Talk:Progressivism in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-Class, Mid-importance)
Socrates.png
Philosophy portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Hi

Hi,

This article has almost nothing to do with progressive social and political movements in the U.S.

Almost all of the discussion has to do with reform movements and populist movements of the left and right.

The modern progressive movement in the U.S. certainly traces back to the coalition with liberals and some radicals to support FDR. It has almost nothing to do with campaign finance reform.

To see a balanced review of issues important to contemporary progressives in the U.S., simply scan the articles at The Progressive magazine.

[1]

(Weird URL is transitional address while they move their website)

This whole page needs to be rewritten from beginning to end. Let's talk. --Cberlet 20:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The disputed American Liberalism entry states that since "liberal" has become a word of disparagement, so many American liberals now call themselves "progressives." But coming to this entry to shed any light on the matter.

The neutralism of the American Liberalism is being disputed because authors over there have wildly different ideas of what constitutes a liberal (some even place Huey long, obviously a populist, in the liberal camp). For this "Progressivism in the United States" entry to serve, the distinction between progressive, populist, and liberal should be explained. -- Griot

Cberlet, the point of this article is to provide a history of self-titled U.S. "Progressive" political movements, not to describe the current, self-described U.S. "Progressive" political movement, which fore some is little more than an alternate title for mainstream liberal politics, and for others is used to describe a further left branch of left-wign politics. -- 15 September 2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.15.123 (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major rewrite

Attempted to make the page read more clearly by moving the text about the two forms into single blocks for each form. Simple lead, removing uncited claims that were POV. This page could use some published cites.--Cberlet 13:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prohibition and progressivism

Many early twentieth century Progressives supported Prohibition, but not all. For example, Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, one of the leading Progressives, was opposed to temperance and Prohibition. Many other leading Progressives, such as Theodore Roosevelt, were neutral on the issue. Woodrow Wilson seemed to be tepidly sympathetic but vetoed the Volstead Act (a veto overridden by Congress]], believing it to be a matter for the states not the federal government.

[edit] Merger

See merger discussion on progressivism talk.

Merger was discussed and has been ultimately decided against.--Jackbirdsong 20:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needless repetition

The second paragraph of the "Early Progressivism" section is almost identical to the first paragraph of the "Tenets of Early Progressivism" section. I think either of them should be removed.

El Imbécil 17:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statist or against individual liberties?

Was historic Progressivism in the US ever statist or against individual liberties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.212.182 (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Progressivism was for blue laws, compulsory schooling, prohibition, regulation of markets, etc. The defining characteristic of progressivism is support for governmental (statist) solutions to social problems. Instead of the libertarian emergent order of voluntary society, it supported (and to this day supports) government imposed force over people. PhilLiberty (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Only if you regard the freedom to defecate on people as the most important aspect of freedom. BillMasen (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] What about fascism?

It is truly a bit strange that fascism, American Progressivism's incestuous child, is not mentioned at all throughout the entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.149.167 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See American Conservatism *chuckles* 67.164.68.182 (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

fascism doesn't have much to really DO with progressivism. maybe it says something about fascism's relationship with progressivism. yes, though, they COULD add a little bit at the end about how progressivism led to fascism...Spiritchik (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be mentioned that progressivism is closet fascism. PhilLiberty (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to cite someone to show this, use someone other than Jonah Goldberg. POV in this art. is far from neutral.--76.78.142.201 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] alternative use

There's an somewhat unrelated use of the word. In the 1930's continuing through at least the 50s, the Communist party in the US (and I think elsewhere) used "progressive" as a code word implying some degree of support for their policies. Whether this was intended by them to be confused with the earlier use of the word is not clear to me, but throughout that period it tended to imply if not a fellow traveller, at least someone of whom the party approved in some manner. This will obviously need some sourcing, but I want to at least get the discussion started. . DGG (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Communists used the term progressive in the same way that it is used today. Progressives supported world peace, decolonization, trade unions, racial equality, regulation, etc. Communists often worked with groups supporting these causes. Many conservatives at the time thought that all these causes were part of an international Communist conspiracy, and this point of view continues among right-wing conspiracy theorists like Klansmen, John Birchers and American Nazis. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Section

