Franklin Roosevelt - Early Political Life

Franklin Delano Roosevelt has been heralded by many as one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States. However, he was one of the men who directed the nation down the road toward socialism. He was a child of privilege, and attended private boarding school and Harvard University. At Harvard he was introduced to progressivism under the presidency of Charles Eliot. When he left Franklin began his political career when he ran for and won a seat in the New York state senate. At this time in history, the Republican Party was split between progressives and conservatives. The progressives were led by Franklin’s cousin, Theodore Roosevelt. Because of this split, the Democrat Party won the election. Franklin ran on a platform to drive out political corruption.

One of his goals was to break the influence of the Tammany Hall democrat political machine in New York City. The movie Gangs of New York shows how this political machine ran the city of New York under Boss Tweed in the 1800s. Tammany Hall was the building where the Society of Tammany, founded in 1789, met. It was a fraternal order along the lines of the Freemasons which was determined to further the cause of liberty and the union of the several states. This group of men eventually gained political influence over the city and would buy votes for the Democratic Party from unions and immigrants.

Franklin’s battle with Tammany Hall attracted the attention of Louis Howe, who became the key adviser of both Franklin and Eleanor until his death in 1936. Howe began his career as a journalist at his father’s democratic-leaning magazine; The Sun. Howe was covering the New York state legislature for the New York Herald when he met Roosevelt. Howe was impressed with Franklin’s tenacity and charisma. He believed that Franklin had the potential to become president.

As a state Senator, Franklin not only opposed Tammany Hall, including their candidate for U.S. Senate; but also defended the farmers in his district, who were mostly Republican, with progressive legislation. Most of his policies were progressive. Like Teddy, Franklin held that the government could help to gain equality in society and protect people from monopolies in business and political machines. He was able to win re-election in 1912, but he did not finish his term. He had campaigned for Woodrow Wilson for president, who won the election because Teddy Roosevelt’s progressive Bull Moose Party had split the Republican vote.  Wilson’s secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels, asked Franklin to be his assistant; and he accepted.

Franklin made Louis Howe his assistant. He worked toward improving the United States’ military. He also strongly lobbied with the Wilson administration to enter World War I in 1917 and managed the Navy’s involvement in the war. In my previous post on Woodrow Wilson, one can see how Wilson used the war effort to institute a great many progressive policies.

During his service in the Wilson administration, he continued to participate in politics. He ran for U.S. Senate in 1914 but was defeated because the Tammany Hall machine did not forget his efforts to break up its power. He ran as the vice-presidential candidate in 1920 with James Cox, but they lost to the Republican – Warren Harding. Roosevelt then returned to the private sector and worked for a financial firm.

FDR’s personal life also went through a bit of turmoil during this period. Eleanor was tired of having children, five of them. Franklin had an affair with his social secretary, Lucy Mercer. Eleanor found out about the affair, and offered Franklin a divorce. He did not grant the divorce because a divorced politician at that time was doomed to failure. Therefore, Franklin and Eleanor remained married for political and social reasons.

Franklin’s star was on the rise. His charisma and his ability to strike a deal made him popular among progressive democrats. Eleanor and Louis Howe will prove to be staunch allies in Franklin’s quest for political power. The Miller Center

The Early Life of Franklin D. Roosevelt

Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s policies have had a widespread effect on the United States and the way our legislature has conducted business over the past seventy-nine years. He was so progressive he makes his cousin, Teddy, and Woodrow Wilson look moderate in comparison. The next few articles will trace FDRs political career and his motives for the policies that he instituted.

As the famous song from The Sound of Music states, let’s start at the very beginning. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was born into a wealthy family, an American aristocrat. He was an only child and was doted on by his mother. He was home schooled by private tutors until he was fourteen. Then he attended boarding school at Groton School. Groton school catered to the children of entrepreneurs for the purpose of building mental and physical toughness as well as giving them high-minded principles. Until Franklin graduated from Groton he had received a conservative education.

