One of the first things (if not the first thing) we can do is to educate ourselves about the founding of our nation and the origin of our birthright(s).  Then, we need to teach those correct principles of liberty to our families and neighbors, being careful to provide the historical context that justifies our freedoms.  And finally, as a result, in a day when serious economic troubles will inevitably come to America, those who love liberty will be able to stand firm in safeguarding and preserving freedom against those who would transform it.

Statists will (in critical moments of economic duress) claim they can “help” those effected by calamity.  However, they will insist that they can only help if we first give up our “selfish” expectations of individual liberty as defined in the Bill of Rights.  Like Esau of the Old Testament, Americans will have a critical decision to make – will they choose a bowl of gruel (or a free cell phone, or health care, or food, etc.) to fill their bellies for short-term relief, or will they choose to retain the priceless inheritance of freedom?  As it stands now, sadly, I think many Americans would ignorantly choose short-term “promises” of security over God-given liberties.  This may be because, like Esau, many Americans are oblivious to the immeasurable value of the sacred birthright they hold.

We, who love liberty, must have an alternative plan before America slips into economic desperation.  When the statists offer their bowl of entitlements for a false sense of security, it will come with a heavy price.  At that very moment, we must be prepared with a counter offer to help those in need — but our motivation should be love – not contempt.  We must give of our substance and knowledge to liberate with no strings attached and with only one expectation, that they pass the generosity forward. 

Under the paternal banner of “saving us from ourselves”, the “elite” have already used overpopulation, global warming, overconsumption, inequality, and economic hardship to “nudge” us into trading real liberties for cheap imitations of freedom.  Their versions of freedom are false, reframed, watered down “permissions” that individuals must first obtain from government before they are allowed the “privilege” of exercising their rights.  Rights, which government erroneously claims is its responsibility to distribute “fairly.”   Wisely, the Founders understood that we are endowed by our Creator (born with) certain inalienable rights and that government cannot give what it does not have, which, ironically, is the very motivation and objective of Big Government.

In American history, we find that the Founders believed in what are sometimes called “negative” liberties which are outlined in the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights states what Americans are to be free from – what the government can NOT do to “we the people.” However, today, government is selling “positive” liberties – things  the government provides to a favored population; but, they can provide them only by robbing or infringing on the individual liberties of another targeted social class.  Ironically, positive liberties enslave both groups to government.  The favored group becomes dependent, (stunting their potential as they wait for government to provide for them) while the targeted group is immobilized by the burden of taxes.  By replacing the Creator as the giver of rights with government, the power and control over individual lives is taken from “we the people” and rests it in what our Founders fought against…an all-powerful ruling class.

Through service to our neighbors, the advantages of retaining our birthright of God-given liberty over dependency on government will again become “self-evident” to every American with any trace of freedom remaining in their veins.  However,  it may be that our nation must first crash and burn before it can rise again like a Phoenix, sanctified through fire, to receive its true inheritance.   I sincerely pray that this is not required; “but if not”, let us be the first to rise, holding the keys and bearing the responsibility and knowledge to lead with humility, knowing that only Providence can light the true course before us.  We will be the key, but only if we stand in the blaze of His truth.  

• A willingness to experiment with the structures and function of government
• An insatiable desire for a more just and economically equal society
• An almost religious quest for legislated social purity 
  

Incremental progressives desire to effect the changes they seek by using the established channels of government.  In many cases, foreign progressive philosophies were introduced and justified to Americans because of the existing problems and corruption in business and politics.  Some of the progressive “solutions” to these problems were implemented through the amendment process as with the income tax and prohibition, while other structural changes, such as programs like Social Security, were passed by Congress during a time of economic crisis.

Defining the Incremental Progressive Movement

To understand the march towards progressivism, one must understand the Gilded Age (1870-1900) or those years preceding the 20^th Century (see Blog: The Prosperity of the Gilded Age).  This was a period of time where free market capitalism grew the economy; industry and business boomed across the country.  Some of the wealthiest Americans to ever live made their fortunes during this period – Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Vanderbilt to name a few.  Ironically, even though both the average poor man and rich man became richer (the poor man saw his real income double during this 30 year period), progressives exploited the differences of income/lifestyle between them.  This disparity was declared by progressives as “unjust” and “unfair” and a fundamental flaw in the capitalist system.  Therefore, towards the end of the 19^th Century and the beginning of the 20^th, the justification for greater economic equality became an increasingly powerful political tool.  To gain popularity (and votes) from the average working man, incremental progressives sought political advantage by emphasizing the differences between the rich and poor in America to create class envy.  Politicians quickly discovered that they could build devoted generational voting blocs by creating generational dependents.  Hence, instead of looking like the modern-day sharecroppers that they were, politicians were able to assert that they were fighting for the “little guy” – as with Theodore Roosevelt’s Square Deal, or  FDR’s New Deal.  In the name of “social justice,” progressives in both the democrat and republican parties amended and circumvented the Constitution to increase the federal government’s power and its spending all in the name of “helping” the less fortunate.  Progressive historian, Richard Hofstadter, states with some apparent pride:  “The men and women of the Progressive movement must be considered…to be pioneers of the welfare state.” (Hofstadter 15)

