Reaping the Whirlwind of Progressivism, Part I
How much more can we take?
When I recently criticized an editorial cartoonist for slamming libertarians — he said a libertarian “lifeguard” would let everyone drown — he wrote back claiming that libertarians would abolish numerous federal departments and agencies, like the Department of Education and even the Federal Reserve. In other words, the cartoonist repeated the litany of Progressivism that we have heard all our lives.
Like most Americans who took an American history course or two, I was told that the late nineteenth century was a time of rapacious monopolies and growing poverty. Businesses like Standard Oil were strangling the American economy and individual Americans, giving them unsafe products and higher prices.
However, like the knight on the white horse, the Progressives rode in to change the destructive course of this country. Men like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson exercised their powers and even exceeded their constitutional authority – all to the good of this country. Progressives in Congress passed laws regulating the economy and created commissions and agencies with the authority to regulate unsafe and “unfair” business practices. Taking the mantle of “can-do Americanism,” they directed the economy to “serve the people” rather the wealthy.
We have read of how the Food and Drug Administration made food safe and ensured we had safe and effective pharmaceuticals. The Fed “wisely” regulated the nation’s “money supply,” and the Federal Trade Commission, with its centerpiece Bureau of Competition, intervened to make the U.S. economy competitive once more. Armed with newly acquired “scientific” knowledge, the people who populated these departments and agencies would be able to detect immediately what needed to be done, as opposed to the slow and monopoly-dominated the free market.
Centralized Curricula
In more modern times, we are told the Department of Education, through its efforts to centralize school curricula and more, is going to make this country more “competitive.” As for the environmental realm, pollution was becoming worse and worse until the “people” declared they had suffered enough. So the government created the Environmental Protection Agency, which will save us from the ravages of “climate change” through its regulatory policies.
And so it goes. Thus anyone who even questions this litany about the growth of the “reformist” federal government is at best an ignoramus and “mossback,” and at worst is an “enemy of the people.” If we raise even a peep, it is obvious we want Americans to die of food poisoning, suffer birth defects (via Thalidomide), have rivers catching fire, and see child labor and low wages. To modern Progressives the only thing separating us from this hell on earth is the list of federal agencies, so anyone who wishes to abolish these agencies either is utterly ignorant of history or wants everyone but the “rich” to live in misery.
Unfortunately, because such beliefs have become institutionalized in our body politic — to the point where the mere mention of an agency is a declaration that it actually does what it is “supposed” to do — it is hard for people to understand that the opposite is true: Our current standard of living is considerably lower than it would have been had the Progressives not taken power.
Yes, such a statement runs counter to what “everyone knows,” especially people in education and the media, where Progressivism made its strongest inroads. But what “everyone knows” isn’t so. As the economy continues to falter in the aftermath of the housing and financial meltdown, the housing market is still laden with government incentives to promote home ownership, particularly in finance, the very portion of the economy that had the worst crisis.
Look at the legacy of Progressivism. From numerous wars (to promote “democracy” abroad) to the current depression, we see the imprint of government intervention. In future columns, I will explain why Progressive government has been a disaster not a savior.
Comment by Iván on 30 June 2010:
Kant established that “good” was in intentions, not in the search for profit. We accepted that government with “good intentions” should rule. The result is shameful.
What if we accepted “horrible and selfish” intentions. I’m pretty sure we might get a better outcome.
Comment by Jacob Steelman on 30 June 2010:
Gabriel Kolko’s Triumph of Conservatism is a great examination of progressivism by a leftist who was surprised by what his research showed – the regulated were seeking the regulation imposed by the progressives.
Comment by Edward Krueger on 30 June 2010:
Using lifeguarding as a metaphor for governing: For libertarians there would be no lifeguard if you didn’t want one –we assume people can swim or well get help if they can’t. A minimal statist would be a regular lifeguard. A progressive lifeguard would be searching peoples shoes for hidden wallets.
Comment by Dick Swalve on 30 June 2010:
“Our current standard of living is considerably lower than it would have been had the Progressives not taken power.”
Got a cite for that, chief?
Human endeavor is not perfect, no matter who you work for or pray to. Yes, that means regulation can often go too far. But regulation doesn’t arise in a vacuum. It stems from someone abusing “the common” in some way or another. I like to drink clean water. We are all downstream from someone.
Progress is not the antithesis of liberty.
Comment by Daniel Shapiro on 1 July 2010:
Here’s an insight into so-called “progressives” who advocate coercive so-called political state “solutions”. Every single one of them I’ve ever spoken and where I questioned the necessity of the use of political force has admited that they believe that man is fundamentally evil and corrupt. Their dim view of humanity is what justifiesv parental state intervention. Unfortunately they do not recognize that this premise regarding human nature is self-fulfilling.
Comment by Sean Ambroise on 1 July 2010:
Mr. Swalve
Human endeavor isn’t perfect? No one says it is… we don’t go around valuing “endeavors” as good or bad.
Regulations arise from a government that wants to regulate, and yes, regulation (or as you arbitrarily term it, progress) is the antithesis of liberty.
It’s an old song. You want clean water? Buy it, or create it. Anything you can’t make with your own two hands must come from someone who spent his or her labor creating it. Clean water? Comes from someone else. Thus, you have no right to “regulate” their activities and their productivity for your own ends. You are forced to cooperate. That is why Ludwig von Mises came very near to naming his most famous book “Social Cooperation” rather than “Human Action”.
You use a faulty example when you mention rivers. If every person owns their fair share of the river, it is illegal to pollute the entire river, because that is damaging another person’s property… sorry pal, that’s about as free market as you get.
Most instances of regulation are instead violations of one person’s right to use or exchange his own property as he sees fit, regardless of the fact that it is an exchange between two individuals who consent and benefit from the transaction.
Comment by Zach Bibeault on 2 July 2010:
I’m looking forward to this series. The progressives are tiresome.
Comment by William Hendricks on 6 July 2010:
I’m glad this topic is being discussed. Tragically, to question the wisdom behind the Progressive Era is considered blasphemy for many Americans. One disturbing affect of the Progressive Era is the minimum hour/wage laws that swept America during the dawn of the 20th century. For the longest time, the Supreme Court struck these laws down as violations of individual liberty (“Freedom of Contract”), only to reverse this precedent in Muller v. Oregon (1908). The proponent’s argument existed upon ‘scientific evidence’ later proven to be false.
Unfortunately, the States and the Federal government wasted no time in passing laws against liberty, protected by false science. This isn’t as disturbing as the fact once understood the science was untrue, neither the S. Court, the States, nor the Federal government ever challenged or reversed laws against freedom of contract.