A Steady Progression of Progressives
IN JULY 2007, when the Democratic nomination for president was still very much up in the air, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and six other candidates (remember Mike Gravel?) gathered for the CNN/YouTube debate. The world watched as millions of dollars in technology was used to ask questions that the moderator could’ve read off of index cards.
But one question actually managed to elicit a response that should’ve caused people to take notice. “Mrs. Clinton,” Rob from California asked, “how would you define the word ‘liberal’?—and would you use this word to describe yourself?”
Clinton complained for a minute about how the word “liberal” had taken on a new meaning before going on to describe exactly how she views herself politically:
“I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the twentieth century. I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we’re working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life to get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.
“So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that’s the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.”
It’s possible that Hillary hasn’t gotten the memo, but there’s no need to bring progressivism back . . . because it never left. Sure, the ideas have evolved, and progressive politicians are a little more careful about how they advertise themselves, but the progressive agenda has been steadily chugging along for over a century.
“I believe that on the issues that directly affect women’s lives, I have the strongest, boldest ideas and can bring about the change that needs to be brought.”
—JOHN EDWARDS
To really understand where America is headed, you first have to understand where we’ve been and what motivates those who believe that our founding documents must evolve because they were written in a “different era.” Here’s a look back at three presidents from the “Progressive Era.” As you read their thoughts and vision for America, you might recognize some stark parallels to today’s crop of politicians—from both sides of the aisle.
Just remember, no matter what progressives say or promise, they all have the same fundamental misconception: Our Founding Founders didn’t set up a system that was meant to adapt to a changing world—it’s the other way around.
TEDDY ROOSEVELT Teddy Roosevelt assumed the presidency after William McKinley was assassinated in 1901, a time when large multistate corporations were first being created. Right out of the gate, Roosevelt fired off 40 lawsuits in an attempt to “trust-bust” and federally control large corporations.
Roosevelt, like other progressives, did not trust businesses or wealthy individuals because he likely didn’t believe that any of them were ultimately capable of doing what was best for the collective. Only government was capable of that. (Please resume reading once you finish laughing.)
As you read this section, remember that John McCain has said that Old Teddy Bear Roosevelt is his political idol. It will not take long for you to realize just how horrible a selection the GOP really made.
In 1910, Roosevelt gave a landmark speech called “The New Nationalism” that clearly laid out his vision for America. “It has become entirely clear,” he said, “that we must have government supervision of the capitalization, not only of public-service corporations, including, particularly, railways, but of all corporations doing an interstate business.”
To progressives, government supervision is the answer to any problem supposedly caused by the “free market.” It happened after the 1907 banking crisis, the Great Depression, and, of course, after the credit crisis, when President Obama proposed sweeping changes to the financial regulatory system.
Roosevelt continued, “I have no doubt that the ordinary man who has control of [meat, oil, coal, or other large, important companies] is much like ourselves. I have no doubt he would like to do well—but I want to have enough supervision to help him realize that desire to do well.”
In other words, progressives believe that everyone innately wanted to do what was best for society, but, just in case they succumbed to greed or selfishness for a minute, there would be government “supervision” in place to help them see the error of their ways.
After Mike Gravel flatly accused Barack Obama of violating his campaign promise and taking money from lobby-ists, this classic exchange took place:
OBAMA: And that’s the kind of leadership that I’ve shown in the Senate. That’s the kind of leadership that I showed when I was a state legislator. And that’s the kind of leadership that I’ll show as president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
Roosevelt not only distrusted the rich, he actually seemed to despise them. While delivering a standard populist line about the need for justice to be administered to all equally, Roosevelt couldn’t help but slip in his hatred for the upper class:
“. . . and the wealthy man, whomsoever he may be, for whom I have the greatest contempt, I would fight for him, and you would if you were worth your salt.”
“Greatest contempt” for the wealthy man? This was a Republican? Yes—but you have to understand that progressivism has nothing to do with the “R” or the “D.” Progressive politicians from opposite parties may have different methods for achieving their goals, but those goals are always the same: benefiting the collective at the expense of the individual. Remember Hillary’s words from the debate as she described progressivism: “We are better as a society when we’re working together.”
