Progressivism,If you look it up you will probably see headings like,"reform","better living conditions",and "government responsibility". I agree that progressivism did some good things,but no one ever mentions the side-effects it has imposed on our society.
First,I will would like to look at the movement itself.The Progressive movement was a furor of reform that occurred around 1890s-1920s.It emphasized betterment of society through government reform.The progressives attacked large Unions,Trusts,and corrupt businesses;during this era,in fact,American trade increased due to better quality in products.Universal Suffrage was emphasized,and a number of helpful associations were created to help people express their political views(e.g:secret ballots).To the American worker,the Progressive movement was a common-man movement;to the middle-class the Progressive movement was a way to increase the overall prosperity.
Now that we have seen the progressive movement's good side it is time to look at it's flaws.Do not misunderstand.The Progressives did indeed accelerate the living conditions of Americans,but they did it at a cost,and perhaps may have sown the seeds of current problems; large government,broken taxes,and the breaking of the family nucleus can be seen beginning in the Progressive Era.The central belief of progressives were that the government should remedy the problems of society,for government to do this it needed to increase it's size and create areas directly specialized to handle these problems.The drastic increase of government offices,occupied by fallible men and women,did two thins:(1 It further separated the main government body from the people with more bureaucracy(2 It caused the seeds of further corruption throughout society by forming up appointed/isolated powers.All this reformation required one main thing,money!The need for money spurred the government to increase taxes and institute an income tax.The logic behind this thinking is faulty:(We need more money to better the people,so we tax those who are bettering themselves to give to the needy,so we can tax THEM too!)this had the result of creating an unsteady foundation for that economy.(which may have contributed to the depression)The final legacy of the progressives was their insistence that the responsibility of teaching and raising children should be regulated by the government.hence public school curriculum,and many other restrictions on public school.
But in the end,all the problems with progressivism can be seen in their basic belief,the BETTERMENT of society through THE GOVERNMENT;the answer to society is not government,but God.
The GRYPHON
good post Gryphon you must have done a lot of research for this ! Thanks for the effort you put in to this!
ReplyDeleteGood post, will give it a more in-depth look later.
ReplyDeleteWould also like to add that many Christian denominations are inherently progressive in their political philosophy, particularly those that ascribe to the social gospel.
In my opinion one extreme and often overlooked example of this is the emphasis on overturning Roe v. Wade, outlawing abortion and pornography, and restricting homosexuality, all through legal means. The church should instead be channeling some of that apparently boundless energy into providing real options to pregnant women in crisis, promoting adoption (to Christians... what is the point of telling a 16 year old girl to have her baby if no one is around to adopt that baby), building our own moral framework, and loving people as Christ would regardless of sexual orientation. Legal action has its place, but we are starting to worship it as a way to change a society of which we are rapidly becoming a minority (and a tyrannical one at that).
Welcome John!
ReplyDeleteI would add that Progressivism is mainly supported by the more liberal Christian denominations,in fact the social gospel(which was intellectual not spiritual)was the religious wing of Progressivism.I am not saying you can not be a christian if you are a Progressive,but it does raise some difficult quandaries when one is comparing one's political views with one's Christian beliefs.(It is like being a liberal Christian)
As I said in the original post,the central belief of progressives were that the government should remedy the problems of society.This in my opinion is dangerous.The government is supposed to be efficient,and in order to be efficient it must follow Law and order.This causes it to be cold and unfeeling.The founding fathers created a system that allowed for the people to have a venue to address and counter the government,but at it's best the government can still only provide a venue for people to get help.It still falls to the individual to help others or to help themselves.
(That is where "loving your neighbor as yourself" comes into play.)
The rebuttal of standing legislation and Federal agencies,in my opinion,is an important issue.Because although the government can not feel,it can support morals,and should not be supporting immoral decisions. Abortions,Homosexuality,and pornography should be outlawed.I also think that you can not tear something down without building up something else,so we must be active in providing Christ as the true way to combat other evils.
Thought provoking post Gryphon.
ReplyDeleteHere's where I disagree. You are correct in the original application of Progressive thought in liberal theology.
However, there is a thread of progressivism running through many of the Evangelical denominations, particularly the more conservative ones. As you wrote: "the central belief of progressives were that the government should remedy the problems of society"
Conservative denominations apply this by trying to use government to remedy the moral problems of society, as in the examples I stated. That is NOT the reason for government. As the Constitution so aptly put it, the purpose of government is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"
Nothing in there about ensuring a moral society when it comes to personal ethical decisions. That is the role of religion, whether Christian or otherwise.
Allowing "immoral" decisions (I use quotations because even if we agree on what is immoral, there are other people of other faiths who might disagree in particulars, and part of a multi-cultural society that respects the beliefs of all recognizes that) is in fact a responsibility of government, and it is not necessarily "supporting" those decisions.
Let's look at a few examples:
1. Should the government enforce Prohibition, or impose religious tests on those in public office?
2. Should the government prohibit divorce along Mosaic guidelines? That would be what many Christians I know would argue, and they would be just as wrong as anyone who supported an Islamic or Judaic divorce code.
3. Should one religion get to impose its personal moral code on those who do not subscribe to it? If so, then I am glad I do not live in a society where Christians are in the minority while another religion is in the ascendant. The purpose of our republic is to protect the rights of the minority.
4. Should we stone adulterers, homosexuals, witches, and rebellious children?
Those who would agree that government should do all those things are dangerously close to Theocracy, and they use a progressive political strategy, if not philosophy, to try to accomplish it.
I definitely agree with you Johnathan about the purpose of our government,(as it is outlined in the excerpt you provided for us.)and I agree that it is a disastrous thing to involve the government in a religious and(or) ethical matter.But I also have a different belief on some points.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the outlawing of certain things would be an act of the government interfering in the person's liberties.
(e.g:Abortion is the killing of a fetus(baby),and at any stage the Fetus has all the attributes of life(Life:an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.)this therefore makes abortion murder which makes it illegal.)
I would also say that the striking down of certain legislation is needed,because as of now the government is more involved in our personal lives than ever in our history.
I would just like to say that I support the separation of Church and state completely.
Remember there is a differences between the state and Federal governments well the federal government doing something like that wood definitely be agenst the Constitution (not that a little thing like that would stop them) but what but I think the state governments could... possibly. Jonathan well not disagreeing with you I did find it interesting that several things you mentioned as things that governments should stay out of are thins our own regime practiced in its infancy.
ReplyDelete" 1. Should the government enforce Prohibition, or impose religious tests on those in public office?
2. Should the government prohibit divorce along Mosaic guidelines? ...
3. Should one religion get to impose its personal moral code on to those who do not subscribe to it?"
I found it was thought provoking that in the time of "founding fathers " these things were all done to one degree or anther. now I don't worship the founders of our nation but I thought it put it in to a different light.