much of the early thought process of Progressivism was intertwined with religion whereas, as the Progressive thought process matured, religion seems to have fallen into disfavor and in some cases, was abandoned or denounced.
But this writer will leave it to the reader to study the role of religion in Progressivism themselves as this writer chooses not to interfere with, nor influence, any individuals religion related perspectives of reality.
This writer leaves it to those who choose to write in opposition to his statement of facts and conclusions, to include and/or exclude religion as they find necessary to refute this writer’s positions.
- PROGRESSIVISM AND THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
There are two aspects of Progressivism related to Darwin’s Theory of evolution. One builds upon the premise of the nature of man being altruistic. The other seems to contradict the premise that mankind is altruistic, but still forms part of the foundation of Progressivism. Progressivism appears to share this latter aspect with Populism.
Evolution of Society
The first aspect relates to the Evolution of Society:
Progressivism asserts that individuals do not evolve alone. Society evolves through the cooperation of individuals, and individuals evolve as a result of the evolution of society. According to Veblen: “Natural man was part of an interdependent group, he was not an isolated individual”. Further, according to Cooley, “ethical behavior must contribute to the welfare of the group”. Ergo, in the Progressive interpretation and extrapolation of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Societies and mankind’s governments and governance doctrines must evolve in the face of changes in the environment and technology. Further, that the individual’s evolution is dependent on society’s evolution.
Donnelly warned that, “America….was engaging in the unforgivable sin of social creativity…” In that same vein of thought, Veblen said; “This was the fatal flaw of man – imagination…. the factory, now however was providing the discipline…. Imagination was brought under control and repressed”. Dewey said; “Through the use of imagination, mankind had moved away from the spontaneous community of the tribe to create complex and artificial institutions in which people no longer lived in cooperation but in competition, no longer in classless solidarity but in class divisions”. According to these three Progressives, mankind’s imagination led to the construction of artificial institutions and traditions that imprisoned mankind and thwarted his productivity.
Beard argued that all the problems of mankind had resulted from increasing cultural complexity. Therefore, Beard defined PROGRESS as mankind’s escape from cultural complexity to natural simplicity. In other words, society and its government must evolve back towards natural simplicity of the individual. This is where Beard literally prescribes a rewrite of history. Beard is not talking about natural simplicity as Locke described it, Beard is talking about natural simplicity as Progressives described it; that is that it is the nature of individuals to subvert their personal self-interests and cooperate and live in harmony for the greater good of the community.
According to Beard, Jefferson and the framers of the US Constitution “were not champions of innocence but only another group of parasitical aristocrats”. (Page 35, The Progressive Mind) According to Beard and the Progressives, though Locke and the US Founder’s theory of personal property ownership rights temporarily relieved mankind of the artificial institutions of medieval Europe, the industrial revolution made the concept of private property ownership obsolete. (Beard argues further that property ownership did not occur in societies in the Natural State. Apparently Beard is saying, for example, that early tribal American Indian men would not have considered their bow and arrows, spears, knives nor teepees their own) Alternatively, other Progressives argue that the Founders imported the artificial institutions of the old world to new world, and there never was a real break from the old European artificial, parasitical institutions, merely a new aristocracy that profited from them.
The current evolution of society that Progressives advocate now is the replacement of Natural Law, Consent of the Governed, our Constitution and Bill of Rights with their Progressive governance doctrine. Progressivism advocates rejection of an individual’s Natural Rights in favor of the subverting of needs, wants, desires and rights of the individual to those of the Community: The rejection of individualism, competition and property rights in favor of cooperation in the best interests of the community. (Best interests as determined by a group of Leisure Class Educated Elites.) Progressives believe this is the true nature of the individual - altruism, but that the vast majority of individuals that comprise mankind have forgotten this altruism is their true nature.
For now, the writer asks you to ponder: Which perception of reality do you prefer? That of John Lock under Natural Law and Consent of the Governed? Or, that of the Progressives and the Progressive governance doctrine?”