AT LEAST HE WAS HONEST . . .
“I stand for the square deal. But when I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of that game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service.”
—Teddy Roosevelt, in his “New Nationalism” speech
Roosevelt continued, “We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.”
Progressives like Roosevelt would, on the surface, seem to defend capitalism, but there is almost always a big “IF” attached to their rhetoric. In Roosevelt’s case, saying that someone can make boatloads of cash IF they obtain it honorably is one thing—you can at least make the case that he meant “lawfully”—but IF their wealth is “well used”? What does that mean? And who, exactly, decides the definition of “well used,” some government board?
He went on, “This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in government control is now necessary.”
Of course it’s “now” necessary—there’s no other way to achieve the progressive agenda without a “far more active” government. After all, could a small, limited government ever help usher in a philosophy like this:
“Every man,” Roosevelt said, “holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.”
Notice the language: public welfare. You can have property so long as the greater good doesn’t require that the government take or regulate it. Government controls your business. Government controls your money. Government controls your property. Government controls your life.
As most conservatives understand, creating and implementing progressive government programs to solve problems only leads to more government control. For example, the Hepburn Act of 1906 gave the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) the power to, among other things, replace existing railroad rates with “just and reasonable” rates. Take a wild guess at who got to define what was “just and reasonable.” Yep, the Roosevelt administration’s ICC. When you cut through all of the noise, that is nothing more than government wage control—a big step past progressivism and right toward socialism . . . or worse.
Most people didn’t favor the creation of a “central bank” after the 1907 panic. So how did the government get away with setting one up anyway? Simple . . . they changed the name and called it the “Federal Reserve” instead. Control the language and you control the argument.
Of course, another thing that most real conservatives understand is that whenever government tries to solve a problem, they create another one—usually much bigger than the original. Because of the caps on railway rates, the value of railroad securities plummeted (turns out investors aren’t so fond of government price controls—who knew?), helping cause the bank panic of 1907. That gave progressives a new problem to solve. Hmm, what to do, what to do. Let me put my progressive thinking cap on for a second. Wait—I know: we need more government supervision! Roosevelt’s answer was to create the “National Monetary Commission,” which, just five years later, led to the creation of the Federal Reserve system.
Who would ever have foreseen a crisis being triggered by the government stepping in to determine reasonable rates? Oh wait, that’s how almost every financial crisis is triggered. Free markets are generally pretty efficient over time . . . but free markets aren’t free when progressive bureaucrats stick their dirty fingers into them under the guise of serving the “public good.”
The banking panic of 1907 was calmed, in large part, by J. P. Morgan and his efforts to pool together funds (both public and private) and inject them into the banking system. But, given Roosevelt’s distaste for corporations and wealth, Morgan’s contributions must have been frowned on, right? Nope. Ironically enough, Mr. For the People, Mr. Darn These Special Interests, Mr. Trust-Buster himself Teddy Roosevelt thanked Morgan by allowing him to expand his steel empire and buy the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company for $45 million—about five percent of its true market value.
I guess all those values and principles that Roosevelt held so dear went right out the window once he realized that only capitalism could save America from the disasters created by progressivism.
The “New Nationalism” speech included a lot of extreme-sounding sound-bites, but, unlike our weasely modern-day politicians who never intend to live up to their word, Roosevelt did. These weren’t just ideas he was offering, he had detailed policies in mind to back them up:
Universal Health Care and Universal Health Insurance (Roosevelt was the first president to call for it).
Social Insurance (you probably know this now as the wildly successful “Social Security Insurance” program).
Created the Department of Labor, wanted it to have wide authority over “matters affecting the conditions of labor and living.”
Sought after a “more easy and expeditious” method of amending the federal Constitution.
Called for a “graduated tax” on disproportionately large incomes and fortunes.
