progressive

America’s Real Enemy

By Mike Kapic / February 7, 2019 / Comments Off on America’s Real Enemy

The Progressive Movement Rejected The Founders’ Model For Lawmaking By Madeline Osburn FEBRUARY 1, 2019 When the founders of our country designed the legislative branch, they envisioned lawmakers relying on natural law and reason. They gave the legislature the power to create rules that either prohibit or allow behaviors, and would apply generally to the people as…

Read More

Why I’ve left my liberal comfort zone – and found conservative friends

By Mike Kapic / March 9, 2017 / 0 Comments

—In November I had a conservative friend tell me about being berated by a co-worker who thought she voted for Trump. She didn’t actually say whether she had or had not voted for Trump, but her co-worker blamed her for the election of Trump none-the-less. In progressive areas like […] Click here to view original…

Read More

The 1889 St. Louis Convention of States

By Mike Kapic / February 13, 2017 / 0 Comments

A frequent argument against a convention for proposing constitutional amendments is that there are “no precedents” for determining the rules and procedures for such a gathering, other than the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Although opponents persist in this claim, it has long been debunked: The Constitutional Convention was far […] Click here to view original…

Read More

WATCH: Leftist student physically attacks conservatives after botched debate meeting

By Mike Kapic / January 27, 2017 / 0 Comments

UPDATED ‘Why the f— are you filming me right now?’ What started as a meeting between progressive and conservative student groups to discuss a possible public debate turned violent Wednesday night, according to video captured by one of the participants. A member of the West Virginia University Left Alliance […] Click here to view original…

Read More

Texas Governor Abbott’s Timing Ripe for COS

By Mike Kapic / January 5, 2017 / 0 Comments

The 85th Texas legislative session is just around the corner. It begins on January 10, 2017 and priorities have already been set. A Convention of States is high on the list. The Texas Lt. Governor sent out a press release in early December on the COS: Lt. Governor Patrick […] Click here to view original…

Read More

Categories

20 hours ago

WE OWE IT TO OUR CHILDREN

WE OWE IT TO OUR FUTURE

WE OWE IT TO OUR COUNTRY

TO CALL AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF STATES!

Join us today: conventionofstates.com/take_action
... See MoreSee Less

View on Facebook

America’s Real Enemy

The Progressive Movement Rejected The Founders’ Model For Lawmaking

By Madeline Osburn FEBRUARY 1, 2019

When the founders of our country designed the legislative branch, they envisioned lawmakers relying on natural law and reason. They gave the legislature the power to create rules that either prohibit or allow behaviors, and would apply generally to the people as a whole, not specific groups. About a century later, the American Progressive movement took off in American politics and threw the founders’ vision out the window.

The American Progressive movement’s leaders and ideologues included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Croly. Progressives rejected the natural law and natural rights arguments of the Declaration of Independence, and believed they were outdated for the needs of modern society. You can learn about the Progressives’ model of government in the third lecture, “Politics and Administration,” in Hillsdale College’s online course on Congress.

The Progressives disagreed often on the details of their philosophy, but the generally agreed model for legislative power was divided between politics and administration. “Politics” was the side they viewed as most closely connected to the people, and included anyone who was in an elected position such as Congress and the presidency. “Administration” is what we know today as the bureaucratic state, and it was (and still is) the furthest from the control of the people.

The administrative side was to be made up of supposedly non-partisan experts in various fields who are given the power implement the goals established by the political side. Their legislature worked like this: the political side was legislating the ends, or the stated goals of the people, and the administrative side was legislating the means to those ends.

“Legislation is but the oil of government,” Wilson wrote. He saw as legislation directing others to act, but it not acting in and of itself. That’s because to the progressives, it was not up to the elected representatives to solve society’s problems in exhaustive detail, that was up to the administration. Rather, what Congress should pass is more like a vision statement — goals expressing the wills of the communities that elected them.

They reasoned that the real power to create rules and change behavior should lie within the administration because those in the elected positions would be limited in their scope of knowledge, as would the people who elected them. Neither average citizens nor those they vote for are experts in knowing what chemicals shouldn’t be in our air, our complicated health care system, or how to standardize factories. But they do know they want clean air, affordable health care, and safe workplaces. A good progressive policy would be a clear, broad goal expressed as the will of the community, and then the details would be fleshed out and implemented by the administration.

The role of the president fell under this political umbrella. He was seen as a representative of everyone, and his constituency was the whole country. Public opinion needs to be shaped, formed, and focused on a particular direction for this model to work. The president can develop, and even get elected on, a specific platform to press onto the legislators. As we’ve clearly experienced, nearly every president since the Progressive movement has done just that.

Progressives also instilled our modern framework for a more democratic electorate. Some of the reforms introduced in this era included the recall, the first campaign finance legislation, direct primaries for nominations, and the direct election of senators. They believed in tying the people as closely as possible to elected officials.

The irony of their democratic conviction is that by their own model, the real power was stripped away as far as possible from the people. The people’s representatives would voice the public’s opinion, but it was the wholly unaccountable bureaucratic administrators who implemented their desired changes to society.

Madeline is a staff writer at the Federalist and the producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Follow her on Twitter.

The Federalist

Posted in

Mike Kapic