And the writer further asks you to ponder, “Since Progressivism is built upon the premise of the nature of man being altruistic, will the true nature of man (as you have determined) permit Progressivism to work?”
Racial Superiority of White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants
The second aspect of Progressivism relating to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution involves Eugenics, Scientific Racism and Second Class Citizenship.
According to Progressive Thomas Dixon; “Only the Anglo-Saxons had the racial strength to be Protestants and to commit themselves to the spiritual value of the free individual”.
Populists and Progressives believed that the White Anglo Saxon Protestant male represented the ideal of mankind. It was the White Anglo Saxon Protestant male that discovered the artificial, parasitic nature of the European Monarchies/Aristocracy and the Roman Catholic Church (Protestant Reformation 1378). It was the White Anglo Saxon Protestant male that left Europe to settle America. It was the work ethic of the White Anglo Saxon Protestant male that had turned the almost virgin resources of America into a powerful, self sufficient country.
To the White Anglo Saxon Protestants in the South, the long shadow of Appomattox (1865) seemed to threaten the American Race. They were concerned that the newly freed slaves, being inferior to the White Anglo-Saxon, would dilute the strength of America and hinder or regress the evolution of the American Race.
But the White Anglo Saxon Protestants in the North were more concerned with other races and creeds; in particular, Jews and Catholics. A great wave of immigration was flooding America with great numbers of Jews and Catholics, who not being as genetically and morally superior as White Anglo Saxon Protestants, could also dilute the strength of America and hinder or regress the evolution of the American race.
The Populists vacillated on what should be done about these inferior races. Some, more enlightened Populist folks, held the position and demanded that former slaves and/or the Jews and/or the Roman Catholics have equal rights and considerations as White Anglo Saxon Protestants. Others advocated for Second Class Citizenship, segregation, voting disenfranchisement, deportation to their homelands and/or Eugenics. In the end, it appears the Populists were so divided on racial issues, that as a movement, there was no coherent policy and/or course of action they could muster on the policy of race. Instead, the major political parties of the time determined the policy towards those who were not White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. And then, before the Populist could win enough unilateral political power, the Populists Movement either faded away, was usurped/co-opted by the major political parties of the day, and/or morphed into the Progressive Movement.
The Progressives in the South had no such divisions and/or quandaries. In the South, Progressives would advocate for segregation, voter disenfranchisement, Segregation and Jim Crow Laws. Black people where stereotyped in two personas, the devil or Sambo. Sambo being characterized as the innocent but mischievous child lacking the ability of higher intellect and Devil meaning a lazy, ignorant, anti-social, violent, unlawful, sexual predator(of white women) .
People in the South painted a false history of chaos and violence caused by the black “devils” after the civil war. The propaganda crusade against the Negro stereotyped as the devil creating chaos and violence did not begin until sometime in the 1890s. Progressive Historians ran with it. They cited this as the basis for white hatred of blacks in the South.
The fact of the matter was that the Negro from 1865 to 1890 surprised the white folks. They were industrious and worked educate themselves and to improve their lot in life. If one insists on selecting one of the two Southern Stereotypes of the black race, They were closer in approximation of the Sambo stereotype, and even that stereotype was predicated on deliberate policies of the whites in power to keep blacks in that childlike state.
In the North, Progressives made Jews and Roman Catholics second class citizens, often segregating them in their own communities. But in the North, eventually, the bounds of the community were enlarged to include new Jewish and Catholic immigrants.
It was during the years of Progressivism, therefore, that the foundation for the recent sectional conflict between North and South was established. Most of the South remained loyal to the old nineteenth century identity, while much of the North was moving toward a new identity which enlarged the boundaries of the community to include the machine and the new Jewish and Catholic immigrants. But the South, in order to feel successful in preserving the older identity, had to sacrifice the Negro as a scapegoat and symbolically destroy the Negro status of second class citizenship. It narrowed its definition of community even as the North was expanding its definition
(Page 116, The Progressive Era)
It appears that black folks were the casualty of the goals of Progressives and political parties. With the paramount goal of Progressives and the political parties being to obtain and/or maintain power, Progressives and the two political parties played to the preferences of “those who could vote” in their respective bids to get elected and/or reelected to gain or maintain power.