The Populist Movement and Birth of the Progressive Movement

The progressive movement is often seen as the urban counterpart to the rural populist movement.  Although the Populist movement and its political party (sometimes known as The People’s party) was short-lived, it had a profound effect on the transformation of the Democrat party.  In 1900, the populists demanded “…the public ownership and operation of those means of communication, transportation, and production which the people may elect, such as railroads, telegraph and telephone lines, coal mines etc.” (Beveridge 568) The Populist party stated in its 1892 platform that “…the power of government—in other words, of the people—should be expanded (as in the case of the postal service) as rapidly and as far as the good sense of an intelligent people and the teaching of experience shall justify, to the end that oppression, injustice, and poverty shall eventually cease in the land…”  In 1892, the Populist candidate for President of the United States received more than a million votes, and fifteen Populists were elected to Congress.  By 1894, the number of Populist voters increased by 40%. (Ganley 19)  Historian Richard Hofstadter asserts: “Progressivism incorporated the heritage of Populism…” (Hofstadter 7)  This may be an understatement.  While some Democrats of the 1890’s believed they were co-opting the Populist movement, it would be more accurate to say that the Populist movement swallowed the Democrat party whole, digesting few, if any of the principles that only a few decades earlier once defined the Democrat party, namely fiscal conservatism, state rights and limited government.  During this period of progressive transformation, a supporter of former President Grover Cleveland lamented, “The Democratic party, as we knew it, is dead.” (Merrill 207)

William Jennings Bryan is depicted as a Populist snake swallowing the Democratic Party in 1896

By 1896, Democrats saw an opportunity to ride the Populist wave and capture its growing energy and momentum and incorporate it into the Democrat party.  In “…1896 the Populists let themselves be taken over by the Democrats under William Jennings Bryan.  Although this merger consigned the Populists to oblivion, many of their demands were achieved within the next two decades in the progressive movement.”   (Ganley 19) 

 Incremental Progressives and Government’s Role

The Populists had sought for the direct popular election of US senators (instead of by state legislators) which in practical terms, weakened each individual state’s influence with the federal government.  Although this Populist position was initially ignored by both the Republicans and Democrats, it gradually gained political traction.  In 1913, under the Woodrow Wilson administration, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted making the popular, democratic election of senators a reality.   While progressives in both parties amended the Constitution, they have also increased spending on various social programs.  In 1903, US government expenditures as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, was only 6.79% by 2010 that percentage increased to 40.91.% of GDP.

The impact and influence of the progressive movement in America cannot be isolated to one party or one generation 100 years ago. Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican, but he was also a progressive.  In fact, in 1912, he ran for a third term as a presidential candidate for the Progressive Party, which he founded.  Indeed, from a historical perspective “…the reforms of the Progressive Era established a basis and a precedent for further reforms to be passed when the need for them was felt.  Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal owed a heavy debt to its Progressive forerunners both for moral inspiration and for some of its administrative devices.” (Hofstadter 15)  In many cases, FDR did not need to create foundational justifications to build new programs; no, he simply needed to build upon existing structures laid by earlier progressives like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.  As government offered ever-larger forms of financial “assistance,” Americans, in many cases, came to expect such help — and worse, became dependent on these programs.  The hard reality is this:  once a program like welfare, Social Security or unemployment insurance is offered, it is very difficult for any politician to have the political courage or public support required to reduce the federal spending on, or to eliminate the program – regardless of the long-term moral and financial consequences for those Americans who are dependent upon it.  Ultimately, regardless of the incremental progressive’s “good” intentions to bring equal prosperity to all, in the vast majority of cases, the obvious reality is that these unconstitutional programs have created generational dependence and an unsustainable debt which enslaves future generations of Americans to countries like China and cripples domestic economic growth.

Finally, it is important to recognize that progressive historians continually describe their movement as an “evolutionary” advance because they desire to paint the movement as a natural and inevitable process forward.  But in truth, the changes ushered in by the progressive movement were no more natural or inevitable than the selective breeding that was required to create the Chihuahua.  This “helpless” dog did not inevitably or naturally spring from a pack of wolves — it was the result of man’s incremental and intentional manipulation over many years.   Likewise, the incremental progressive movement has been successful in breeding a similar “helplessness” in the strength and capacity of millions of Americans to be self-reliant because they have been led to believe that they are unable to get through life, or obtain an education, or provide basic needs for themselves and their kids without the government either leading the way or granting its permission.  However, the future of America is yet to be written and the question of our day remains:  What will Americans allow the progressive movement to selectively breed during our generation?  We would be naïve if we believed that any version of socialism, regardless of its scope, was something as benign or as weak as a Chihuahua. 

Sources:

Hofstadter, Richard. The Progressive Movement 1900-1915.  Englewood Cliffs:  Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1963. 7, 15. Print.

Beveridge, Albert J. Great Political Issues and Leaders of the Campaign of 1900.  Chicago: W.B. Conkey Company, 1900. 568. Print.

