A very good article! Along with Angry Demagogue's addition of racism we should be aware of Wilson's Darwinism. His belief that the US Constitution was supposed to be a "living" or "evolving" document that had to be updated for modern times was related to his belief in evolution.
From the article "Darwin and American public administration: Woodrow Wilson's Darwinian argument for administration" (NIH National Library of Medicine):
"By examining the arguments of Woodrow Wilson, this article demonstrates that Darwinism complemented the German political thought that contributed to the establishment of America's administrative state. The application of Darwinian evolutionary biology to politics was a vital element of Wilson's reconceptualization of the state as a living organism. Darwinism was a key rhetorical tool employed by Wilson in his argument against the Constitution's separation of powers." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36877113/
Following is a Wilson quote from William Murray's book UTOPIAN ROAD TO HELL:
"Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission - in an era when 'development,' 'evolution' is the scientific word - to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle . . . a nation is a living thing and not a machine."
Murray also says "Wilson openly called for a rejection of our Constitution and Bill of Rights as being too outdated to have much relevance for Americans living in the early 1900s."
Excellent - but you forgot one other thing that is part and parcel of the progressive movement in general and Woodrow Wilson in particular - racism.
1. Wilson is the one who re-segregated Washington DC and fired most of the black civil servants in federal bureaucracy.
2. When Wilson sought to build public housing in order to house the masses of factory workers going to places like Chicago, he conditioned federal aide to only segregated housing.
3. And who can forget the original reason that Planned Parenthood and abortion gained popularity? To limit the number of black babies being born.
You make a persuasive argument on many points (imho, as I have not much background in American history). I would say that Wilson was a candidate as the fore-runner of the "imperial presidency", as he comes across to me as a self-righteously imperious intellectual sort who went much further than Teddy Roosevelt in using the presidential "bully pulpit" to push his wartime policies. You lose me, though, in saying that "power is concentrated in a technocratic elite."
We need to have people running things who know something about how to run things, hence we like our generals to know about military matters, and want people with economics credentials running the Treasury Department, with people skilled in administration doing many administrative things in all departments. Running government agencies isn't rocket science (for the most part, NASA excepted) but government needs technocrats. The political appointees who head the departments and agencies are there to provide their wisdom (okay, there are exceptions) and policy guidance in line with directives from the elected Chief Executive.
I would agree that this manner of governing may not quite fit the Founders' concept of representative government, but things have advanced from he days of gentlemen farmers riding to Congress and making making legislative decisions based on their native intelligence and classical educations. (For all thefir shortcomings, they did pretty well, imho).
Okay, call me a Marxist if you like (hint: I ain't) but I don't see early 20th century Progressivism as an insidious sort of social dry rot which has weakened the old oaken timbers of American constitutional polity. The politics of today's Progressives in the Democratic Party are not of the same nature as that earlier Progressive era populism. That earlier brand of "Progress" was a more a political course-correction to achieve economic rights for the common man. I see the new terms as signifying a more recent, post-Cold War view of American society that attempts to focus on the rights of people living on the margins of society -- not necessarily economic ones, but social and cultural margins.
I consider it to have been a series of populist legislative reforms which were necessitated by the fabulously successful growth of the still-developing American economy, which greatly enriched the holders of capital -- the "Captains of Business", or if you prefer, the "Robber Barons" -- but which largely excluded the vast majority of Americans from the economic fruits of development. From this, quite naturally, there grew a resentment not only of the wealth of the upper classes, but a desire to weaken their hold on the levers of political power. I view this as reformism, a stage of capitalism that was necessary, inevitable and generally beneficial to the nation as a whole...even to the economic and political elites, as eventually (in the 1930's) progressive political changes (a.k.a. The New Deal) undoubtedly forestalled more serious social unrest. At the end of the era, the Rich were still a lot wealthier than the great majority of American, but workers enjoyed better living conditions in considerable part because of wage gains achieved through union action.
By about 1920 the America of the Founders had changed we had grown from a predominantly rural to a majority urban population. We were a racially, ethnically, culturally diverse nation -- not in the same fashion as an empire, but a nation, albeit one with a European Christian majority controlling most local, state and federal legislatures. Change was going to occur, whether the political class in power liked it or not. FDR, a product of the moneyed American 'aristocracy', had the political ins right to realize this change could take place with through a revolutionary overthrow of the status quo or through making reforms. Both Roosevelts were reformers, but it was FDR who had the guts, wily political instincts and will to push through necessary reforms without causing a 'counter-revolution' by obstructionist Republicans. And of course, as you pointed out, the War made a huge difference, as controls on production, consumption and nearly everything else were accepted as necessary measures to aid the war effort.
