Andrew Kaczynski: Brian Lamb Interviewing Newt Gingrich in 1999- Theodore Roosevelt-Robert La Follete Tradition

Source: Andrew Kaczynski: Brian Lamb Interviewing Newt Gingrich- Theodore Roosevelt-Robert La Follette Tradition

This might sound at least borderline crazy at least for hyper-partisans, on the Right who see Democrats as immoral criminals and terrorists, who all deserve to be locked up. And hyper-partisans on the Left, who see all Republicans as nothing but ignorant fundamentalist neanderthal bigots. But there is such a thing as Progressive Republicans and reform republicanism, which is what Newt Gingrich has always represented in his 20 years in the House of Representatives and his post-Congressional and political activist career.

Again, progressivism is not socialism and is not even liberalism. And its the least ideological of all the political ideologies in America that is barely qualifies as an ideology. The definition of s Progressive in a political sense is someone who believes in progress and making things better and using a limited government to help create that progress. So a Progressive on the Right like a Newt Gingrich, is going to be different than a Progressive on the Left. Someone like a Teddy Roosevelt or a Sherrod Brown today is currently a U.S. Senator from Ohio.

Progressives right or left, are different from Conservatives, because Conservatives believe in conserving the status quo when it comes to government. And that current society and the way of life is already great and doesn’t need improvement. Progressives always believe things and society can be better. That things and life aren’t always good or bad, but they can always be improved. That progress can always be made.

So someone like a Newt Gingrich can be a defense hawk and believe in a strong national defense and law enforcement strong enough to protect the innocent from predators, believe in fiscal responsibility and that government shouldn’t run high deficits and debt, that taxes and regulations should be low for everybody. But that there should also be a safety net for people who truly need help in society, but to use that safety net to help improve people’s lives. Not just give  them cash in the short-term, but help them improve their lives so they no longer need public assistance in the future. Newt is one of architects of Welfare Reform that became known as Welfare to Work in the mid 1990s. If he was a hard-core Conservative-Libertarian, he wouldn’t believe that there should even be a government Welfare program or public assistance at all.

Being a Progressive is not about being pro-big government or anti-government all together. Or being for a big strong national defense, or almost no national defense at all. Or someone who believes in freedom, or believes in statism. Being a Progressive is about believing in progress and believing that government can serve a useful purpose in making things better for everyone in society. But progressivism is not very ideological at all in how that progress is achieved.

 

 

Advertisements

GBTV: Glenn Beck- On Newt Gingrich, Teddy Roosevelt & Other Progressives

Attachment-1-1381

Source: GBTV

Source: GBTV: Glenn Beck- On Newt Gingrich, Teddy Roosevelt & Other Progressives

I agree with Glenn Beck on one thing with his little rant here. Newt Gingrich, is a Progressive but on the Right when it comes to progressivism. Newt believes in using government through conservative what’s called free market principles to solve problems that Progressives, Liberals, Socialists, and others on the Left believe should be solved. So by that definition House Speaker Paul Ryan would qualify as a Progressive. Republican Senator Tim Scott and perhaps Senator Marco Rubio, would qualify as Progressives as well. AEI President Arthur Brooks, again under this definition, would also qualify as a Progressive.

Where Glenn Beck goes off the rails and gets lost in Fantasy Land, perhaps on a week long meth, alcohol, or marijuana high, with absolutely no sleep, is when he compares progressivism with all sorts of statist philosophies. All sorts of collectivist ideologies that put the interests of the state over the individual and believes Big Government should treat all of the people as its little children who aren’t capable of making the most basic fundamental decisions for themselves.

And in that sense even democratic socialism as it relates to economic policy and to a certain extent personal freedom social issues and trying to prevent people through government force from being involved in unhealthy personal activities, certain parts of democratic socialism and certain Democratic Socialists who aren’t Communists, qualify as statists and collectivists.

The real big government statist collectivist ideology, that Glenn Beck seems to be talking about, is actually communism. Progressives both on the Left where Progressives tend to be now (and that means Center-Left) believe in a limited government to use to help improve society so more people can succeed in society.

Things like education and job training for low-skilled workers and for kids who come from low-income families.

Expanding infrastructure to low-income communities and incentivizing companies to invest in low-income communities and hire low-income people so they can work instead of collecting Welfare..

As well as basic financial assistance for people who fall on hard times.

These are the things that Progressives believe in that government can do to create progress and help people in need from an economic standpoint. This is not a big government socialist or statist approach to governing in America. But a pragmatic limited government progressive approach, that perhaps even a  Conservative-Libertarian like a Glenn Beck could support.

 

 

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Judge Andrew Napolitano- ‘How Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson Destroyed Constitutional Freedom’

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Libertarians which is what both Nick Gillespie and Andrew Napolitano are, (not that there’s anything wrong with that) understanding of the U.S. Constitution, is very different from every other political faction.