"In U.S. history, the term progressivism refers to a broadly-based, liberal reform movement that reached its height early in the 20th century. The initial progressive movement arose as an alternative to the conservative response to the vast changes brought by the industrial revolution." I removed reference to liberal and conservative because the terms are not applicable. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the changes by TFD.Speralta (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Observations

This article provides a well-documented and accurate accounting of the central tenets of the progressive era. Perhaps there is a need for disambiguation since much of the dispute appears to be arising from how the term has been used by different groups at different points in our nation's history, including the appropriation of the term by adherents of mainstream liberal politics?
The early progressive movement was very strongly invested in campaign finance reform and reducing corruption. [1]. Modern articles in the Progressive Magazine are in no way relevant to that history. Speralta (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. "Progressivism" generally refers to the c. 1900 - 1920 era, and not to the 1912, 1924, 1948 or modern Progressive Party or Progressive Democrats. I suggest the article cover this subject only and merely reference the other groups. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV dispute [FASCISM]

Multiple references to strictly biased sources permeate this article. This includes Jonah Goldberg ref.s and calling progressivism synonymous to fascism. --76.78.142.201 (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

References are not biased simply because you disagree. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that's the point of citation. We say, when something is Jonah's Goldberg's opinion, that "Jonah Goldberg asserts...", unless, as there is no reason to believe, he represents a consensus of reliable sources. This is for fundamentally the same reasons we do not say that he is a spoiled, overbred, nepotist of dubious learning and intellectual honesty, although there are printed sources for every one of those descriptors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I changed it to: Many, such as Johah Goldberg, consider progressivism, with its support for government regulation (as opposed to nationalization) to be essentially the same as fascism, but with a populist workers veneer. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Many? You need a source for that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Anything other than anarcho-capitalism (otherwise known as chaos/constant murder/somalia) is closet fascism. Progressives certainly did sometimes discriminate against other religious and racial groups, but to shoehorn them into fascism is absurd. What about anti-progressives like Harry Byrd? Are all conservatives racists because it was conservatives defending the Jim Crow laws? BillMasen (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Fascism is not necessarily about racism; Mussolini's govt had many Jews. But fascism always has corporatism. And corporatism is definitely a major point of progressivism. IOW progressive economic policies and fascist economic policies are identical - just sold to the dumb masses differently. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So, the biggest problem with Hitler was that he nationalised ore mining and set up a government-funded scheme where people could save up for volkswagens?

No one said that. I only assert that progressivism is a type of fascism, according to many who have studied the issue. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that this might be a fringe opinion? BillMasen (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line -- the fascism claim is a fringe argument unsupported by the body of the article and inappropriate for the lede. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a fringe claim. A one needs to do is google "progressivism fascism" and you'll see that many, many people agree with Goldberg's evaluation, and that many so asserted long before Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism. Here are a few supporting quotes:

During the 1930s H.G. Wells's theory of revolutionary praxis centred around a concept of ‘liberal fascism’ whereby the Wellsian ‘liberal’ utopia would be achieved by an authoritarian élite. Taking inspiration from the militarized political movements of the 1930s, this marked a development in the Wellsian theory of revolution from the ‘open conspiracy’ of the 1920s. Although both communist and fascist movements evinced some of the desired qualities of a Wellsian vanguard, it was fascism rather than communism which came closest to Wells's ideal. - Philip Coupland, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 35, No. 4, 541-558 (2000)[2]

Beyond that, TR [Theodore Roosevelt], as he was commonly known, had a rare ability to make personal use of popular causes and resentments. It was the age of "progressivism," a vague term, but one that connoted a new readiness to use the power of government for all sorts of grand things. H.L. Mencken, the great libertarian journalist and close observer and critic of presidents, compared him to the German kaiser, Wilhelm II, and shrewdly summed him up: "The America that [Theodore] Roosevelt dreamed of was always a sort of swollen Prussia, truculent without and regimented within." - by Ralph Raico Fascism Comes to America