Harvard had a strong influence on Roosevelt. This school introduced him to progressive ideas. Harvard had been a conservative Christian school until 1869 when Charles W. Eliot became its president and it transformed into a modern university. Eliot was a progressive and introduced many progressive policies into Harvard. The medical school became a four year program, and a bachelor’s degree was required for admission. Mandatory attendance of chapel was ended in 1886. Eliot developed a “spontaneous diversity of choice” which allowed students to choose their own courses which has led to an open-ended curriculum. The changes that Eliot made at Harvard were modeled nationwide. Roosevelt attended Harvard from 1900 – 1903. After graduation he took some graduate courses and became the editor of the university newspaper The Crimson. He also became a member of the Democrat party.

After he left Harvard, Roosevelt married his cousin, Eleanor, and went to law school at Columbia University. He never graduated with a law degree. However, he did pass the bar exam and worked in a law firm for a few years. He did not enjoy law but was always eager to meet a challenge. After some encouragement from his friends and inspiration from his cousin Theodore, he entered politics in 1910. The Miller Center

The next post will cover his early political career.

Progressive Influences on the Healthcare Industry in the United States

A comment on an earlier post about the origins of social work asked about this topic. Specifically what happened to make hospitals which were founded by Christian denominations and as charities become more worried about the bottom line and in bed with the health insurance industry? I discovered some interesting things about the history of the healthcare industry and health insurance, and the progressives have their fingerprints all over it.

Up until the late nineteenth century medicine was a low tech profession. The practitioners of medicine were just learning about germs and sterilization. There were no X-rays. DNA was unknown. Home remedies and cure-alls were the main form of medication. Pain killers were readily available and widely prescribed. Scientists began to develop cures for devastating diseases like tuberculosis, typhoid, and diphtheria which were prevalent in the rapidly growing cities.

After the end of the Civil War in 1865, many universities were founded in the United States, and higher education expanded by leaps and bounds. As we have seen in my earlier posts, many of the professors in these universities had a progressive mind set. These academics believed that they knew what was best for society which included a desire for control over society through the government and big business. These educators in these new universities pressured for high professional standards for doctors, to protect society from quacks and scam artists. Practitioners in the medical field as well as other professions such as lawyers began to have to be licensed. This gave the government control over how many practitioners were in the profession at any given time and limited competition. It also gave the universities control over who entered the professions because a degree was required for licensing by the state. (Tindall & Shi)

Hospitals were originally set up in the colonies to give aid to indigent people who required medical care. These were institutions that were given a charter from the Crown of England and a certain amount of funding for start up costs. To receive the charter the hospital had to match the money from the government with private donations. As medical technology and science advanced, hospitals became a place to go to get specialized treatment that a family practitioner could not give. This drove up the price of medical care

Thus, health insurance was born in 1929, the year of the stock market crash. Baylor University Hospital in Dallas, Texas began a plan where 1,500 school teachers paid into a plan provided by the hospital in case they needed services from the hospital. This non-profit company became the model for Blue Cross Blue Shield, America's first and non-profit health insurance company. Hospitals had fixed expenses that gave them less flexibility when it came to making allowances for patients who could not pay right away. Health insurance gave them that flexibility. The insurance companies would pay the hospitals a regular income for the patients’ treatments.

During World War II, employers started offering health insurance as a fringe benefit to attract new employees due to the drain of the labor force to wartime industries. Wage controls that had been instituted by the government kept employers from attracting employees with higher salaries, so they would pay health insurance premiums up to 5% of their salary. This gave health insurance companies a great deal of revenue because enrollment grew from about 7 million to approximately 26 million from 1942 – 1945. The IRS also started allowing businesses to deduct the premiums for their employers as a business expense on their taxes. This gave another incentive for employers to offer health insurance as a benefit. Union participation in health insurance plans also grew during the same period. By 1955 12 million union workers were covered through collective bargaining agreements.