A couple of other points in passing. I recognize that this is your blog, and you can write on whatever subject in whatever way suits you, but maybe a bit ]less banging on the "wokeism" thing and gender issues in general would make your arguments more effective in rewatching a general audience=, which would include a lot of self-identified "Liberals" such as me. Secondly, when referring to my fellow liberal Democrats, I question whether it is fitting to refer to us as "the Comrades" as you have from time to time. In a few instances, of course, it can be considered wry wit, but becomes tendentious with repetition.
I didn't intend to try and write an essay on the subject, Thomas, and I am sorry if my 'comment' sound like pointless argumentation -- since I am not trying to change your opinions, merely respond to them -- but since you have shared your opinions in a frank manner, I hope you will consider it a compliment that I do the same.
One can distinguish between specific reforms of the Progressives era, some of which were salutary, and its negative, indeed poisonous, influence on our national development. You cannot preserve representative government and democratic ability when power is concentrated in a technocratic elite, embedded in the administrative state. But that dangerous idea was Progressivism's lasting bequest to the nation. As I noted, it still bedevils us today.
The fact that progressivism thrives best in an atmosphere of war and crisis underlines how dangerous an ideology it is. One has only to review propaganda posters dating from the war years 1941-45 to see what national mobilization begat. Of course it was a necessary measure, but it left America with an authoritarian hangover. The cult of the imperial presidency is traceable to FDR both as Mr. New Deal and Dr. Win the War, and we've never managed to shake it off. Now we're dealing with the current iteration of progressivism, which is primitive, nihilistic, and deeply irrational—never mid the constant gassing about "the Science." And these people too—the comrades as I call them—are equally devoted to the idea of an all-powerful administratinve state, staffed by them.
I spot a number of typos due o my lousy typing and "auto-correction". I'm not actually illiterate but can't spot typos on the fly. )Insert smiley face here)
A very good article! Along with Angry Demagogue's addition of racism we should be aware of Wilson's Darwinism. His belief that the US Constitution was supposed to be a "living" or "evolving" document that had to be updated for modern times was related to his belief in evolution.
From the article "Darwin and American public administration: Woodrow Wilson's Darwinian argument for administration" (NIH National Library of Medicine):
"By examining the arguments of Woodrow Wilson, this article demonstrates that Darwinism complemented the German political thought that contributed to the establishment of America's administrative state. The application of Darwinian evolutionary biology to politics was a vital element of Wilson's reconceptualization of the state as a living organism. Darwinism was a key rhetorical tool employed by Wilson in his argument against the Constitution's separation of powers." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36877113/
Following is a Wilson quote from William Murray's book UTOPIAN ROAD TO HELL:
"Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission - in an era when 'development,' 'evolution' is the scientific word - to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle . . . a nation is a living thing and not a machine."
Murray also says "Wilson openly called for a rejection of our Constitution and Bill of Rights as being too outdated to have much relevance for Americans living in the early 1900s."
Excellent - but you forgot one other thing that is part and parcel of the progressive movement in general and Woodrow Wilson in particular - racism.
1. Wilson is the one who re-segregated Washington DC and fired most of the black civil servants in federal bureaucracy.
2. When Wilson sought to build public housing in order to house the masses of factory workers going to places like Chicago, he conditioned federal aide to only segregated housing.
3. And who can forget the original reason that Planned Parenthood and abortion gained popularity? To limit the number of black babies being born.
Yes, three very good points…
You make a persuasive argument on many points (imho, as I have not much background in American history). I would say that Wilson was a candidate as the fore-runner of the "imperial presidency", as he comes across to me as a self-righteously imperious intellectual sort who went much further than Teddy Roosevelt in using the presidential "bully pulpit" to push his wartime policies. You lose me, though, in saying that "power is concentrated in a technocratic elite."
We need to have people running things who know something about how to run things, hence we like our generals to know about military matters, and want people with economics credentials running the Treasury Department, with people skilled in administration doing many administrative things in all departments. Running government agencies isn't rocket science (for the most part, NASA excepted) but government needs technocrats. The political appointees who head the departments and agencies are there to provide their wisdom (okay, there are exceptions) and policy guidance in line with directives from the elected Chief Executive.