Although Wilson was more reluctant than contemporaries such as Theodore Roosevelt to enter the war, progressives inside and outside the administration hailed the war, when it came, as an opportunity to mobilize society into collective action under centralized state leadership. For the progressives, prosecution of the war was very much a means as well as an end unto itself. Renowned educator John Dewey remarked happily, “We shall have to lay by our good-natured individualism and march in step.” In practice, this meant “an industrial dictatorship without parallel,” to use the words of one War Industries Board member. The Committee on Public Information, the national propaganda office, regularly used demagogy. One liberty bond poster proclaimed, “I am Public Opinion. All men fear me!” The Sedition Act of 1918 banned expression of “any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States government or the military.” Meanwhile, the Postmaster General banned the circulation of close to a hundred periodicals. The Justice Department’s American Protective League (APL) had over 250,000 members by 1918. These APL personnel busied themselves with spying on neighbors and rounding up people who might have been draft dodgers. On the whole, the home front of the war to make “the world safe for democracy” saw a deterioration of the spirit of democracy, under the watch of the progressives. - Blair Nathan, The Left's Historical Baggage, The Stanford Review, April 17, 2009. PhilLiberty (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How about a separate article which discusses the relationship between Progressivism and Facism? BTW, you may consider Jonah Goldberg to be biased, but his book is full of contemporary quotes and independent references. Should be relatively easy to skip over citing Goldberg and just cite his sources directly.Doobie61 (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But all the article said (in my version) was that "jonah goldberg thinks...". I didn't present it as fact (nor is it). His book was reviewed and presumably you can find someone who says that goldberg is wrong. And what exactly is wrong with the Hamby quote? BillMasen (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no problem with the Hamby quote. The problem is that the quote was already in the article and you added it a second time. If you check out my edit, you will see that even though I deleted your addition of it, it is still in the article. As far as Goldberg, I certainly can find sources that criticize him -- if you followed the link to the wikipedia article on his book you will see the very strong criticism of it. The problems with Goldberg are (1) his lack of credentials as a recognzed historian or political scientist and (2) the fringe nature of his work. There is no raging debate among serious academics as to whether the historical definition of fascism should be rewritten to match Goldberg's take -- Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, et al (or the United States in general during the 20th Century) are not generally regarded by professionals as fascists. This article is not the place to discuss the pros and cons of what is, in the first place, a fringe attempt at a redefinition of fascism.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The Goldberg quote was added to the body of the article rather than the lede, but it is still inappropriate. As the reviews of Liberal Fascism at the wikipedia article (both positive and negative) show, it is primarily a work advocating a current political position. The reviews also show that Golberg is pretty much alone in arguing that fascism and liberalism are the same thing -- his view does not even represent a mainstream conservative criticism of liberalism. In no way does it belong in a section of the article defining the current wave of progressivism. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Look, if Goldberg's assertion is idiotic (and it is) then I would rather have it in the article that people are pointing out he's an idiot. Frankly, removing it gives respectablity to it. Since when did you have to be a reputable scholar to opine about politics or history? BillMasen (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not whether anybody can “opine about politic or history” but whether their opinions are acceptable for articles in Wikipedia. Check out our policy at WP:SOURCES, in particular this section:
“Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.”
The “disagreement between sources” comment is clarified by this:
“All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.”
You might also want to check out WP:REDFLAG which states, “Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included.” Certainly the rewriting of the definition of fascism by Goldberg and equating it with the entire history of progressivism in the United States is an “exceptional claim”within the definition of this policy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the issue is that fascism is such a laden term that to use it, whatever you mean by it, will automatically carry with it connotations of some of the worst evils of the 20th century. It seems that what therefore frustrates some people, including myself, is the possibility that this is being purposefully done by people who are firmly anti-progressive. (Such as all the dittoheads in the world.)71.87.31.163 (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ schwantes, carlos (1996). ""The Pacific Northwest: An Interpretive Anthology"". University of Nebraska Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=JImlIbueaXcC&pg=PA347&dq=progressive+u%27ren+oregon. Croly, Herbert (1915). ""Progressive Democracy"". MacMillan. http://books.google.com/books?id=QBUpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA123&dq=progressivism&lr=&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES#PPA123,M1. 

[edit] List of progressive issues in lede

Here is a quote that was deleted by Gukguukk28.