Now for the kicker on why medical care is so expensive. Blue Cross Blue Shield began a reimbursement procedure called cost-plus. This procedure was adopted by other insurance companies and Medicare. Physicians were reimbursed according to “reasonable and customary” charges, and hospitals were reimbursed on a percentage of their costs plus a percentage of their working capital. This allowed doctors in private practice to charge whatever they wanted because they knew the health insurance companies would reimburse them for what they charged. Hospitals have also inflated their costs and dictate to doctors who are employed by them what they can charge to increase their income as well. (Wasley)

        
Many patients are also out of the loop when it comes to pricing as well. Employers pay most if not all of their premiums. Doctors’ visits are usually covered by a co pay which is about one-fourth to one-third of the amount that is billed to the insurance company. Out of pocket expenses for emergency room visits and hospital stays are covered by a small deductible, most of the time. Of course self-employed patients and business owners are more concerned about pricing because their premiums and deductibles are usually much higher than the average employee in the country.

Instead of allowing a free market to develop, progressives have been regulating it through the universities and the government from the beginning of the modern era. Insurance companies have government regulations to follow as well which keep the natural free market from being exercised in this industry. In an ideal capitalistic system insurance companies would be allowed to compete without government regulations. Bad companies that provide poor service would naturally go out of business. Hospitals would be forced to run more efficiently. Competition would eventually drive medical costs up or down based on the law of supply and demand.

I am still on the fence about licensing of medical professionals. A free market would weed out bad doctors and nurses, but at what cost to public safety. There are many doctors who don’t look out for their patients even with a medical degree and license. However, progressive faculties and universities would still be in control of which individuals will be successful and achieve a medical degree.

In conclusion, this article is a snap shot of how we got where we are in the health care industry in the United States. Scientific research and innovation have driven the advancements that we have made over the last century and a half. The government, insurance companies, and universities have regulated who participates in the medical marketplace. Charitable hospitals and for-profit hospitals work to maximize their bottom line rather than working with patients to keep costs down.

One final point: health care is not a right. It is a product that must be paid for like electricity and a mortgage. Progressives and socialists have worked to mutate it into a natural right. I may sound insensitive, but according to the Hippocratic Oath, care givers must ethically work with patients who cannot pay their bills right away and should not send people down the street because they have no health insurance. However, it is still the patient’s responsibility to pay the bill. We as a people need to take back responsibility for medical costs rather than letting doctors and hospitals overcharge for services simply for the reason that the patient is not paying for it out of his or her own pocket.

Book source:

Tindall, George Brown and David E. Shi. America: A Narrative History. Fifth edition, Volume 2. W.W. Norton & Company, New York. 1999.

The Sexual Revolution

So far this blog has been an investigation of the origins of the Progressive movement in the United States. The goal of progressives is to integrate big business and big government for the purpose of managing people who they believe are unable to think for themselves. One of the tools that the progressives have used over the last century is to pit groups of people against each other and to make these “minority” groups believe that they are victims of some kind of repression. One of these groups, in reality, contains the majority of the nation’s population is women.

The last few posts have followed a history of how progressives have attempted and succeeded in manipulating women to deny their purpose on Earth, being female. When one looks at nature, of which humans are a part, the basic purpose of the female in the species is to bear offspring. Somehow the progressives have convinced women that this purpose is secondary. Women have been encouraged to deny their sexuality in favor of career and desire to be “equal” to men. Many women of today would look on this last statement as sexist.

Granted, if a woman chooses to enter the work force and is working side by side with a man doing work that is of value to an employer, that employer should pay her according to her value. She should not be paid less for doing the same quality of work. For the most part the wage discrimination between men and women has gone away. However, if a woman is dissatisfied with her earnings, she has the ability to leave the employment where she is being discriminated against and work somewhere else or start her own business.

During the 1960s the government passed legislation to even the playing field between men and women. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 barred employers from paying women less than men who were doing the same job. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 granted women the same civil protections as African-Americans. Both of these laws are redundant because the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States had already granted equal protection under the law to all people in the nation. If people would read the Constitution and understand its spirit, they would see this to be true.