<http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/eamerica/media/ch22/resources/documents/populist.htm> Nov. 2012.

Ganley, Albert C. The Progressive Movement: Traditional Reform. New York: Macmillan Company, 1964. 19. Print.

Merrill, Horace S. Bourbon Leader: Grover Cleveland and the Democratic Party. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1957. 207. Print.

<http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html> Nov. 2012.

For political advantage, progressives often focus on the difference in wages and lifestyle between the rich and poor (creating class envy) and neglect to acknowledge that with increased economic freedom real income significantly improves for both groups as it did during the Gilded Age.  A universal constant of society is that there will always be differences in income.  Sadly, progressives have successfully exploited this difference in order to manipulate Americans into seeking greater government intervention by promising an unattainable equality of lifestyle.  Ironically, when government attempts to manufacture “equality” by bringing down the rich to prop up the poor, overall wealth and freedom decrease for everyone – both the rich and poor citizens….all while government quietly increases in power and control.

¹ Ganley, Albert C. The Progressive Movement: Traditional Reform. 1964. 8. Print.

² <http://themagazinist.com/uploads/Part_1_Population_and_Literacy.pdf> (page 4) Oct. 2012

³ <http://www.nber.org/papers/w14555.pdf > (page 6) Oct. 2012

⁴<http://www.sentierresearch.com/pressreleases/Sentier_PressRelease_PostRecessionaryHouseholdIncomeChange_June09toJune12_08_23_12.pdf> Oct. 2012

Many Americans of my generation were educated from textbooks written by progressive historians.  We were taught, for the most part, by well-meaning teachers who assumed (like most Americans) that the historical content provided by the textbooks represented a historically accurate presentation of facts.  Sadly, in too many cases, it did not.  In fact, the progressive’s version of American history continues to be shared in high schools and colleges today with little or no discussion of its extreme bias.  In particular, Howard Zinn’s words are injected into the minds of unsuspecting students, carefully disguised as a brave and unbiased inoculation against ignorance.   When, truthfully, his views represent a sort of virus; a virus which is unconcerned with examining the American Republic and seeks only to multiply the number of those who despise America just like him.  It is my conviction that this progressive, secular, historical narrative, that was quietly planted years ago, has become  a disease that has taken root and come to be the cause of the growing social and political turmoil seen in America today.  This destructive philosophy, that assumes America is fundamentally flawed and foundationally guilty, has not only taken root but has grown in strength and influence over the past century to the point that “change” in America means “fundamentally transforming” and not “restoring” principles of freedom.  

For many modern progressive historians, the story of America has become one long apology tour, driven by guilt to quickly and enthusiastically confess to any real or imagined crime or injustice.  American culture has been besieged by guilt on every side, guilt for the success of American ingenuity and the relative wealth created by capitalism, guilt for slavery, guilt for small pox wiping out indigenous peoples, and guilt for ending WW II with a bang. http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2006/jul/09/featuresreview.review.  I contend that a good historian will see warts (flaws) in our nation’s history and should have the courage to talk about them.  Obviously, I am neither proud of slavery nor the general treatment of Native Americans; however, when historians intentionally misrepresent America’s external, and generation’s-old, blemishes (warts) as internal structural flaws, their intent to use guilt to fundamentally transform America becomes clear.

There have been numerous progressive historians who have sought to understand America’s past through the lens of 20^th century social justice, and to them America doesn’t seem fair.  According to Karl Marx and the far left today, “fairness” is directly proportional to how equally wealth is distributed among all members of society. The progressive historian does not understand that when government attempts to force equal outcomes, it must ignore the reality of unequal ability, unequal effort, and unequal circumstances. For those living on planet Earth, it is hard to understand why progressive historians continue to believe that it is possible to enforce an equality of  lifestyles in a society when the individuals that make up the society are born inherently different.  The truth, that is not self-evident to progressives, is that “…all men are created equal…” but they are not created equal in their ability, or in the things they will accumulate in life, or in the power they will obtain, or in the status they may achieve.  No.  However, we are created equal in this sense: we have been given, by our Creator, an equal measure of liberty and opportunity to pursue our individual definition of happiness.  This gift of liberty is found in “…certain unalienable Rights … [of] Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”   The progressive historian is unable to tell America’s incredible story simply because he/she does not believe in America’s most fundamental and self-evident concepts.  He/she cannot accept that Americans have an equal right to pursue happiness without the absurd “guarantee” of equal results.