The origins of Populism and Progressivism call for the protection of White Anglo Saxon Protestant ideals from dilution by immigrants and/inferior races. Progressives called for this to occur through segregation, disenfranchisement and/or second class citizenship for Blacks, Jews and Catholics. Further, these programs were to be supplemented with Scientific Racism otherwise known as Eugenics. In the North, the community was expanded to include Jews and Catholics.
That having been said, it is up to the individual reader to determine whether Progressivism’s origins in Eugenics, Scientific Racism and/or Second Class Citizenship conform to their own perspective of reality. And, further, whether these perspectives are reflected in the beliefs and policies of Progressives today. For now, this writer will comment no further.
- THE ROLE AND AUTHORITY FOR GOVERNMENT UNDER PROGRESSIVISM
According to the Progressive governance doctrine, the role of government is to manage the best interests of the community. That is its authority (as opposed to protecting the Natural Rights of the Individual and to promote the general good under Consent of the Governed).
Progressive Rauschenbusch’s contribution to the role of Progressive government is as follows: “Evil exists only because it has not been recognized. Once it has been recognized it can be easily be removed. Now that individualism, competition and capitalism have been exposed as parasitic, alien and artificial, they can easily be removed from society”.
The Progressive theory goes that certain Educated Elites with the leisure time to study the processes of government should manage government and the economy, as they have had the time and the intellect to know what is best for the community. Is this the manner in which ancient societies selected their “elders” for governance?
According to the disciples of Winslow Taylor, Progressives wanted “the hope of ending irrationality in politics by replacing the professional politicians with scientific and objective bureaucrats”. Further, according to Taylor, “factories must be run by scientifically trained engineers and not irrational businessmen.” These scientifically trained bureaucrats and engineers being comprised of the Leisure class with time to study the processes of government. These are the Leisure Class Educated Elites of the Progressive Movement who Progressives would have lead our society.
According to Progressive Beard, “the very essence of government, according to the Democratic ideal, is cooperation or union of effort for the common good.” The role of government is to determine what “the common good for the community” is and implement the means of achieving the common good. Progressivism seeks to move society from cultural complexity to natural simplicity. But a Natural simplicity as now defined and eternally redefined by the Educated Elite of the Leisure Class. According to Progressives, machines, factories and technology do not increase the complexity of the world; instead they allow for simplicity and a return of the individual to their true natural state of simplicity, altruism and cooperation.
So essentially, the role of Government is evolution of Society and to oversee that evolution for the best interests of the community as determined by the Educated Elites; The natural course of that evolution being to reduce the complexity of the world for the individual and allow the individual to return there natural state of simplicity, altruism and cooperation. Rank and file individuals could return to being simple, altruistic and cooperative while the Educated Elites would do the “complex” thinking. Ergo, People of the Leisure Class, having free time to educate themselves, shall establish truth.
In Summary, our government would be run by the Leisure Class Educated Elite based on their qualifications of being better educated. Based on the Educated Elites determination of what is best for the community, Society and the Individual would be managed to evolve accordingly.
For now, the writer asks the reader to contemplate: “
- Does the selection of the Educated Elite from the Leisure Class reflect the selection process of leaders (elders) in ancient societies?”
- If Progressivism seeks to restore mankind to the simplicity of the Natural State, should not its leadership be selected in the same or similar manner as the leadership of ancient tribes?
- Does Progressivism’s assertion that the Educated Elite of the Leisure Class are better able to govern because of their superior intellect sound similar to the Divine Right of King’s assertion that the King/Queen is unquestionably better qualified to govern as their decisions were allegedly divinely inspired and directed?
- PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION
To minimize the chance of this writer misrepresenting the nature of Progressive Education, let’s give the floor to Progressive Dewey:
Dewey gained special fame through his philosophy of progressive education in which he defined the progressive school as an auxiliary frontier force that would free the child from the falsehood of establishment traditions and institutions and help the child reestablish the strengths of his fruitful and cooperative instincts…
…Educational reform was, nevertheless, for Dewey a religious crusade to destroy the profane institutions and traditions which for so long and separated mankind from the reality of its true identity as cooperative producer by teaching the heresy of the individual, selfishness and competition. “I believe”, Dewey proclaimed, that the only true education proceeds by the participation of the individual in the social consciousness of the race. “I believe”, he continued, “that the only true education comes through the stimulation of the child’s powers by the demands of the social situation in which he finds himself. Through these demands he is stimulated to act as a member of a unity, to conceive of himself from the standpoint of the welfare of the group to which he belongs. I believe that he school should simply existing social life; should reduce it… to an embryonic form. And finally Dewey declared, “I believe that every teacher would realize…. That he is an social servant set apart for the maintenance of proper social order and the securing of the right social growth.
In simple summary, the Educated Elite establish what the truth is and then “educate” rank and file individuals with that truth.
Progressives believe the masses to be too ignorant to know what is good for them. Progressives believe this ignorance of the masses is due, in large part, to the minds of the masses having been contaminated with knowledge and experience of artificial, parasitic traditions and institutions. According to Progressivism these artificial, parasitic institutions and traditions include Individualism, Competition, Free Market Economies and Capitalism. (These are not the writer’s judgments; these are simply statements of the factual beliefs of Progressives.
Under Progressivism, there are various methods for freeing the child from establishment traditions and institutions. According to “education” under Progressivism, mankind can be educated, conditioned, trained, forced, punished, rewarded, and/or cowered to give up the artificial institutions of individualism, competition, free markets and capitalism.
Not keeping scores of children’s games and Pass/Fail grades are examples of the influences of Progressive Education. Competition is bad. Scores and Letter grades encourage competition and, therefore according to Progressive Education theory, are bad. Remember that conditioning this writer told you to remember near the beginning of Part one of this two part series. This is an example of that conditioning. (We will elaborate on that in our conclusion.)
Further, since the masses don’t know what’s best for them and the Educated Elite do, the Educated Elite are authorized to use these various methods to get the masses to do what Educated Elite want the masses to do. Again, this because the Leisure Class Educated Elite “know” what is best for society and the masses don’t. This means, besides education, punishment, reward and conditioning previously mentioned, the Leisure Class Educated Elite can lie to and deceive the masses (you) because the masses(you) are either 1) too ignorant to know what is best for them (you); and/or 2) the masses (your) thought processes are contaminated with the old, wrong evil ways of thinking. (The end justifies the means.)
In case you believe the writer has described the methods and means of Progressive Education incorrectly and/or too harshly, in a couple of paragraphs this writer will provide you with some links to videos of and about Progressive Edward Bernays.
Edward Bernays was an advisor to Progressive President Woodrow Wilson. Edward Bernays was the nephew of the Father of Psychology, Sigmund Freud.
Though Bernays wrote a book named Propaganda, he called his Propaganda group with President Wilson the “Committee for Public Information”. Though Progressive President Woodrow Wilson won re-election on a campaign pledging continued Isolationism, President Wilson hired Bernays to convince rank and file America that the US should enter WWI. (Bernays was invited by President Wilson to attend the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, after the end of WWI)
With that background, this writer will let the words of Edward Bernays and the content of the videos speak for themselves. (The actual video titles are omitted as being too prejudicial) Listen now to Edward Bernays’ own words and hear various explanations of his thought processes:
Edward Bernays Video 1 http://goo.gl/kdBz9q
Edward Bernays Video 2 http://goo.gl/Tg3WK6
Edward Bernays Video 3 http://goo.gl/MNrqJR
Edward Bernays Video 4 http://goo.gl/4edCDa
Edward Bernays Video 5 http://goo.gl/equrIj
Edward Bernays Video 6 http://goo.gl/MZxxNV
Having listened to these videos, you have learned about the methods of Progressive Edward Bernays. These methods are amongst the methods Progressives use, have used and will use on you, your children and the masses. These methods have and will be used on you, your children and the masses to cause/force/cajole all rank and file governed individuals to give up what Progressives assert to be your old, wrong, evil ways of individualism, competition, property ownership and capitalism. Have you formulated your opinion of this Progressive style of “education” yet?