The National Organization of Women was founded in 1966. This group stood up against issues that “prevented” women from enjoying equality of opportunity and freedom of choice. This group was responding to suburban housewives who felt trapped in their domestic roles. An anti-progressive response to this would be that women have never been trapped. They entered into the marriage contract as a willing participant. They should be mature enough to know that Cinderella and Snow White are ideals that the real world will never live up to. Rather than being in constant battle with their husbands, they should cast aside the role of victim that has been placed on them by the progressives and work alongside their husbands so they both can be successful.

The new feminism of the 1970s even went so far as to reject marriage, the traditional family unit, and heterosexual sex. They opened their own businesses, started their own publications, created centers to aid victims of rape and abuse, founded women’s health clinics (abortion clinics), and day care centers. The artificial “Battle of the Sexes” became a driving force behind the women’s movement during this period. All of this was brought about from the denial of a woman’s basic purpose as a human being, reproduction and motherhood

Motherhood was looked down upon. Women had been taught, in school health classes, that having children was an inconvenient side-effect of having sex rather than the purpose of having sex. Birth control became more convenient. If the birth control failed, then a woman could have an abortion. This became normal thinking among women. Sex became a handshake rather than the sacred act that it is. Along with this, men began to expect it from women. Girls growing up in the 1980s were shown that premarital sex was the norm, and many of us did it because it was expected of us. Sex should be something that is shared between two responsible adults who are willing to take care of and raise the fruit of that union.

Day care is another tool of the progressives that is being used to drive a wedge between parents and their children. Materialism is the driving force behind this institution. After the prosperity of the 1950s the Baby Boomer generation continued to expect all of their wants and desires to be satisfied immediately, no matter how far it drove them into debt. To keep up with the “Joneses” women now had to go out into the workforce to make ends meet and make the payments on the fancy house, two cars, and credit card bills. Not only that, but Uncle Sam and the IRS were leaning over families’ shoulders to get their fair share as well.

Since women were driven into the work place to help pay the bills, something had to be done with the children. Couples began placing their children in day care so they could be taken care of while their parents were at work. This has become another tremendous drain on a family’s resources that can equal or exceed a mortgage payment every month. Not to mention that children are exposed to school aged problems of interacting with other children sooner than should be expected

Government funded “free” day care programs like Head Start can be very detrimental to a child’s development. Many times as young as three years old children are taken to Head Start programs to be fed two meals a day, potty trained, and subliminally indoctrinated that the government is supposed to take care of and raise them. Stay-at-home moms are taking advantage of this program as well. Childhood obesity is born out of this government program as well. The children are taught not to be wasteful with food, which is good. However, all children are given the same portions and are expected to clean their plates. Other problems with the public education system will be left to another post.

The women’s movement in the United States reminded women of their value as individuals. What price did women pay for this reminder? We have sacrificed our sexuality and our children, sometimes from the womb. There is hope. We live in a free country that refused to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. We have the ability to choose what we want to do with our lives. However, we must take responsibility for our actions, and if we do not like our situation we have the ability to change it.

Peacetime Women

I have been exploring a bit of women's history in my research on the Progressive Movement in the United States. During the early twentieth century, the progressives worked to get women into government service and into unions. Remember that the progressives want to manage society. The best way to manage a society is to have all members of society working for government or big business.

After the conflict that we call World War II ended, many women left the workforce to get married and start families. The 1950s ushered in an era of prosperity in the United States that had never before been seen. The middle class grew by leaps and bounds.

This prosperity was brought about by a surplus of cash that many people in the United States had. During the war the government instituted rationing so the resources of the nation could be put into the war effort. Since people could not spend money during the war, they had lots of money to spend once the war was over. The young couples that were buying suburban homes with dishwashers and televisions were children of the Great Depression. They knew what is was like to be without food. They also wanted a better life for their children.

Women left the workforce not because they were told to, but because they wanted to. They knew how their mother's struggled during the Great Depression to help provide for their families. Women wanted the luxury of being able to stay at home and raise their children knowing that they did not have to worry about where their next meal was coming from. Progressives saw this as a setback for women's rights. American history textbooks scorn women who decided to stay home and raise families rather than work outside the home.