WOODROW WILSON Wilson is routinely rated as one of the top ten presidents of all time and, truthfully, he made my list as well—but it has a slightly different title: The Top Ten Bastards of all time. Pardon the language, but Wilson’s assault on the First Amendment was like nothing this country has seen before or since from anyone who’s taken an oath to protect and defend our Constitution.
Wilson believed that our rights didn’t come from our Creator, they came from the government, and his reasoning was influenced by one of his favorite political theorists, Edmund Burke. Burke, who was from the UK, suggested that a man should consider his rights as “an Englishman” rather than simply a “man.” He opposed the abstract, arguing instead that politicians must place themselves in the here and now and base their political principles in “historical reality.”
If you get into an argument over the pros and cons of Woodrow Wilson—you need to get some new friends ASAP.
Edmund Burke is commonly considered to be the founder of modern conservatism. With Wilson, an ardent liberal, being influenced by Burke, a conservative icon, it’s not hard to see when the poisonous political crossbreeding began.
Does your head hurt yet? It only gets worse. Wilson, who was president of Princeton University before taking the White House, was apparently just waiting to make a big theoretical discovery when one fell right in his lap:
“I had been casting around in my mind for something by which to draw several parts of my political thought together when it was my good fortune to entertain a very interesting Scotsman who had been devoting himself to the philosophical thought of the seventeenth century. His talk was so engaging that it was delightful to hear him speak of anything, and presently there came out of the unexpected region of his thought the thing I had been waiting for.”
This is what they call in the business, a “cliffhanger.” Can’t you just feel the excitement!? What did the Scotsman tell Wilson??
Editor’s Note: If you are currently feeling one ounce of excitement to find out what some intellectual Scotsman told Woodrow Wilson over a hundred years ago, then seriously, you really need to get a life.
I won’t leave you in suspense any longer, it’s just too cruel. The thing that Wilson had been waiting for was a theory to prove that the United States Constitution is a living document.
“[The Scotsman] called my attention to the fact that in every generation all sorts of speculation and thinking tend to fall under the formula of the dominant thought of the age.”
I know what you’re thinking: Huh?
It’s hard for us nonintellectuals to understand such deep, tweed-jacket thinking, but fortunately Wilson clarified his new understanding for us:
“The makers of our Federal Constitution . . . constructed a government as they would have constructed an orrery to display the laws of nature. Politics in their thought was a variety of mechanics. The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of ‘checks and balances.’
“The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton . . . Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop.
“All that progressives ask or desire is permission in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.”
Yes, a nation is a living thing, but our Constitution is not. Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms weren’t things that our Framers threw in there and thought to themselves, You know, in a few decades this stuff will probably all be obsolete. They established those rights because they knew they were absolutely necessary for the Republic to survive. While progressives look at a right and say “obsolete,” I look at it and say “essential.”
First of all, could you imagine spending five minutes with this guy? I would have killed myself as soon as the word “orrery” came out. Who, besides Keith Olbermann, actually talks like that?
Given Wilson’s clearly articulated views during the campaign (the above quotes were from actual campaign speeches he gave in 1912), it shouldn’t be surprising that, after beating Taft, and Roosevelt, Wilson fulfilled his own constitutional rape fantasy.
Wilson or Roosevelt . . . Obama or McCain. Different century, same choice: progressive or progressive-lite.
It wasn’t so much leading us into the war that I care about; it’s what he did after that. Wilson felt it was a priority to make sure that anything interfering with the war effort was stopped—including, unfortunately, those who disagreed with it. That’s why, shortly after the war began, he pushed through the Espionage Act, a grotesque attack on free speech that made it a crime:
“To convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies when the United States is at war, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States.”
Violating that act was punishable by a maximum $10,000 fine (almost $170,000 in today’s dollars) and 20 years in prison (almost 20 years in today’s time). If it was in place during the Iraq War, every single person at The New York Times would probably be in jail or broke.
Given the New York Times Company’s current stock price, they might be broke anyway.