Ronald Reagan once said that “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”  This assertion has become an almost prophetic warning.  Only in a fictional Orwellian society, one generation ago, could one, with a straight face, assert that: “SLAVERY IS FREEDOM.”  Yet, today, America’s youth are clearly struggling to tell the difference between a similar falsehood: “DEPENDENCE IS FREEDOM.”  In too many cases, parents have unknowingly delegated their divine appointment of teaching foundational and Constitutional truths to their children to the state-run Board of Education, or the government, which invariably benefits from fostering increased dependence and ignorance from its citizens.   Moreover, we should not trust that progressive historians will ever accurately depict America’s founding principles.  And even further, the responsibility of teaching our children of their inalienable rights should not lie with well-intentioned  teachers.  This weight and blessing rests squarely upon the shoulders of parents.  If we are serious about restoring America and fighting against those who seek to alter the Republic, we must first reclaim the knowledge of the principles of liberty for ourselves and our kids.  Only through an honest reflection of the Constitution and the unfiltered words of the Founders, will we be prepared to defend the Republic and its principles.  For the sake of the Republic and for everything the Founders fought and died, it is my hope that my generation will rise up, embrace this responsibility and preserve this land of the free, home of the brave, this one nation under God.

Link, Arthur S. Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era. New York: Harper & Row, 1954. 19. Print.

There appears to be a growing need for Marxist-leaning groups to either claim the Founders as one of their own, or to engage in character assassination.  It should be heartening (on some level) that many of the far-left have chosen to claim them.  It is more evidence that progressives have been unable to erase the Founder’s relevance in most American’s lives, so the trend has been to co-opt them and their faith.

Those who wish to portray the Founders as strident atheists will cite Thomas Paine, (as he indeed became an atheist later in his life), and ignore many other Founders as they frame their argument.  Jefferson, whose religious beliefs were complex and evolved throughout his life, is often cited by these leftist groups as an example of the Founders’ unbelief.  However, whenever given the opportunity, Jefferson supported and encouraged the free expression of Christianity during his life.   For those who have actually taken the time to read the Founders words and their private correspondence, it is impossible not to conclude that the vast majority of them were a deeply religious group.  Perhaps the far left should start looking with a greater critical eye toward Marxist historical “fiction” writers like Howard Zinn, before they criticize Barton for having the audacity to use the Founders’ own words to present them and their original intent within a Christian context.

And what would the echo-prophets have the ignorant masses do to repent of their existence?  From what I have been told, there are several actions one must take to avoid Hell on Earth.  I began my path to redemption by bathing my family in the pale-yellow glow of mercury laden light bulbs as well as by fully inflating the tires of my new rickshaw.  True penance might also include giving up meat and all the ozone-piercing flatulence that that barbaric behavior implies.  Initially, I thought signing up for smart-grid regulation would be great, but I have since learned it would not be enough to find collective grace; we need to make real sacrifices.  At first, my wife resisted cave-life, but once she realized that humans are a cancer, she swallowed all kinds of hard choices including pinecones, twigs and locusts.  Of course, no matter what I do, I am screwed with five kids.  Think of all the resources they steal from others in third-world nations, and the unjust piece of the progressive scarcity pie they consume.   Alas, my only contribution to the global crisis is to commit suicide.   If you have reached this conclusion as well, remember, it matters how you choose to “off” yourself.  One must not consider arsenic or any other environmentally unfriendly chemical, or any type of gun for that matter.  A person would obviously have to be insane to think about carbon monoxide poisoning.   The best way to give yourself back to nature is to walk to the nearest chemical-free composting facility and lie in the dirt until you expire through natural means. 

Or… if you’re not ready for the composting bin just yet, it might be worth taking a moment to consider another explanation for the “global crisis.”

It may be that the statist, with global warming, climate change, global climate disruption [insert any ecological, doomsday scenario here] has created a false premise: a non-choice between either the collective salvation of all humanity or its world-wide destruction, desolation and death.  Using this false logic, the statist can justify any action or expansion of governmental power while freely attacking anyone who would dare question the official state position.  

Clearly, there is extensive power and wealth to be redistributed through the establishment of a scarcity fear-based green economy.  Yet, unlike other scientific theories, skeptics are supposed to just have faith and are not allowed to even mention the obvious conflicts of interest by those who stand to gain the most through the implementation of carbon credit limits or other state-based solutions.   The central issue is not about a global crisis, it is about control and creating justification to erode personal liberties. In politics, both real and false crises have been used for years to push various agendas forward.  Rom Emanuel’s now infamous statement “never let a good crisis go to waste” may come to mind, as it reflects the new level of cynicism and arrogance now openly displayed by those in power, when in the past, politicians attempted to hide their contempt for the American people. 

History should have taught us by now to be wary of those who want to trade our liberties for promises of security.  Past prophets of doom have proclaimed the inevitable dangers of the genetically defective, global cooling, over population, and Y2K, but, in each case, the world kept turning.  While some crises, like Y2K, led to a few harmless computer upgrades, other crises, like the Eugenics movement, led to genocide.  And where will the latest “crisis” of climate change lead us?  I have no idea, but pray it stops with toxic light bulbs.

So why is this distinction between words important?  It may be that President Obama was right when he asserted that “words matter.”  Although meanings of words do evolve over time to reflect changes in culture, it appears, in this case, that progressives have intentionally sought to distort the terms “democracy” and  “republic” so the misapplied term “democracy” could serve as an ideological Trojan horse that would help transform the republic into a system of government it was never meant to become.