Where do the Educated Elites come from?
The next question is, “Where do the Educated Elites come from?” There are only two ways new Progressive Educated Elites can be raised and educated to replace their mortal Progressive Educated Elite predecessors; Amongst and identical to rank and file masses or separate and apart from rank and file masses. In REALITY, Which way do you think is more likely?
Does the next generation of Leisure Class Educated Elites attend the same education facilities as the masses? Or do they come from private schools and institutions of higher learning, for example, Harvard and Stanford? If the Educated Elites are educated at different educational institutions than rank and file Americans are, won’t that lead to a society based on class? Isn’t the presence of a class system a criticism of Medieval Europe by Progressives? Is not class distinction an artificial evil identified by the Progressives themselves? At the same time, if the Educated Elite are raised and educated separately, then how will the Educated Elite know what is best for the masses?
If Educated Elites are selected from a homogenously educated group, won’t that lead to the evil of competition for those positions? As competition is amongst the artificial institutions Progressives seek to “educate” out of mankind, would not this arrangement antithetical to the goals of Progressivism? On the other hand, if society is to evolve, if the next generation of Educated Elites only learn from the last generation of Educated Elites “the right, proper and correct way to think”, exactly as the rank and file do, where does new thought come from? How does society evolve?
Next, to get away from that evil competition (sort of) the Educated Elites will have be pre-selected and educated separately. Who decides, and how is it decided, which persons get selected to be next generation of Educated Elites to be raised separate and apart from rank and file Americans. According to Progressivism, only the Leisure Class has the money and the leisure time necessary for the advanced studies on governance. That would suggest that instead of selection of the Educated Elites to be by competition, the selection would be from among the moneyed, leisure class. In other words, by the very class and tradition Progressives purport is a portion of the cause of America’s current problems. (This is one of those internal conflicts of Progressivism this writer pointed out earlier)
Does it seem to you that Educated Elite selection occurs in the same or similar manner and tradition as Medieval Kings/Queens and aristocrats under the governance doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings? That is to say, by class and tradition?
The writer calls upon the reader to decide which will more likely occur based on their own life experiences. Will the Educated Elite be selected by competition which is antithetical to Progressivism or will the Educated Elite be selected from amongst the Children of the Wealthy Leisure Class (raised and educated separately from rank and file Americans)?
Consistent with his expressed intent for his readers to reach their own conclusions, at this point the writer leaves it to the reader to discern for themselves their own opinions with regard to intent and outcomes of Progressive Education.
- ADMINISTRATIVE GOVERNANCE VS PROGRESSIVE MANAGERIAL GOVERNANCE
Progressives speak of Administrative and Managerial Methods. Though these methods are also used in industry, we will concern ourselves with their use in governance doctrine and government. (Though recent moves to implement managerial governance more vigorously have labeled Administrative governance as Progressive, reference to debates about, and the implementation of, administrative and managerial methods (in both business and government) are amply documented in the writings of Progressives from 1890 to 1920, and in books on the history of that era published from 1960 to 2009. The Federal Reserve Bank (1913) is an example of a government agency predicated on Progressive Managerial Method.)
Administrative government (also called Traditional) is government whereby the laws are enacted by designated government body. (In America, pursuant to the Constitution, this usually occurs via the democratic process by the governed people’s elected representatives – for example, Congress.) The Role of the Executive Branch is to implement and enforce those laws but also within the constraints of all the enacted laws. Policy is set at the top, within the confines of the enacted laws, and carried out by a series of lower level offices. Each lower level must operate within the parameters determined by its superior level. Each lower level reports and is accountable to at least one superior person. (Bureaucracy) And the role of the judiciary is to interpret and, as relevant, exact punishment for violations of those laws.