Among the many "successes" of Progressivism were antitrust laws, state and national income taxes, increased business regulation, minimum wage laws, direct election of U.S. senators, creation of the Federal Reserve System, and prohibition of alcoholic beverages. - William L. Anderson, The Legacy of Progressivism

In his edit summary, he writes, "rv : deletion of oriented content, non-neutral explanation for the origins of progressivism." How can a list of progressive issues be non-neutral? Is it the "scare quotes" which he objects to, or what? It seems to me that the quote is NPOV, regardless of scare quotes. Without scare quotes it would be POV as it would be declaring, success as a fact. PhilLiberty (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If I thought that PhilLiberty didn't know any better, I would point out that scare quotes are among WP:Words to avoid. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing in WP:Words to avoid that says scare quotes are not to be used. Furthermore, WP:Words to avoid is referring to editor-created text and not to proper quotes from authorities. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The quote in question is fine IMO without the scare quotes since it fits in perfectly with the major theme of both the article and the lede -- progressivism as a reaction to the effects of industrialization and modernization. The problem is the attempt to treat Rothbard's politically motivated writings on an internet site with a clear agenda as if it represented a significant academic position. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The quote is not from Rothbard. It's from William L. Anderson. (Rothbard is a good source, but we'll argue that if/when it becomes relevant.) PhilLiberty (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the first footnote you added that was sourced to a Rothbard blog entry. The very first section of the article is "Tenets of early United States progressivism" and it has very specific identification and analysis of progressive issues. Why exactly in the lede should we ignore the actual content of the article and feature a fringe view unmentioned (probably justifiably) in the rest of the article? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi all, I'm here as a result of a request filed at WP:EAR about what I assume is this dispute. Frankly, I don't understand the situation very well, but what I do understand is that continuing to revert the article itself to assert your preferred version, even if you aren't blatantly violating 3RR, is highly counterproductive and can still be considered revert warring. Please, be the bigger person and discuss this instead of reverting. And even if discussion is deadlocked, there are other options available. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have replied in detail at WP:EAR. Please note that the discussion section "NPOV dispute [FASCISM]" above is also part of this discussion. Considering the content here plus the edit comments made when Phil was reverted there is no discussion deadlock -- four different editors have reverted Phl and nobody has come to support his position. It is Phil against everybody else. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
In the previous section, I give some quotes supporting the claim that progressivism is closet fascism. The Rothbard quote links to LewRockwell.com, a reputable ezine, not a blog, and is a reprint of a chaper of a book (and was written long before the internet or blogs existed.) It is important to note the early progressive issues like blue laws, "Prussian system" education, anti-prostitution, etc. If these are not mentioned in the main text, they should be! PhilLiberty (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Obama

User talk:Highground79 reverted an IP addition of Barack Obama to a list of modern progressives. I have added a march 2009 Newsweek article by Eleanor Clift called "A Progressive Moment". That is just about as mainstream of an article as you can get. Here's a quote: "Obama calls himself a progressive." If you still disagree with calling Obama a progressive: find another source saying that he isn't and address the different points of view and note in the article that "commentators disagree over whether to call Obama a progressive."--Blargh29 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] All Inclusiveness

"Progressives also fought for the secret ballot and women's suffrage."

I love the fact that there is no citation on this lone sentence. The reason why, is because it's rather wrong. Some Progressives fought for the secret ballot. Some Progressives fought for Women's Suffrage. Most Progressives (at least in the late 19th - early 20th centrury) considered themselves part of a movement, not a political philosophy, and had different ideas as to what 'progress' constituted.

I'm just a simple country chicken, but it seems to me that someone should comb through this article and put a little more passivity into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 56.0.143.24 (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] on "progressivism" and "anti-Imperialism"

I notice on the internet, many of these self-proclaimed progressives tend to always, before and after Bush, oppose American foreign policy, in the name of "anti-imperialism/colonialism." I think there needs to be a part on the article about "progressivism"'s worldview. It tends to be extremely left wing, and out of the US mainstream, and you can see this on Daily Kos, Huffington Post, etc. Modern "progressivism" is more a far-left phenomenon, in terms of foreign policy.Tallicfan20 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How about showing both sides?

Are we interested in the truth or ideology?

Why don't we allow both sides to respectfully and fully define this subject and make it known that this is a disputed subject so that the truely objective reader can read both sides?

The definition of an open mind MUST include the principle of seeking the best argument on either side of a subject and making all decisions based on the most complete information set.

I agree we re-write. We already have the left's version, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.232.17 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Progressivism_in_the_United_States"