The Founders never used the words” republic” and “democracy” interchangeably.  They had studied various forms and systems of government from throughout history in order to establish a system of government that would best deter a tyrant (in their case King George III), or a group of tyrants, from denying God-given rights to Americans.  Interestingly, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution do not use the term democracy to describe our form of government.  Furthermore, “Neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution set up direct democracies.”³  The authors of these founding documents disagreed on many points, but on one point they ALL agreed wholeheartedly: “The United States is not a democracy, never was, and never was intended to be.  It is a Republic.”⁴   The following statements represent a small sampling of what the Founding Fathers thought about democracies.

Alexander Hamilton asserted that “We are now forming a Republican form of government.  Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.  If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship.”⁴  Hamilton, in the last letter he ever wrote, warned that “our real disease…is DEMOCRACY.”³

Thomas Jefferson declared: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

Benjamin Franklin had similar concerns of a democracy when he warned that “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”  After the Constitutional Convention was concluded, in 1787, a bystander inquired of Franklin: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”  Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

John Adams, our second president, wrote: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”

James Madison, the father of the Constitution wrote in Federalist Paper No. 10 that pure democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”³

The Constitution itself, in Article IV, Section 4, declares: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Obviously the Framers were not speaking of a political party, as no political parties existed at that time.   The Pledge of Allegiance, although not a founding document, does strike the right chord when it asks Americans to “…pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands…”

Clearly, the Founders have given us ample warning that democracies have historically led to tyranny and that, in their wisdom, they never intended our nation to devolve into a democracy.  But it bears repeating–why does this distinction between the words “republic” and “democracy” matter today?   Perhaps because ignorance of our own history has made it easier for statists in America to blur distinctions that have traditionally defined our Republic.  If people are oblivious of America’s history and the changes that are slowly being made, they would naturally have little interest in defending it or the Founders’ original intent. So, what is the transformation for which progressives seek?  It is the “total rejection in theory, and a partial rejection in practice, of the principles and policies on which America [has] been founded…” ⁵  By using the word “democracy,” progressives (in both political parties) have effectively begun to convert our Republican system that preserves unalienable and individual rights to an increasingly socialist system that replaces the individual’s rights with government distributed entitlements. Sadly, legislatively, on many counts, progressives have been successful in this quiet revolution. Although there are too many to list here, the following are a few examples of trends away from a republican and limited form of government.

The passage of the 16^th Amendment in 1913 amended the Constitution to establish a progressive income tax, which was founded on the false pretense that “justice” could be found in redistributing wealth in America.⁶ Karl Marx and Frederick Engles wrote in the Communist Manifesto how “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax…[would be used] in most advanced countries.”⁷

The 17th Amendment, championed by Woodrow Wilson, changed the way senators were elected to office.  Prior to this Amendment, they were chosen by state legislatures and now they are elected by the popular vote; the 17^th Amendment moved the country away from a republic and closer to a democracy.  A strength of a republic lies in the fact that the power of the political entities that make up government come from different sources.  For example, as designed by the Founders’, House members are elected by the people, the president by the Electoral College, Supreme Court judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and senators were elected by state legislatures. Having the two houses of Congress “…elected by different constituencies–was designed to frustrate special-interest factions …by requiring the [combination] of a majority of the people with a majority of the state governments before a law could be enacted.”  The 17^th Amendment diluted our Republic, eroded federalism in America, weakened state powers, strengthened the federal government’s control over the states, and laid the “foundation for the modern special-interest state.”⁸

The passage of the Social Security Act in 1935, though very popular today, historically represented “… a complete change in the relationship between the individual and the federal government.  Indeed, it marked one of the earliest and most tangible breaks from American economic and constitutional traditions.”⁹  Although the Social Security Act did not directly alter Republican governance, it did ignore the limiting powers of the Constitution.  The new entitlements provided by the Social Security Act, over time, naturally increased people’s dependence on government, which expanded the size of the federal government, eroded individual liberties, and moved the country closer to socialism and away from the republican principles upon which our country was founded.

It appears that incremental progressives have effectively manipulated the conversation by controlling the words used to convey political concepts.  Over time, foundational words that explained our heritage were altered as a necessary first step towards fundamentally transforming the republic.  Our forefathers literally pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to secure inalienable liberties–not only for themselves, but also for their posterity.  Now, “we the people” of our generation have been presented a similar choice.  It is my conviction that millions have already chosen sides and have been prepared for this critical moment in time to rise up and restore our religious heritage and history and to fight for the restoration of the Republic.