According to Max Weber:
“To take a stand, to be passionate . . . is the politician’s element . . . indeed, exactly the
opposite, principle of responsible from that of the civil servant. The honor of the civil
servant is vested in his ability to execute conscientiously the order of the superior
authorities. . . .Without this moral discipline and self-denial, in the highest sense, the
whole apparatus would fall to pieces.”
The Administrative Method of government tends to be much more transparent than the Managerial Method of Government. Further, the more the severe the violation of the law and/or the degree the interpretation of it disputed, the more likely it will be exposed to the light of day for all the public to see. The Administrative Method of government also tends to be much more rigid than the managerial method of government.
In Administrative Method Government, more severe violations and conflicts of interpretations will more likely be solved in a prescribed, formal manner. This prescribed formal manner being the Courts, with all the Rules and formalities prescribed pursuant to the Rule of Law.
In the process, the evidence and resolution of the violations and conflicts of interpretation of the law are usually a matter of public record. Further, when adhered to, the Rule of Law prescribes impartiality of both Judge and Jury. Private Communications to the Judge and Jury, outside the Rule of Law are prohibited. Interfering with and/or acting in a manner not consistent with the Rule of Law is usually illegal (Obstruction of Justice) Lastly, a judge and/or jury can choose to punish a violator of the law with both fines and/or imprisonment. In short, during peacetime, only Courts can order/permit the imprisonment of a person as punishment for criminal violations of the law and/or other imprisonable offenses.
Administrative governance enhances accountability while arguably reducing efficiency.
The rational for the Progressive Managerial method of Governance is that the Top Down accountability of the Administrative method of governance makes government inefficient and too slow to react to change. (In its latest iteration, Progressive Managerial Method is known as “New Public Management”.) The result is inefficiency.
Progressive Managerial Governance allows a great blurring of the lines between the three branches of US government, between the politics of making and interpreting the law and the administration of those laws.
Progressive Managerial Governance argues that Traditional Administrative governance does not allow the civil servants closest to the delivery of the services to react quickly enough to change. Therefore Progressive Managerial Governance embraces decentralized administration, delegation of discretion, contracting for goods and services, and the use of free market competition and customer service to improve performance.
Rather than achieve accountability through traditional measures by accounting for measurable and tangible input resources, Progressive Managerial governance seeks to achieve accountability through measurement of less measurable and less tangible outcomes. (Quantitative vs. Qualitative analysis)
Monitoring outcome measurements (performance) will take the place of Administrative Method’s tighter Top Down accountability controls through rules, regulations and input resource analysis.
Outcome means the degree of changes in society that are intended by government programs. (E.g. literacy, defense, efficient transportation, public health, justice, creating a properly skilled labor pool, etc) Though these outcomes are very difficult to measure and attribute to any one government program, Progressive Managerial Governance seeks to reject accounting for input resources and instead use outcome performance measures to evaluate government programs and management. In other words, Progressivism seeks to replace more concrete quantitative accountability with more abstract qualitative accountability)
Under Progressive Managerial Governance, the accomplishment of the goals is more important than accountability for the input resources. Further, the Progressive Managerial method asserts creative managers should be given maximum flexibility and decision making ability to achieve government’s goals.
Now, remembering that the goal of Progressive Governance is “to manage the best interests of the community” and the goal of Progressive Education is to “destroy the profane institutions and traditions which for so long and separated mankind from the reality of its true identity as cooperative producer by teaching the heresy of the individual, selfishness and competition”, do you think government managers will use their flexibility under Progressive Managerial method to achieve these outcomes?
Returning to the position that since managers will be held accountable for their performance (as measured by outcome), and therefore, they must be given the flexibility to use their educated judgment to make decisions, what are your opinions of the following statements?
- As much of the manager’s thought process will occur in their head, Progressive Managerial governance will be less transparent and less formal than the Administrative governance method.