But Wilson didn’t think that Act was restrictive enough, so he pushed through an amendment to it called The Sedition Act, which added this key clause:
“And whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag . . . or any language calculated to bring [any of those things] into contempt, scorn, contumely or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke or encourage resistance to the United States or to promote the cause of its enemies . . . shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than twenty years, or both.”
If applied today, the Sedition Act would likely result in the lockup of every liberal blogger and commentator who ever opened his mouth during the past seven years.
“Wilson’s [great] reputation . . . was built on his destruction of America’s cherished noninterventionist policy in his second term.”
—The Times of London, which ranked Wilson as the 10th greatest U.S. president.
Notice the word “utter” is used several times. Wilson wasn’t just concerned with the media, he was worried about private citizens “uttering” things in private conversations! I guess those of us who think that’s an assault on free speech are just closed-minded idiots who don’t see our nation as a “living thing.” And to those modern-day progressives who are so keen to look back at Wilson with nostalgia, how do you feel knowing that if he were president in 2004 he probably would’ve wanted you serving 10 to 20 years in a federal prison?
The Sedition Act at first made it possible for the postmaster general to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime. How would Olbermann have survived without his monthly delivery of Cosmogirl?
Eugene Debs, who received a respectable number of votes as a Socialist candidate for president, saw firsthand that Wilson wasn’t bluffing. On June 18, 1918, Debs gave a speech about the wonders of socialism. Just nine months later he was in prison—sentenced to ten years for committing “hate speech” crimes in violation of Wilson’s Sedition Act.
THE COURTS WILL PROTECT OUR RIGHTS!
The hate he was guilty of spewing: “Questioning America’s entry into World War I.”
Anyone who’s listened to me for more than five seconds knows that I hate almost everything socialists stand for, but who’s worse: a socialist with strong principles but misguided policies, or a president who shreds our own Constitution by tossing people in jail who try to exercise the rights it grants them?
Hey, Hillary, was this the “real American meaning” of progressivism you spoke about at the debate?
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT FDR is another president who is inexplicably ranked near the top of many “best presidents ever” polls. The fact that he is the only president to ever be elected four times is oft cited as proof of his popularity, and popularity, as we all know, always equals competence.
Saddam Hussein was elected a lot of times, too.
Did I just use the word “oft”? Wow, I really need to stop reading history books.
The fact that FDR stayed in office for so long isn’t proof of his massive popularity, it’s proof of his massive ego. Worse, instead of using all of that time to change the country for the better, he used it to do more damage to the framework of America than any other president in history.
If FDR was so popular, then why did we ratify the Twenty-second Amendment, which limited future presidents to two four-year terms, so soon after finally getting FDR out of office? After all, if America had come away from FDR’s terms thinking, “Man, that really worked out well!” then you’d think the country would’ve been in no mood for strict term limits.
I don’t know this for a fact (I know, you’re shocked), but President Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel probably had a poster of FDR on his bedroom wall while growing up, because FDR was one of the first to realize that you should “never let a crisis go to waste.” He used economic turmoil and war to make the case for a massive expansion of government and he used the Great Depression to make people believe that he was the only one who could solve America’s problems when, in reality, he was only making them worse.
“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself . . .”
. . . and FDR serving a fifth term.
On March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt won the election in a landslide. He took office with a lot of political capital, both houses of Congress under Democratic control, and an American public supportive of immediate action. So FDR delivered—promising a “New Deal” for Americans who couldn’t stand another “four more years of the same failed Republican policies” that Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover had delivered for the last decade.
Actually, that quote about failed policies is from Hillary Clinton in 2008 referring to George W. Bush . . . but really, what’s the difference?
FDR ran his campaign on a familiar theme: hope, change, and blame. He blamed Hoover for the high unemployment rate (25 percent), for fostering the growth of greedy, out-of-control corporations, and for problems with regulation and oversight. He then made the case that the only solution to those problems was through a massive New Deal that would be implemented by the federal government.
Calling FDR’s victory a “landslide” is like calling Karl Marx a “liberal”—it’s an epic understatement. FDR won 472–59 in the Electoral College and 22.8 million to 15.7 million in the popular vote. Hoover won only five states, and you’ll probably be shocked to learn which ones they were: Pennsylvania, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Connecticut. No, I’m not kidding.