Every political faction in America except the Socialists on the Far-Left and the Christian-Nationalists, Alt-Right racist terrorists on the Far-Right, generally support and believe in the U.S. Constitution. But Conservatives and even Conservative-Libertarians, now believe that government and even the Federal Government, has some role when it comes to the safety net and public welfare in the country. They believe that these programs should be run by the states and local government’s and be block granted to them. But Progressives, Liberals, and Conservatives, all now support some role at least for the Federal Government when it comes to the public welfare and a regulatory state.

So course the Andrew Napolitano’s of the world are going to disagree with Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and other Progressives, when it comes to the general welfare clause and commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. There Libertarians who believe taxation is theft and don’t see America as like a club with hundreds of millions of members that we’re all part of and have to pay dues (meaning taxes) in order to keep our membership in that club. So of course Libertarians are going to see Square Deal which gave us the regulatory state in America, the New Deal, which gave us the safety net in America, and the Great Society, which expanded the safety net in America, of course Libertarians are going to see these programs and agendas as unconstitutional.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Judge Andrew Napolitano- ‘How Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson Destroyed Constitutional Freedom’

Progressing America: Theodore Roosevelt- The New Nationalism

Attachment-1-1375

Source: IZ Quotes

What Theodore Roosevelt was advocating for in what he called The New Nationalism, was what became The New Deal in the 1930s. Which is what became the American safety net. Progressives don’t believe in blowing up capitalism, they simply want to make it better so it benefits more Americans. Unlike Socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debbs who also ran for President in 1912 and Senator Bernie Sanders and other Socialists (whether they call themselves Socialists or not) today.

Teddy Roosevelt’s New Nationalism was the political platform that he and his Progressive Party ran on in 1912.

Unemployment Insurance for American workers who are unemployed.

A minimum wage for all workers.

A national pension system for all workers that they could collect from when they retire.

A national health care program that would cover both health care and health insurance for Americans.

Most of these proposed programs became part of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda in the 1930s. Pre-safety net in America if Americans fell on hard times, they either had to take care of their problems themselves, or get friends or family to help them out, or rely on private charity. If they still couldn’t get their issues taken care of, then they were essentially screwed, or out of luck. (If you want a softer term)

What became the New Deal in the 1930s and then later the Great Society in 1960s, did was to guarantee financial help and assistance for any American who fell on hard times and needed financial assistance in form form. Neither Teddy or Frank Roosevelt, wanted to blow up the American capitalist system and replace it with a socialist system. But instead make American capitalism better and make it work for more Americans.

 

 

Progressive People’s Coalition: Teddy Roosevelt- Progressive Party Declaration

Attachment-1-1366

Source: Wikiwand

Where I agree with Doris Kearns Goodwin and her book about Theodore Roosevelt, is that Teddy Roosevelt was a much better political leader as President of the United States, than when he left the White House and decided to run for President again in 1912. I would disagree with Doris Goodwin that Teddy was a Centrist as President. As President he was an actual Progressive  who not only believed in progress, but believed in using government to help create that progress. But he wasn’t a Socialist and instead put limits to what government should try to do for the people.

But once TR left the White House he moved further left and became more ideological, more idealistic, and more romantic. And started advocating for things that simply were never going to happen. Like making it easier to amend the U.S. Constitution so it kept up with the times. As a lot of Social Democrats in America advocate for instead of guaranteeing a basic set of fundamental constitutional rights that make it almost impossible for us to lose. Socialists would want the majority to rule at all times.

What makes progressivism at its best and makes it work well when its practiced in its classical form, instead of people who are much further left and more ideological and prefer to be called Progressives because of the social popularity of that term, or don’t want to be labeled as lets say Socialists and even Democratic Socialists, because of the negative stereotypes of those terms, is what progressivism effective is the pragmatism of it and that Progressives believe in the United States, our Constitution, and form of government. Progressives aren’t interested in breaking up our form of government and governmental system. They don’t believe individual freedom and individualism, are dangerous selfish things, but that instead they want to use government to expand individual freedom so more people can benefit from those things. Not just the wealthy and people born to wealth.

I and Doris Goodwin, believe that Teddy Roosevelt moved away from those progressive pragmatic mainstream principles of his time as President from 1901-09 and by the time he decided to run for President again in 1912 and was no longer in the White House, he became more of a left-wing social democratic activist. That perhaps would have been comfortable running as part of the Socialist Party with Eugene Debbs back in 1912. What made both Roosevelt’s (TR & FDR) great President’s, was their knowledge, intelligence, progressive values, but also their pragmatism. And didn’t say that government had to do this or that, but instead looked for the best solution to all problems. Whether that meant expanding government or not.

