Essential concepts II--progressives and 'mob rule'

October 28, 1:52 PMColumbia Conservative ExaminerAnthony G. Martin

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Columbia Conservative Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

In yesterday's column we took a look at the vast difference between a republic and a democracy, and we concluded that democracy is actually a very dangerous form of government resulting in 'mob rule' which is then used by 'progressives' to negate the rights protected in the Constitution and expand the role of government in our daily lives.

A very simple way to understand this difference is that democracy = 'majority rule' = 'mob rule' which then necessitates government stepping in to seize more power in order to bring order into the chaos.

On the other hand, a republic is the rule of law as delineated in a constitution that places limits on the powers of government, protects the rights of the people, and prevents the 'majority' from running roughshod over the rights and liberties of the minority.

It is clear, then, that we live in a Republic and not a Democracy.

However, since the waning days of the 19th century and proceeding into the 20th century a dangerous force has been at work to undermine the concepts inherent in our Republic and replace them with the notion that we live in a 'democracy' where the 'majority rules.'  

This force is known as 'the Progressive Movement.'

Progressives see government as a positive force for 'change' rather than an oppressive force that must be restrained.  Immediately this places progressives at odds with the point of view of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.  And history is certainly not on the side of the progressives with their Pollyannish optimism that government is a positive force in the lives of citizens.

History is replete with examples of the fact that as the power and role of government expands, the liberties of the people are diminished and ultimately removed.  There is not a single case in all of human history that shows a society keeping its freedoms once the power of government begins to grow.

In fact, government is the single largest source of mass murder in the history of the world.  No other entity or person has killed off more human beings than government.

The 20th century alone is itself a case in point.

When Lenin and Stalin came to power in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution (the Russian Revolution) early in the 20th century, the Communist ruling elite systematically murdered over 25 million Russians over a period of years.  When Chairman Mao Tse Tung came to power in China, ushering in an era dominated by the Communist Party--which, by the way, continues to this day--70 million Chinese were murdered.

And this doesn't even begin to touch the bloodbath left in the wake of monsters such as Pol Pot, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, and of course, Adolf Hitler.

Yet the Progressives seem to be perpetually intoxicated by imbibing from the strong brew that continually flows down the rocks of the 'Big Rock Candy Mountains.'  They insist, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that big government is a good thing, and they want citizens to vote for it by convincing them that we are a 'democracy' and that the 'majority rules.  And thus, the populace should not worry that a minority of citizens may lose their rights and liberties.

The problem is that the majority loses their rights and liberties as well, even as they vote for larger government programs and candidates that promise the moon with 'hope and change.'

Exactly what, then, are the basic precepts of 'the Progressive Movement'?

Study Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Prohibition, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson, and you will get a flavor.  Here are some of the highlights:

*An expansion of the size, scope, and power of the federal government.

*An emphasis on 'environmentalism' as opposed to the private property rights of citizens.

*Intrusive, expensive, and time-consuming government regulation of private enterprise.

*A belief that the government knows what is best for citizens rather than allowing them to make their own personal choices--reference 'Prohibition' which banned the sale of alcohol during Woodrow Wilson's administration.

*Rather than teaching the poor how to rise out of their dire straits, the Progressives pushed comprehensive welfare programs to 'take care of the poor,' including the concept of nationalized healthcare under the control of government (the Progressives were the first to advance this concept as far back as the late 1800s and early 1900s).

*A view of public education that affirmed John Dewey's notion that the purpose of public schools is not to emphasize learning, grasping, and applying a body of knowledge but to remove competitive merit-based achievement, replacing it with an emphasis on the student's artistic, emotional, and creative capacities within a non-competitive environment.

*The notion that government should own and operate certain enterprises that could be run by private entities.

Thus, the concept that 'rights' are actually nothing more than 'opportunities' was gradually replaced by the concept of 'entitlement'--that is, citizens are entitled to certain things government can provide.

The only problem is government can't provide a thing to some citizens unless it confiscates wealth from other citizens.  It is highly interesting that the Income Tax, which was never a part of the founding documents and never mentioned in the Constitution, became a part of that Constitution just as the Progressive Movement began to take hold.

As you can see, much of what passes for 'democratic ideals' today is nothing more than the agenda first envisioned by the Progressive Movement back in the late 1800s.  And it is antithetical to every principle of liberty as delineated in our Constitution.

Many if not most of the citizens, interestingly enough, have bought into these dangerous concepts and are quite willing to negate the liberties of their fellow citizens as long as government keeps doling out the entitlements.

But how, exactly, did we allow ourselves to get to this point?

We will consider THAT issue in tomorrow's column.

Digging deeper:  Brief History of the Progressive Movement     Progressive Movement Information

A MUST-READ!  Progressive Era Scholars--a Socialist Paradigm

For commentary on other issues, visit my blog at The Liberty Sphere.