1. “Websters 1828 Dictionary.” Christiansoup.com. Christian Technologies, Inc., 2010. Web. 11 Apr 2012. <http://www.webster1828.com/websters1828/definition.aspx?word=Republic>
2. Boller, Paul F., Jr. Not So! Popular Myths About America from Columbus to Clinton. 1995. 35-38. Print.
3. Brookhiser, Richard. What Would the Founders Do? Our Questions, Their Answers. 2006. 121. Print.
4. Morris, Seymour, Jr. American History Revised. 2010. 135. Print.
5. West, Thomas, and William Schambra. “The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics.” The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, 17 Jul 2007. Web. 11 Apr 2012. <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-of-american-politics>
6. Folsom, Burton W.. “What’s Wrong with the Progressive Income Tax?.” Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 03 May 1999. Web. 11 Apr 2012.
7. Marx, Karl, and Frederich Engels. “Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2).” MIA:Marxists: Marx & Engels: Library: 1848. marxist.org, 2000. Web. 11 Apr 2012. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm>
8. Zywicki, Todd. “Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.” National Review Online. National Review Online, 15 Nov 2010. Web. 11 Apr 2012. <http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/252825/repeal-seventeenth-amendment-todd-zywicki>
9. Levin, Mark. Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. 2009. 97-98. Print.

Historians generally assert that the progressive movement in America lasted from 1900 – 1914.¹  It is believed that since the “progressive” label was first used in a political context toward the end of the 19^th century, the movement sprang into existence from a single generation at the turn of the 20th century.²  However, in reality, the movement’s roots run much deeper into the historical fabric of the 19th century than many realize.  Similarly, the progressive movement did not end in 1914; instead, it’s been quietly gathering momentum throughout the last century and is much stronger today than it was during that time period. 

America’s transformation over the last century has not been through a natural, evolutionary turn of events as many modern progressives assert.  Sadly, America’s migration away from its founding principles has been a selective process of manipulation. Unlike the Founders who gave birth to the nation through the monumental event of the revolutionary war, progressive changes to the Republic have been incremental, thus, making it hard to pinpoint one particular moment when the course of the country shifted.  Similarly, it is easy to identify the founding fathers of the Republic, but, due to the subtlety and the extended length of time, it is more difficult to identify the founding fathers of the progressive movement.  To understand the rise of the movement, I have broken progressivism into three defining periods of progressive ideology.  They are listed below.  Each period will be discussed in separate blogs — The Progressive Movement: Parts I, II, and III.  This article (Part I) will examine the first period: Formative Progressivism and three formative progressives who, knowingly or not, laid the foundation for the modern progressive movement that followed.

1. Progressive Movement Part I:  Formative Progressivism
2. Progressive Movement Part II:  Incremental Progressivism
3. Progressive Movement Part III:  Revolutionary Progressivism

The Founders established the foundation for a republican form of government which drew economic strength through capitalist principles.  However, the “founders” of the progressive movement established a foundation upon which socialist policies were later justified.  Three formative progressives who will be highlighted in this article are Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall and Andrew Jackson. Along with laying the ideological foundations of the progressive movement, they also established precedent for later progressives like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.  While the formative progressives of the late 18^th and early 19^th century were unlikely able to foresee the structure that would later be built upon the precedents they established, their foundational role paved the way for the movement to take fire.  For this reason, they are referred to as “founding fathers” of this movement.

Generally speaking, formative progressives like Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall and Andrew Jackson sought to institutionalize a loose interpretation of the Constitution.  In other words, they wanted more flexibility to expand the powers of the federal government when it was convenient, or when they believed it was expedient to do so.  However, the vast majority of the Founding Fathers understood the simple notion that there were only 18 “enumerated powers” given to the federal government as outlined in the Constitution.  Moreover, the 9^th and 10^th Amendments in the Bill of Rights were included to further reinforce the principle that any rights not outlined in the Constitution belonged to the states or to the people. The Amendments state:

Amendment IX:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Alexander Hamilton:  Contrary to the 9^th and 10^th Amendments, Hamilton believed that if the Constitution did not expressly forbid an action, then it was the right of the federal government to act if it was so inclined.  Hamilton argued against Thomas Jefferson, for example, that as the Constitution was silent on the establishment of a National Bank, the government was free to establish one.  Hamilton asserted “that every power vested in a Government is in its nature sovereign, and includes by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite, and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power; and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the constitution, or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society.”³  In plain terms, Hamilton felt that any time the Constitution was silent concerning a matter, the federal government could do what it wished. However, if that were what the majority of Founders believed, why would they have written and ratified a Constitution that outlined 18 specific powers for federal government?  Why would the Founders have included the 9^th and 10^th Amendments in the Bill of Rights?

Another similarity between modern progressives and Alexander Hamilton was that “Hamilton believed that Republican government could only succeed if directed by a governing elite…”⁴ At the constitutional convention of 1787, he proposed a system of government that became known as the British Plan because it so closely mirrored the British monarchy.  It is noteworthy that “Hamilton, who had never left America, wished to make his country a new Europe.”⁴  While, Thomas Jefferson, after visiting Europe, understood European governments and , “…wished America to be as unlike it as possible.”⁴