Oh, and it had to be done quickly.
Is any of this sounding familiar?
In his first hundred days in office, FDR created a whole bastion of new federal programs and signed at least 15 major pieces of legislation into law. Here’s what all of that government spending bought us:
Unemployment during the New Deal and New Deal II:
It wasn’t until America got thrust into war that the economy rebounded. FDR actually prolonged the Depression with his big government “solutions.” (See our “Economics 101” chapter for a lot more on that.)
“Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.”
—Franklin Delano Roosevelt
FDR was able to launch all of these hugely expensive projects despite the fact that, on the campaign trail, he had promised “a reduction in federal expenditures.” It’s a shame we didn’t have MSNBCNNFOX back then or else that sound bite would now show up in the montages alongside “Read my lips,” “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” and the soon-to-be-forgotten-because-itwas-a-mistake-not-a-lie, “I can make a firm pledge: Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.”
While the Depression provided a convenient excuse for FDR’s actions, the truth is that he must not have been a very big fan of the Founding Fathers. What other reason could there be for all the do-overs? A “New Deal,” a “Second New Deal,” and then a second Bill of Rights? I mean, geez, why not just send another declaration to England apologizing how poorly worded the first one was?
How egotistical do you have to be to issue a “new”
Bill of Rights? I mean, that’d be like trying to write a new version of Common Sense.
Oh, wait a second . . .
Technically, yes, FDR was most likely an American citizen, but the stuff he proposed sounded more like entries from Karl Marx’s diary. For example, in his 1944 State of the Union address he said:
“In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad
The right of every family to a decent home
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment
The right to a good education.
While FDR was proposing all sorts of new rights for the needy, he was also making sure that he could pay for it all by taking the U.S. off of the “gold standard,” thereby paving the way for trillions in debt to be racked up over the ensuing years. I guess “progress” isn’t cheap.
That is typical socialist rhetoric that sounds good for the two seconds it takes before your brain starts to engage. So let’s look at a few of those new “rights” a little more closely:
The right to a useful job—I thought the rights we fought for were “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? Maybe Jefferson just forgot to include “useful job” in there?
This is one of those “rights” that might feel good but that stands against everything a free-market system stands for. Is the owner of a coal mine supposed to hire every 400-pound fatty who shows up with his Second Bill of Rights in hand? Is a shop owner required to hire a person who can’t communicate with customers because he or she doesn’t speak English? If so, then what happens to these businesses? They suffer, profits decline, bankruptcies ensue, and more Americans are forced to go on the government dole—which is exactly what FDR was probably hoping for.
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation—If this one doesn’t make you seethe inside, then you can’t consider yourself a real lover of capitalism. What is the incentive to study and work hard when you know that you have a government-gifted right to not only earn enough for food and clothing, but also to pay for your entertainment?
“All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them.”
—Executive Order 6102, signed by FDR on April 5, 1933
Supporters of these rights will argue that as the richest nation on earth, we have a responsibility to help our poor. I couldn’t agree more—and that’s why we have Medicaid, Medicare, S-CHIP, welfare, food stamps, Section-8 housing, shelters, food kitchens, counseling, etc., etc. But taking the next step by making our government the grantor of rights takes America from being the land of opportunity to the land of guarantees.
The right of every family to have a decent home—We’ve tried really hard over the last couple of decades to make FDR’s failed dream a reality, and I think we’re now all seeing how that kind of thinking turns out.
Giving people something—whether it be clothing, recreation, or yes, a home—that’s out of proportion with how hard they worked to get it is a recipe for disaster. While I happen to be against homelessness (I know, shocking), we have plenty of safety nets in place to help those who have fallen on truly hard times. In New York City, for example, no family who is in urgent need of shelter is denied it (unless they break a rule by being drunk or high). And while no one would ever consider a homeless shelter a “decent” home, I think it’s fair to say that shelters and support services constitute fulfillment of the obligation to protect the poor and weakest.