- By consequence and/or design, Progressive Managerial governance will be less accountable than Administrative governance.
Next, in regards to executive bureaucracies usurping the powers of the judiciary, doesn’t Progressive Managerial Governance bypass the intent of the Constitution in creating three branches of Government? What are your thoughts?
In summary, the writer poses to the reader these 5 questions with regard to Administrative vs. Managerial styles of governance are as follows:
- Do you think our government needs more or less transparency and accountability?
- Does your own assessment as to the nature of man call for more or less transparency and accountability of government?
- How does/will the ideal of Progressive Managerial governance function in the real world?
- Do you foresee any problems and abuses of Progressive Managerial governance?
- Since Progressives grant themselves permission to lie to we, the ignorant masses, do the professed reasons for managerial progressivism have underlying ulterior motives and consequences?
- EXAMPLES OF SOME EARLY PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION
The assessments of these two Progressive Government Programs should be a non-partisan exercise, whether you are a Progressive, an Occupy person, 99%er, a 1%er or a TEA Party person. The facts are the facts. The outcomes are the outcomes. Your personal judgment of the facts and outcomes should be a matter of your personal perspective of reality and not a matter of political party loyalty.
Federal Reserve Bank System
The current Federal Reserve Bank System is an example of Progressive Legislation. It was enacted in 1913. It was created to be administered under the Progressive Managerial method of governance.
A major complaint of the masses from 1890 to 1913 was the dishonest manipulation of the Country’s money and the valuation of that money. At that time, US money was back by Gold. Some wanted our money to be additionally and/or alternatively to be backed by Silver.
The masses were angered at the unfairness of a portion of the value produced by labor being “stolen” by the manipulations of the country’s money supply and the valuation of that money. These unfair and unjust machinations further angered the masses because they made the economy and markets fluctuate wildly. And again, the trusts, big business and the wealthy used these fluctuations to take a disproportionate amount of the value produced by the labor of the masses.
The Federal Reserve Bank was set up as a private bank, with its head appointed by the President. Its purpose was to stabilize the money supply, the valuation of the dollar, and minimize wild fluctuations in the economy. It was to be managed with the best Educated Elites.
Now, using outcome as the measure of accountability, pursuant to Progressive Managerial method, how has the Federal Reserve System done in its 100 years of existence.
- 1918 Post World War I Recession
- 1920 Depression
- 1929 – 1939 Stock Market Crash
- 1930s Great Depression
- 1930s Collapse of Banking
- 1930s Off the Gold Standard Domestically
- 1972 Off the Gold Standard Internationally
- 1970s Stagflation – Interest rates approach 20%
- 1981 Recession
- 2008 Bank failures
- 2008 $800B Bank Bailouts by the Taxpayer
- 2008 Stock Market Crash
- 2008 Real Estate Market Crash
- 2008 - Present 2nd Great Depression
- 96% Devaluation of the US Dollar over last 100 years ($100 now can only by $4 of what it could in 1913). Inflation using the Governments CPO would be 2260% or 22.6% per year. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com
- Since 1964, the average laborer has lost 64% of their purchasing power (using a Truer CPI value).
Other Qualitative Outcomes
- Government Debt to the Private Federal Reserve Bank that can never be paid off
- Great Decline of US Power and Prestige Internationally
So if we are to measure the success or failure of the Federal Reserve Bank based on outcome, reader, what is your assessment? Pass or fail? Or, in violation of Progressive Principles, A, B?, C?, D? or F?
Perhaps we should use the Administrative Method of Accountability; can’t we look to how efficiently the Federal Reserve Bank has used their input resources to produce that result?
No, we cannot. The privately owned Federal Reserve Bank System refuses to be audited. And, our Congress won’t order their audit.
The Progressive Educated Elites purposely set up a private bank to manage our country’s money with no provision for traditional administrative accountability through WE THE PEOPLE's auditing of their books.