Parents of the 1950s spoiled their children rotten. A very influential writer, Dr. Benjamin Spock, wrote an influential book - Baby and Child Care. Remember back in the 1920s women were encouraged to look to "experts" outside the extended family for advice on how to raise their children. The old adage "spare the rod, spoil the child" was tossed away. Spock proposed a child centric family unit rather than the parents disciplining the child and molding the child into what they expected as far as behavior and lifetime goals. Also, since the parents had more disposable income than ever before, they bought their children many luxuries that the children began to expect as entitlements rather than privileges, from records and record players to their own cars.

Even though many women left the workforce after World War II, one third of married women continued to work outside the home. Again market forces were at work rather than the artificial influences of government and big business. My maternal grandmother was a single mother who worked as a teacher after she was widowed. My paternal grandmother and my husband's grandmothers continued to work outside the home after the war ended. The ability for women to obtain jobs did not end with World War II. If women wanted to work, they could. If they didn't want to work, they didn't have to.

My next post will look at the next generation of women. The sense of entitlement that they gained as children spilled over into their early adulthood. It erupted into another sexual revolution that has set women back by centuries. As these women burned their bras and broke glass ceilings, they abandoned the family and their purpose.

Women at War

Over the last few posts I have been dealing with women's issues during the early twentieth century and have tried to focus on the influence of the progressive movement on women's issues and rights. This post will focus on women in the labor force during World War II. This is because the focus of women's rights after the Nineteenth Amendment was passed was on women in the workplace.

After December 6, 1941, the day that will live in infamy with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the mindset of the United States changed. Up until that point the United States was watching what was going on in Europe as a spectator and didn't want to get involved. Just as the bombings of the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001 changed our outlook on world events, the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor changed our outlook back then. Americans decided that they had been attacked and needed to fight back.

Both of my grandfathers went to enlist in the military shortly after the Japanese and Germany declared war upon us. My paternal grandfather was rejected because of his poor eyesight, but my maternal grandfather was able to join and went on to serve under George S. Patton in Africa and Europe. My paternal grandmother had a college degree and had a job working as a medical technologist. My maternal grandmother did not work.

My husband's grandfathers did not serve in the military, but both of his grandmothers worked at least part-time outside the home. His maternal grandmother worked part time as a bookkeeper while his paternal grandmother worked full time as a teacher.

Market forces more than anything drove women into the workforce during World War II. Many young men were leaving the factories, clerical jobs for private corporations, and government bureaucracy for the military. This left a labor gap that was filled by women and other minorities. Yes, the federal government started the Rosie the Riveter campaign to convince women to enter the workforce, but women would have entered the workforce anyway. The nation was still recovering from the Great Depression, and with the United States' entrance into the war, now it was acceptable for women to go into the workforce since many of the men were now overseas fighting against the tyranny of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Women also began to join the military as well. They were not involved in combat operations though. Even today women are not accepted in regular combat units. Women who served in the WAACs (army) and WAVEs (navy) worked in a clerical capacity. Again, these are market forces at work. Men moved into a combat role once hostilities began which left a demand for workers in the clerical area of the military. These positions were filled by women.

On the home front women did move into industrial jobs. Again the law of supply and demand influenced this move more than government's encouragement of the move. Due to the drop in male labor here in the States, women and minorities naturally filled those vacated positions. Women and minorities also began to join labor unions in higher numbers than before.

The progressive writers of modern history textbooks would have us believe that the government played a huge role in drawing women out of their homes and into the workplace during World War II. However, the market forces of supply and demand were what drove women into jobs. As is evidenced by my husband's and my grandparents, a majority (three out of four) had jobs working at least part-time outside the home. Women in the workplace became more acceptable mainly because many men joined the military and left a void in the labor force here in the United States.

Women during the Great Depression

The economic pressures that the Great Depression placed upon American society brought up a conflict between traditional values and what people needed to do to survive. My last two blogs have been about women and progressivism in the U.S. I am continuing with this theme by making some observations about women during the Depression.