John Marshall:  After John Adams lost reelection to Thomas Jefferson in 1801, Adams made a number of “midnight” appointments, including the appointment of John Marshall as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.⁵  Marshall went on to serve in that capacity for 34 years until his death in 1835.  During this formative stage of our Republic, the Marshall-led court was highly influential in reinforcing the unconstitutional notion of implied powers (the same notion held by Hamilton), which is that Congress could legislate regarding any matter that is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. ⁶   Sadly, in the 1819 decision of McCullough v. Maryland, written by Chief Justice Marshall, this concept of “implied powers” received judicial approval by the Supreme Court, thereby endorsing a broad interpretation the Constitution and solidifying Hamilton’s earlier minority view:  “The decision also reinforced the supremacy of federal law over state law when the two conflict.  The landmark ruling became the basis for key Court decisions throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries supporting congressional activities.”⁷

When reviewing what the Founders actually wrote in the Constitution, it is apparent that the Founders (Hamilton excluded) believed that the states and the people retained all powers not delegated to the federal government.  James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist Paper #45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . [and to] be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.”⁸ And later, in 1792, Madison asserted:  “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject [only] to particular exceptions.”⁹  Today, almost two hundred years after the McCullough v. Maryland  ruling, it is evident that this decision has been used as a gateway power enabling Congress and the federal government to seize other powers.  Through the loose interpretation of the “necessary and proper clause” in the Constitution and precedent-setting decisions made by the Supreme Court, “…such questionable initiatives as Social Security, welfare, funding for the arts and humanities, establishing scientific and medical agencies [including Obamacare], and creating the Departments of Energy, Education, and Commerce”¹⁰ would be justified.

Andrew Jackson:  Andrew Jackson is commonly referred to as the father of the modern American Presidency; in many instances, we are still living with the negative practices started by Andrew Jackson.  His presidency started and institutionalized what is known as the spoils system.   The spoils system is “…the practice of filling appointive public offices with friends and supporters of the ruling political party”¹¹ instead of hiring individuals based on their merit.  After Jackson was elected to office in 1829, he fired many federal employees and replaced them with his political supporters.  “Under the guise of reform, many offices were doled out as rewards for political services. Newspaper editors who had championed Jackson’s cause, some of them very unsavory characters, came in for special favor.”¹²  During his eight years in office, “Andrew Jackson had more totally consolidated power in the executive branch than any previous president…His adept use of the spoils system only created a large scale bureaucracy that further diminished states’ rights, overriding state prerogative with federal might.”¹⁰  A striking example of his use of the spoils system was his determination to eliminate the central Bank of the United States (BUS).  “The president did not intend to eliminate central banking entirely, but to replace one central bank with another…  Why was the current BUS corrupt? Because, in Jackson’s view, it was in the hands of the wrong people.”¹⁰  During this bank conflict, “Jackson told Van Buren, ‘The Bank is trying to kill me.  But I will kill it.” ¹⁰  Which he did.  Upon winning, he withdrew all federal dollars from the BUS and placed them in banks that had supported him politically. Overall, “the entire bank war was a stunning display of abuse of power by the chief executive and demonstrated a willingness by the president to flout the Constitution and convention in order to get his way.” ¹⁰  He also doubled federal expenditures from 26 million to 50 million and vetoed more legislation than all previous presidents combined.  Unfortunately for America, the worst aspects of the Jackson Administration have endured beyond his era to plague politics today.  Many of the precedents set by him would later be used to justify the New Deal under Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Great Society under Lyndon B. Johnson.  All these groups viewed “…the federal government – and the executive branch especially – as the most desirable locus of national power.”¹⁰

As founding fathers of the progressive movement, Hamilton, Jackson and Marshall expanded federal powers beyond the original intent of the Constitution.  Initially, Hamilton gave birth to the idea of a loose interpretation of the Constitution, and then, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Marshall endorsed by judicial decision Hamilton’s minority view.  Finally, Jackson implemented that power to expand the size and scope of the federal government.  Their influence in circumventing the limiting powers of the Constitution served to establish a foundation upon which incremental progressives would later build.  It is doubtful that these three men could have predicted with any specificity the enormous structures that would later be justified through the loose interpretation of the Constitution they initiated.  In fact, it is likely they would be mortified by the precarious state of our God-given liberties, which have been strangled by legislated “entitlements” constructed in their names.

1. Hofstadter, Richard. The Progressive Movement 1900-1915. 1963. 1. Print.
2. “A Progressive Living Essay.” The Definition of Progressivism. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Apr 2012. <http://www.progressiveliving.org/politics/definition_of_progressivism.htm>
3. “Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18: Alexander Hamilton, Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank.” The Founders’ Constitution. The University of Chicago, 2000. Web. 7 Apr 2012. <http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s11.html>
4. Morison, Samuel Eliot. The Oxford History of the American People. 1965. 329. Print.
5. Dixon, Richard. “From Revolution to Reconstruction.” John Marshall. University of Groningen, 14 Sep 2010. Web. 7 Apr 2012. <http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/B/jmarshall/marsh.htm>
6. Napolitano, Andrew P.  The Constitution in Exile.  2006. 50. Print.
7. “McCulloh v. Maryland.” eNotes.com. eNotes.com, 2012. Web. 30 Apr 2012. <http://www.enotes.com/mcculloch-v-maryland-reference/mcculloch-v-maryland>
8. Rossiter, Clinton, ed. The Federalist Papers. 1961. 292. Print.
9. Williams, Walter E.. “The Pursuit of Happiness: Constitution Day.” The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty. George Mason University, Nov 2006. Web. 7 Apr 2012. <http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/fee/Nov06.pdf>
10. Schweikart, Larry, and Michael Allen. A Patriot’s History of the United States. 2004. 182-183, 214, 218. Print.
11. “Spoils system-definition of the spoils system.” The Free Dictionary. Farlex, 2012. Web. 7 Apr 2012. <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spoils system>
12. “Andrew Jackson: Good, Evil & The Presidency.” Montana PBS. Red Hill Productions and Community Television of Southern California, 2007. Web. 7 Apr 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/kcet/andrewjackson/edu/domesticpolicy.html>