For now, this writer leaves it to you to establish your opinion of the Progressive Federal Reserve Banking System using your own observations and reasoning to reach your own conclusion.
Social Security was designed to redistribute income from those with higher lifetime earnings to those with lower lifetime earnings.
How Progressive is Social Security? http://goo.gl/bNiVFC
To cause the governed to provide for their own old age economic security, the Progressives implemented Social Security. (The Progressive Presidents – John Morton Blum) The government takes about 7.5% of the money a laborer earns and forces their employer to match it, for a total of roughly 15%. (But only the first $113,700 of wages in 2013 http://ssa.gov/planners/maxtax.htm)
However, the Progressive Educated Elites that drafted and implemented it were short-sighted. They presumed the labor supply and therefore the value created by labor would always be expanding. The short-sightedness of these Progressive Educated Elites either caused them, or allowed them to permit, the revenues they created to be put in the government’s general fund and spent; as opposed to being put in a special fund for the future liability.
With the Post-War Baby Boom generation retiring at far faster rates than new persons are coming of age to enter the labor market, Social Security is facing bankruptcy.
So if we are to measure the success or failure of the Social Security Program based on outcome, what is your assessment? Pass or fail? Or, in violation of Progressive Principles, A?, B?, C?, D? or F?
Which better foundational premise of the nature of man best explains these outcomes of the Federal Reserve Bank and Social Security? The individual human is by nature selfish? Or the individual human is by nature is altruistic?
Whether you are a Progressive, an Occupy person, 99%er, a 1%er or a TEA Party person, this writer hopes that you found part 2 of this 3 part article a honest, non-partisan, thought provoking discussion of Progressive governance doctrine.
In part 3, this writer will present his conclusions.
Part 3 will appear shortly, with a projected target of The Weekend of September 24th, 2013.
Here is the link to Part 3
Those were my thoughts.http://goo.gl/1hWLYN 9/17/2013
Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.
If what is written here rings true to you, perhaps another helpful exercise would be to ponder why you have not heard about this in your local paper or in the major media. [You may find articles about issues from this writer's local area posted in your area and wonder why. The reason is this: Remember those travel junkets taxpayers pay for (the ones the bureaucrats skip to go to the beach or the casino) but allegedly used for training? Well some government apparatchiks actually attend those training seminars. And learn nationally en-mass techniques to "manage" WE THE PEOPLE. Since they all receive similar training in oppression, it is likely the problems you are experiencing with government in your area are similar to the problems in your area (unless you live outside the USA). With that commonality in mind, it is this writer's intent that insight garnered from this writer articles about his local issues can be used by the reader to understand and applied to their local issues.]
Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [Last Paragraph, Declaration of Independence http://bit.ly/ruPE7z ]
This article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine http://ushistory.org/paine. I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense” http://amzn.to/kbRuar
Keep Fighting the Good Fight!
The Conundrum: While our #Government works full time with compensation and funded with our money for the cause of #Tyranny; WE THE PEOPLE are forced to work part time without compensation for the cause of #liberty with what is left over of our time, money and energy,
Bring Home the Politicians #BHTP
Lawless America #LawlessAmerica
Term Limits #TermLimit
Justice in Minnesota #JIM
Critical Thinking Notice - This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking (http://bit.ly/ubI6ve) in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear. Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author... unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective
The Progressive Mind 1890-1917 David W. Noble (1981)
America Enters the World – A People’s History of the Progressive Era and World War I – Page Smith (1985)
The Annals of America 1895-1904 Volume 12 Populism, Imperialism and Reform Britannica (1965)
The Annals of America 1905-1915 Volume 13 The Progressive Era Britannica 1965
Rebirth of a Nation – The Making of a Nation 1877 – 1920 Jackson Lears 2009
The Selfish Gene – Richard Dawkins 1976
A People’s History of the United States 1492 to Present – Howard Zinn 1980, 2003
Special thanks to Monticello and Elk River Minnesota Public Libraries
And many internet and/or other sources too fluid and/or non-credible to cite as references