In the 1930s it was still not culturally acceptable for married women to work outside the home. Traditional values had men working to provide for the financial needs of the family while women remained at home to manage the household and raise the children. However, desperate times called for desperate measures, especially for families in cities. To make sure that ends met, married women began to go outside the home for work to help their husbands with the finances.

This move was discouraged by the government and conventional wisdom because it made sense that if women left the home to take employment, then there would be fewer jobs for men in the workplace. Therefore, the feminist movement lost some traction during the Depression. This makes sense too because if one looks at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, one can see that basic physical needs have to be satisfied before any higher contemplation can take place. If you don't have food, then it's hard to think about whether you are on an equal playing field with men. Survival comes first.

Now don't get me wrong. The progressives were still working to advance their agenda during the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt. I will save his presidency for another time. Again, remember that progressives believed that big government and big business working together was the best way to manage society and therefore advance it. The area in which women "progressed" during the New Deal is in government work.

The first female was appointed to a cabinet position in FDRs administration, Frances Perkins as Secretary of Labor. Also, over 100 women were added to federal bureaucratic positions under FDR. Ms. Perkins was a driving force behind the Social Security Act of 1935, the first major piece of "socialist" legislation in United States history. This law gave aid to dependent children in the event that a male spouse died leaving children the wife could then be able to receive money to support her children. Basically, since women did not work outside the home as a rule, now the government subsidizes the lost income of a dead spouse instead of allowing the wife to get a job outside the home. Traditional female occupations were excluded from social security: maids and waitresses among others.

There was other New Deal legislation that discriminated against women. The National Recovery Agency (NRA) was one of FDR's alphabet programs that was intended to create jobs for people who could not find work. They funded mostly public works projects, but it also gave money to artists and writers. However, this agency sanctioned sexually discriminatory wage practices. Meaning that women were not given equal pay for equal work and to discourage women from staying in jobs outside of marriage and homemaking.

Also during this period the push for an Equal Rights Amendment lost a lot of steam. The main reason for this was that the some state governments had passed laws granting special protections to women. If an equal rights amendment was to pass, then these special protections would be voided. Again we see big government in the role of managing people's behavior.

In conclusion, the decade of the Great Depression was a period of clash between the traditional role of women and survival. The progressive elites in government and big business believed that it was best for society that women remain in the home and raise children instead of leaving the home to find work to help support their families. Therefore, rather than allowing the free market system decide whether women should work outside the home, the government decided for them through these progressive programs.

If any of you have any questions about this or other posts, please let me know.

The Women's Rights Movement in the 1920s

My last post dealt with a movement that created "social worker" as a new occupation that was acceptable for single women in the late nineteenth century. This is an occupation that grew out of the new study of social sciences, which is a progressive area of study. Until the late nineteenth century there was no such academic area as "social studies." By the year 1920 twenty-five percent of women who were in the workforce were married. As mentioned last time, the few areas of employment that were acceptable for single women, besides housekeeping, were fashion, education, social work, nursing, and lower level business management.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to discern what life was really like for women before 1880 because of the progressive subversion of our education system. The progressives have gone out of their way to portray women as second class citizens who were abused by their husbands and employers. It is true that women were disenfranchised from the ballot box until 1920 when the nineteenth amendment was passed. (See an earlier post about the suffrage movement.) However, it is hard for me to believe that life for women in general was so terrible that they should be in the same category as African Americans fighting for their rights in the 1950s and 1960s.

Behaviorism is another branch of progressive social studies. This was a movement that was started by John B. Watson after World War I. These "social scientists" began to challenge the fact that women were instinctively motherly. (I say, "What?!?!? What are our bodies designed to do????") Anyway, the behaviorists believed that experts; doctors, nurses, and trained educators; should advise new mothers. Rather than turning to their own mothers and grandmothers for advice and council, women were now to go outside the extended family for "expert" advice. Middle-class women began to question their roles as women and started to feel unfulfilled in their natural role. Not only did women begin to question their role as mothers, but they also started looking at their relationships with their husbands, and the role that sex played in that relationship. Sex was not just for having babies anymore.