I would agree that this manner of governing may not quite fit the Founders' concept of representative government, but things have advanced from he days of gentlemen farmers riding to Congress and making making legislative decisions based on their native intelligence and classical educations. (For all thefir shortcomings, they did pretty well, imho).
Okay, call me a Marxist if you like (hint: I ain't) but I don't see early 20th century Progressivism as an insidious sort of social dry rot which has weakened the old oaken timbers of American constitutional polity. The politics of today's Progressives in the Democratic Party are not of the same nature as that earlier Progressive era populism. That earlier brand of "Progress" was a more a political course-correction to achieve economic rights for the common man. I see the new terms as signifying a more recent, post-Cold War view of American society that attempts to focus on the rights of people living on the margins of society -- not necessarily economic ones, but social and cultural margins.
I consider it to have been a series of populist legislative reforms which were necessitated by the fabulously successful growth of the still-developing American economy, which greatly enriched the holders of capital -- the "Captains of Business", or if you prefer, the "Robber Barons" -- but which largely excluded the vast majority of Americans from the economic fruits of development. From this, quite naturally, there grew a resentment not only of the wealth of the upper classes, but a desire to weaken their hold on the levers of political power. I view this as reformism, a stage of capitalism that was necessary, inevitable and generally beneficial to the nation as a whole...even to the economic and political elites, as eventually (in the 1930's) progressive political changes (a.k.a. The New Deal) undoubtedly forestalled more serious social unrest. At the end of the era, the Rich were still a lot wealthier than the great majority of American, but workers enjoyed better living conditions in considerable part because of wage gains achieved through union action.
By about 1920 the America of the Founders had changed we had grown from a predominantly rural to a majority urban population. We were a racially, ethnically, culturally diverse nation -- not in the same fashion as an empire, but a nation, albeit one with a European Christian majority controlling most local, state and federal legislatures. Change was going to occur, whether the political class in power liked it or not. FDR, a product of the moneyed American 'aristocracy', had the political ins right to realize this change could take place with through a revolutionary overthrow of the status quo or through making reforms. Both Roosevelts were reformers, but it was FDR who had the guts, wily political instincts and will to push through necessary reforms without causing a 'counter-revolution' by obstructionist Republicans. And of course, as you pointed out, the War made a huge difference, as controls on production, consumption and nearly everything else were accepted as necessary measures to aid the war effort.
A couple of other points in passing. I recognize that this is your blog, and you can write on whatever subject in whatever way suits you, but maybe a bit ]less banging on the "wokeism" thing and gender issues in general would make your arguments more effective in rewatching a general audience=, which would include a lot of self-identified "Liberals" such as me. Secondly, when referring to my fellow liberal Democrats, I question whether it is fitting to refer to us as "the Comrades" as you have from time to time. In a few instances, of course, it can be considered wry wit, but becomes tendentious with repetition.
I didn't intend to try and write an essay on the subject, Thomas, and I am sorry if my 'comment' sound like pointless argumentation -- since I am not trying to change your opinions, merely respond to them -- but since you have shared your opinions in a frank manner, I hope you will consider it a compliment that I do the same.
One can distinguish between specific reforms of the Progressives era, some of which were salutary, and its negative, indeed poisonous, influence on our national development. You cannot preserve representative government and democratic ability when power is concentrated in a technocratic elite, embedded in the administrative state. But that dangerous idea was Progressivism's lasting bequest to the nation. As I noted, it still bedevils us today.
The fact that progressivism thrives best in an atmosphere of war and crisis underlines how dangerous an ideology it is. One has only to review propaganda posters dating from the war years 1941-45 to see what national mobilization begat. Of course it was a necessary measure, but it left America with an authoritarian hangover. The cult of the imperial presidency is traceable to FDR both as Mr. New Deal and Dr. Win the War, and we've never managed to shake it off. Now we're dealing with the current iteration of progressivism, which is primitive, nihilistic, and deeply irrational—never mid the constant gassing about "the Science." And these people too—the comrades as I call them—are equally devoted to the idea of an all-powerful administratinve state, staffed by them.
I spot a number of typos due o my lousy typing and "auto-correction". I'm not actually illiterate but can't spot typos on the fly. )Insert smiley face here)