So when Progressives talk “improving” America and American Society, ask them:
- Forward / progressing to WHAT (as in “what IS you end goal and does that square with our Consitution”)?
- Why do they rejoice in a foreign political ideology and reject our American one?
Here’s a good post from the Daily Signal on one piece of why we’re at as a political society from what originally made us the most vibrant and individual-centric country in history (emphasis mine, reformatted):
As I explain in my recent Makers of American Political Thought essay, “Richard T. Ely: Progressive Educator, Political Economist, and Social Gospel Advocate,” no progressive reformer worked harder to bring about this radical change than the political economist and social gospel advocate Richard T. Ely.
Progressive Educator
Born in Fredonia, New York, in 1854, Ely graduated from Columbia College and then received his Ph.D. in political economy in Germany in 1879. His German professors taught him that natural rights are a myth, that capitalism needs to be curtailed, and that the government should redistribute income to assist in the positive development of each individual.
If you don’t want to read the rest of the post, there it is – the anti-American philosophy born of German Socialism. So how can Progressives claim that they are all about America when, in their core, they hew to a philosophy that is the antithesis of all that most of us believe to be true?
To be able to have an unlimited government, that should have the power to control everything, that people don’t “need” (really, shouldn’t) free choice, and that individualism (go ahead, read here what Progressives believe, in their own words, what The Proper Role of Government should be).
But let me ask you this – who is the more greedy? Those capitalists whose wealth depend on others voluntarily give them money in exchange for goods and services? Or politicians and activists that desire to control your lives? Should be an easy question to answer!
Ely returned to America and taught these ideas to a generation of progressive reformers, first at Johns Hopkins University and then at the University of Wisconsin. Ely was a very influential professor, and among his more important students was Woodrow Wilson. He also informally taught Theodore Roosevelt.
Woodrow Wilson was the most virulently anti-Constitution (until Obama came along) and most racist, anti-Free Speech, and Globalist President we’ve ever had. He also dragged us into, as a Democrat, war.
Hmm, tastes like chicken Socialism:
Political Economist
Ely attempted to convince Americans that capitalism was unjust. In his view, wealthy businessmen imposed hard terms on exploited workers, who were then forced to accept low wages and bad working conditions if they were to avoid starvation. Ely wanted government intervention in the economy to protect workers from alleged capitalist injustices. But despite the great influence of this critique of capitalism, Ely’s description of working-class suffering seriously misstated the condition of the American worker. In fact, ordinary workers in his day enjoyed prosperity and opportunities unheard of in prior eras.
While there was no doubt there was misery (any time there are large changes in the culture, there are those that suffer). But here is the worst – the perversion of Christianity to serve a political ideology, again, replacing the individual soul for a collectivism (re: Obama’s “that my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country. Unfortunately, I think that recognition requires that we make sacrifices and this country has not always been willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary to bring about a new day and a new age.”). Said another way, this is the “Utopia” that Progressives promise and are unabashedly pursuing on their own say so – and not accepting that for many of us, THEIR utopia would be hellish for the rest of us (but remember, unlimited government has no restraints).
Social Gospel Advocate
Besides being an important and influential political economist, Ely was also one of the most important social gospel figures of the 19th century. The social gospel was a Protestant reform movement that understood the primary task of a Christian to be the redemption of the earth rather than, as traditionally understood, the redemption of one’s own soul.
Ely wanted the earth to be redeemed by means of social and economic improvements aimed at solving a broad range of human problems in areas such as education, housing, poverty, and employment. Ely believed that social science could provide us with the tools to analyze and solve any number of human problems and thereby perform our full Christian duty to others.
Ely combined his two great passions into what he saw as a seamless whole. Social gospel teachings would provide the moral direction and impetus for human progress, while the science of political economy would provide the means by which social gospel goals were to be achieved.
Despite the high hopes he placed in social science, Ely had chosen a tool of very limited utility, one incapable of solving the problems he placed before it. Moreover, his understanding of Christianity was out of step with the traditional Christian view that counseled moderated expectations of life on earth. Ely asked too much of this world and too much of science.
And as a traditional Christian that believes that Christ died on the cross not for an Earthly heaven but to save my soul, this is anathema. In fact and indeed, these Social Gospel Socialists have taken on the role and mantle of God Himself in deciding what Heaven should be. Which also means they get to decide what “sin” really is (and we can certainly see this how they worship climate change, a very Progressive theology, and have maintained that anyone that differs from their orthodoxy must be punished – no Free Speech for thee!).
His Legacy
Ely lived long enough to witness the Great Depression, and he was offended by the economic incompetence and demagoguery of so much of the New Deal. But fairness requires that he share in the blame for New Deal missteps. By arguing against natural rights and limited government, Ely thought that he was preparing the country for rule by enlightened, scientific-minded managers. In fact, he helped to break down important restraints that kept people from reaching for the property of others. The result was demagogues promising to redistribute property.
Just like modern day Progressives have broken important societal restraints about social behavior and taboos, he broke it. Our Founders knew that only by dispersing and putting in extreme diffuse decentralization of control would our Liberties stay intact. They also knew that our government was only able to exist with a common moral bond:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, October 11, 1798.)
And it is clear that Progressives understand that have have done all they can to denigrate and make such beliefs criminal (e.g., forcing people to support gay marriage and abortion and trying to silence those of faith and are trying to make faith a personal faith only and not to be permitted in the public square).
Ely’s legacy is seen today in our weakened attachment to limited government, private property, and capitalism, and our too-willing acceptance of government intervention, welfare statism, and social science. We are very much still living in the world that Ely helped to shape.
Hey, you and your accolytes “broke” the original Social Compact (the Constitution), you own it. All of it. All because you thought that you knew better what was best for everyone. The Law of Unintended Consequences will not be in play here for they truly wish for the outcomes we are now starting to see.
Luigi Bradizza, PhD is an associate professor of political science at Salve Regina University and the author of Richard T. Ely’s Critique of Capitalism (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).
And their end goal? Certainly not what the Founders envisioned. If anything, Progressivism is all about regression – putting back into place governments that ruled from above instead of cherishing Individual Rights. Land of the Free? Not in Progressivism where individuals will be subsidiary to the State – just like before our Revolution:
For nothing says Freedom like a government that IS telling you exactly how you will live – after all, unlimited means no boundaries for it (whereas the Founders were all about limiting its power) and if it can take your money simply to give it to others, what else CAN’T it do TO you?