Raped the Constitution
Massive government expansion
Believed recreation was a “right”
Elected four times . . . in America
Fattest president in history
Enjoyed doughnuts
Often got food stuck in his mustache
Here’s a great example of the government using tax dollars to provide an appropriate safety net. From the NYC Department of Homeless Services: “Drop-In (locations) provide hot meals, showers, laundry facilities, clothing, medical care, recreational space, employment referrals, and other social services. Staff can also help you find a safe and secure place to sleep. All Drop-Ins operate 24/7—so please come by.”
But FDR couldn’t have disagreed with that more. “All of these rights spell security,” he told Congress. “And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.”
At his 1944 inauguration (it must have been getting old by then—the fourth time is never the charm), FDR said, “People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”
As usual, he was wrong. The truth is that presidents who overstay their welcome by convincing Americans that the man is more important than the office are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
PROGRESSIVE ERA, ROUND TWO How I wish that were true. Unfortunately, if you look at the list of presidents since FDR, it would be easier to name the ones who weren’t progressives. Let’s see . . . there was Ronald Reagan and . . . well . . . uh . . . . honestly, I think Reagan was about it.
Over the years, it hasn’t seemed to matter whether a Republican or Democrat was in office—the government just kept growing and growing. Very few presidents met an agency, department, or program that they didn’t want to create or expand and our debates have become less about big vs. small government and more about obscenely large vs. really large government.
While it’s true that some presidents embraced more progressive ideals than others, virtually all of them have relied on the infamous “greater good” argument to justify their expansions of government.
“When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
—Barack Obama, responding to a question from Joe the Plumber, and sounding eerily reminiscent of FDR.
Lyndon B. Johnson’s expansion of Medicare and his Head Start and Job Corps programs were all part of his “Great Society,” which he described as “a place where men are more concerned with the quality of their goals than the quantity of their goods.” Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education was all about our collective interest in having the federal government get involved with our local schools. (“Education is our most important national investment,” he wrote in the signing statement.) President Bush’s Department of Homeland Security was about our collective desire to be safe and secure, and his Medicare Part D (Prescription Drugs) bill was in response to our collective “obligation” to care for our seniors.
In fact, when President George W. Bush signed the bill that included Medicare Part D, a massive expansion of government that’s added billions to our debt, he gave a quote that seemed to come right from the progressive handbook:
“Medicare is a great achievement of a compassionate government and it is a basic trust we honor,” Bush said. “Each generation benefits from Medicare. Each generation has a duty to strengthen Medicare. And this generation is fulfilling our duty.”
President Bush’s expansion of government was historic, but his records won’t last for long if President Obama has his way. While Bush may have been a progressive-lite, Obama is an extra-strength version: a president who seems to be willing to push the progressive agenda farther than most supporters could’ve ever fathomed.
Destroyed U.S. economy
U.S. choppers burning in desert
Pummeled in reelection bid
Was a nice enough guy
Established West Point
Wrote the Declaration of Independence
Created the foundation for the greatest country in history
Obama is rewriting America’s future (and, in some cases, its Constitution as well), and he’s doing it with blinding speed. Like Teddy Roosevelt, he seems to believe that wealth must be “well used,” like Woodrow Wilson he seems to believe in the idea that our Constitution is a “living” document, and, like FDR, he seems to believe in the right to health care, a good job, and a decent home. In other words, Obama is like a progressive Frankenstein—a president who’s created out of the most grotesquely destructive policies of his predecessors.
There is at least one other unintended consequence to all of this. If Americans continue to embrace the New Progressive Era that President Obama seems so intent on ushering in, then likely it won’t be long before we start renaming things in honor of our new national hero. That will not only take us even farther from the vision laid out by our Founders, but it will also make looking for directions a whole lot more complicated.
Any bets on how long it will be before President Obama mirrors FDR’s belief that Americans have a right to adequate recreation? I’m really going to be angry if I have to start paying for someone’s jet ski rental.