Library of Congress: Michelle Krowl Interviewing Doris Kearns Goodwin- Roosevelt & Taft

Attachment-1-1355

Source: Tomato Bubble– WW, TR & WHT

We’ve had other presidential elections where you’ve had an actual Progressive, against an actual Conservative. Instead of the media labeling one a Conservative and the other a Progressive, or the top presidential candidates self-proclaiming themselves as the Conservative and as the Progressive. Even though one candidate might have anti-conservative views and be against the free press and who doesn’t support civil liberties, like with Richard Nixon. Who did have real conservative views as it related to foreign policy and economic policy. But was a big government authoritarian especially when he could get away with it as it related to the press, checks and balances, and Americans civil liberties and individual rights. Or with the Democratic Party with George McGovern who was labeled as the Liberal candidate in 1972, but who actually was a big government Socialist and didn’t put many if any limits on governmental power.

1932 with President Herbert Hoover versus Governor Franklin Roosevelt, is an example of a real Conservative in President Hoover and a real Progressive in FDR. 1964 with President Lyndon Johnson and Senator Barry Goldwater, is an example of a real Progressive in LBJ and a real Conservative in Senator Goldwater. 1984 with President Ronald Reagan and former Vice President Walter Mondale, another example of a real Conservative in President Reagan and a real Progressive in Vice President Mondale.

But 1912 I believe is the first real example of where America had a real choice between a Conservative and a Progressive and perhaps a Conservative against two Progressives, if you label Woodrow Wilson also as a Progressive. If there was ever a Libertarian Utopia and pre-Progressive Era America is the only point in this country where you even try to make a case that America was a Libertarian Society, it was pre-Roosevelt Administration in the 1900s. Meaning (The first ten years of the 20th Century) And the election of 1912 was an election where you had a Conservative President in William H. Taft, who wanted to conserve that Libertarian Ayn Rand Society, where there was basically no Federal government at least involvement in the economy. And Teddy Roosevelt who wanted to build off of his Square Deal from his time as President and create what was later labeled as the New Deal and the American safety net that was created in the 1930s under FDR.

The presidential election of 1912 represents the conservative establishment of where America had been up to that point economically and where we were as far as how we dealt with the rest of the world, represented by President William Taft. Against the anti-establishment Progressive presidential candidate in Theodore Roosevelt. America had a real choice between a real hard-core Conservative in Taft. Who saw his job as to conserve and protect the status-quo and keep America as it was.

Against a real hard-core Progressive in Teddy Roosevelt who wanted to blow up the establishment. Build off of what made America great and worked well for the country. But use government especially the Federal Government build a society where more Americans could succeed, where all Americans would have a good opportunity to succeed. Where not all of the power in the country was centralized with the wealthy and their businesses. And was a choice that American voters deserved to have and be able to decide for them was the current America good enough, or do we need to do something else and bring progress and move quicker as a country.

Progressive People’s Coalition: Progressive History of America

Attachment-1-1346

Source: IZ Quotes

I disagree with the guy talking in this video on perhaps only one thing. He argued (and I’m paraphrasing) that progressivism is neither left or right, but a belief in improving the human condition or welfare of the people. And doing what’s best to achieve those things somewhat at least regardless of ideology. The only thing that I disagree with that is that progressivism is neither right or left. To me at least progressivism along with liberalism, is on the center-left of American politics and very mainstream to the point that probably most Americans whether they’re aware of that or not, are Progressives. Which I’ll explain.

Progressives believe in progress and ,making things and life in society better. What puts them on the center-left is that they believe government has a major role, but not the only role and the national government even, in seeing that society moves forward and progress is always made. I agree with the guy in the video that progressivism is different from both conservatism and liberalism. Conservatism at least in the political sense, is about conserving the status-quo and conserving the U.S. Constitution and our constitutional rights. Liberalism is based off the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights. But not about conserving the status-quo. Protecting the Constitution and our individual rights, but always looking to move forward and make things better.

What makes progressivism different from liberalism, is that progressivism is not as individualist and less based on individual rights and more based on society as a whole. So its similar to socialism in that, but where progressivism is different from socialism is that Progressives don’t believe government can do everything for everybody. Progressives don’t believe in nationalizing certain parts of the economy, or having a welfare state big enough to essentially manage people’s personal and financial lives for them.

Progressives believe in American capitalism and even a certain level of economic freedom, short of centralized wealth and having no rules in the economy to protect people from predators. But that everyone in life should be able to be successful and live well. Instead of the private market completely being responsible for who wins and who loses in society. Progressives believe that everyone should have the right and opportunity to succeed in America. Instead of economic wealth and freedom in America to be completely determined based on where, and whom people are born to. That even people born to low-income and even irresponsible parents, should have the opportunity to do well in America.