by Mike Gray

. . . at a time when there is a serious debate about first principles—and when significant elements of the public appear receptive to criticisms of our march toward European-style social democracy—the meaning of progressivism, past and present, is surely relevant. — Ronald J. Pestritto

Hillsdale College professor Pestritto literally wrote the book on one of the icons of the progressive movement (Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, 2005), so what he has to say is of some import:

Whatever I or anyone else thinks about Mr. Beck’s programming or political views, on one central historical issue he is correct: The progressive movement did indeed repudiate the principles of individual liberty and limited government that were the basis of the American republic. America’s original progressives were convinced that the country faced a set of social and economic problems demanding a sharp increase in federal power. They also said that there was too much emphasis placed on protecting the liberty of individuals at the expense of broader social justice.

For progressives, it’s the heart and not the head that rules:

To achieve their ends, progressives understood that the original constitutional limits on the scope of the federal government had to be breached. This is why [Theodore] Roosevelt railed against court decisions, like the famous Supreme Court case of Lochner v. New York (1905), that upheld individual property rights against progressive legislation (in this case a law limiting the number of hours a baker could work). It is also why [Woodrow] Wilson consistently advocated the adoption of a more English-style government, where there is no written fundamental law to serve as a check on the authority of the national legislature.

That pesky old Constitution, chronically crippling the progressives’ attempts to make the world a better place! (What’s that old saying about good intentions and a road?)