Founders like Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence) George Mason (Father of the Bill of Rights)  Patrick Henry, and James Madison (Father of the Constitution) looked at government structures and purpose very differently.  They conceptualized government models in “up” and “down” terms, rather than “right” and “left.”  The Founders’ vertically positioned measuring stick gauged political power, not parties.  Dictatorships of all kinds were found on the upward spectrum of the scale, while the other extreme, anarchy, or the absence of government, was found on the downward spectrum. Constitutional historian, Cleon Skousen, asserted that: “the American Founders measured political systems in terms of the amount of coercive power or systematic control which a particular system of government exercises over its people.  In other words, the yardstick is not political parties, but political power.”² 

The Founders were naturally very deliberate about establishing a system of government that would maximize the freedom of its citizens. The precursor to the American Constitution was the Articles of Confederation.  Although drafted in 1777, they were not ratified by the 13 states till 1781³ and only provided a loose confederation or “friendship” between the fledgling states.  Under the Articles, the federal government was too weak (many felt) to work long term and created almost as many problems as it attempted to solve.  In 1786, George Washington lamented on the fragile condition between the states when he said:  “Without an alteration in our political creed, the superstructure we have been seven years in raising, at the expense of so much treasure and blood, must fall.  We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion.”⁴    However, despite its inherent flaws, the Articles served as a necessary stepping stone toward the eventual implementation of the Constitution on June 21, 1788.⁵  Suffice it to say, the Constitution would not have even been considered by the states had the states not first seen and endured the failure of the Articles to govern.  The new national Constitution moved the federal powers “up” the scale just enough to solve most of the problems that existed under the Articles.  Justifiably, many Founders had serious concerns with the Constitution as it was initially proposed, excluding a bill of rights; they felt it pushed the scale too far upward and weakened the states’ autonomy.  Many worried that America was about to establish a new government that could too easily become a replica of the one from which they had fought to free themselves.  Founders like Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Thomas Paine were fearful that the federal government was amassing too much power and actively fought against the Constitution’s ratification.  The Bill of Rights was offered as a solution to ensure the individual state’s rights and the individual’s rights would not be trampled by the new federal Constitution.  With the Bill of Rights, the Constitution was ratified and accepted, and a new government was born.  Yet, in 1787, New York Supreme Court judge Robert Yates, anticipated the possibility that: “‘In so extensive a republic’ as the United States…‘the great officers of government would soon become above the control of the people and abuse their power for the purpose of aggrandizing themselves.’”⁶

By reading the founding documents and the words of the Framers, Americans can help restore the liberty vs. tyranny perspective that our forbearers held.  Using the up/down political scale, Americans can more clearly identify abuses made on liberty, rather than being distracted by the noise of political parties. Americans would realize that the Founders’ struggle for independence mirrors our modern challenge to preserve it, and that although kings and subjects have different names in 21^st century America, the fight to retain individual God-given liberties is comparable.  Luckily, patriots of our generation have a clear advantage in confronting tyranny (regardless of its source or name); these advantages are found in the nonviolent tools that the Framers built into the republic, namely the Constitution, with its brilliant system of checks and balances. “We the People” still have a representative government.  We have the right to protest.  We have the right to vote with our feet.  We also have a rich history in the examples set by our Founders, in the self-evident truths found in natural law, and in common sense.  And most importantly, like our ancestors, we can rely on the Hand of Providence, seek His will, and engage ourselves in the fundamental restoration of America.

1. Online Etymology Dictionary. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Apr 2012. <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=political left right&searchmode=none>
2. Skousen, W. Cleon. The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World. 2006. 9-10. Print.
3.  ”Web Guides.” The Library of Congress. N.p., 30 July 2010. Web. 5 Apr 2012. <http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/articles.html>
4. Parry, Jay A.,  Andrew M. Allison, and  W. Cleon Skousen. The Real George Washington. 2009. 650. Print.
5. “Dates to Remember.” Constitution Facts.com. Oak Hill Publishing company, n.d. Web. 5 Apr 2012. <http://www.constitutionfacts.com/?section=constitution&page=datesToRemember.cfm>
6. Pinheiro, John C. “Assessing the Anti-Federalists.” Religion & Liberty. 20.2 n. page. Web. 5 Apr. 2012. <http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-20-number-2/assessing-anti-federalists>