I want to pause here and look at what may be an idealistic view of the relationship that should exist between a man and a woman, the relationship that God planned for people before the fall. First, marriage was intended to be a relationship between one man and one woman. Second, one of the purposes of marriage was to have children, or at least have every intention to have children. The man and the woman were intended to work together for the betterment of their family. If a family placed God at its head and followed His laws, then the family will be strong. Also a community of families that follows God's Law will be honorable and equitable to women and children.

Now, fast forward about six thousand years. The philosophy of progressives is atheistic. When God is removed from the social realm, all sorts of chaotic ideas come to bear. Sigmund Freud had much to contribute to the women's liberation movement. Popular women's magazines in the early twentieth century published a watered down summary of his works. What they summarized was that women were repressed and inhibited. Women read these magazines and began to rebel against Victorian manners and expectations of women. They began to smoke, drink, dance (unchaperoned at parties), wear makeup, and wear seductive clothes. This was a paradigm shift in how women behaved in public. Rather than focusing on God's expectations of them, they began to follow their animal instincts.

Now I will introduce Margaret Sanger, an atheist. She was a founder of Planned Parenthood and got into a great deal of trouble for talking and distributing information about birth control to the public. She believed that poverty was caused by women bearing too many children, especially in poor communities. Birth control did begin to catch on in the 1920s, but poor women were not the ones practicing it. Middle class women began to use birth control. Thus, birth control gave middle class women the ability to separate the act of having sex from the purpose of having sex, which is to have children.

A piece of legislation that was passed during this period was the Sheppard-Towner Act of 1921. This law provided federal funding  for prenatal and child health care programs to the states. The law was repealed in 1929. Members of the National Women's Party, who wanted an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, did not like this law because it classified all women as mothers. (Why wouldn't it? Don't most women have the potential to be mothers? Isn't it in God's plan for all women to try to be mothers?) Margaret Sanger did not like this law because it did not promote birth control. This legislation was progressive in nature because big government tried to influence the decisions and choices of individuals.

At this point you may be thinking what is the problem with this? Rewind the tape again to God's intent for the union of men and women. Sex is for having babies. Sex is not a hug or a handshake or a recreational activity. Sex is supposed to be a sacred part of the marriage covenant between men and women. Extra marital sex kills the relationship between husband and wife. It is also none of the government's business. Tax money should not be spent to influence people's private decisions or behavior.

I will deal more with the sexual revolution in my next post that will focus on the 1960s and 1970s.

The Origins of Social Work

My most recent post dealt with the women's suffrage movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. While doing my research for that piece, I discovered another progressive movement that was linked in a way to the women's suffrage movement. A suffragist, Jane Addams, was one of the founders of this movement. It was the Settlement House Movement.

Jane Addams founded the first settlement house in Chicago, Illinois in 1889. The settlement house movement was a progressive movement to aid new immigrants in their assimilation into American society and culture. They would give aid to immigrants by helping them to learn English, find jobs, and decent housing.

The first settlement house was called Hull House, and it was staffed by members of the educated middle-class. These settlement houses were started based on ideas that came from the new study of social science. Remember from one of my earlier posts that social scientists had the goal of big business and big government working together to manage society.

Women who were college educated were central to the movement. During the late nineteenth century there were very few professions outside of homemaking that were acceptable for women: teaching, nursing, fashion, and lower level business management. The new social sciences gave rise to another profession that was acceptable for unmarried women to pursue: social work.

Social workers received professional training at universities. They were committed to the values of "bureaucratic progressivism: scientific study, efficient organization, and the reliance on experts."

After pondering the above information for a few days there are several observations that I want to point out. The occupation of social worker originated in Chicago where Barak Obama was a community organizer. Community organizing seems to be an outgrowth of social work. While social workers are mainly employed by the government, community organizers are private entities who are funded in part by the government and in part by philanthropists.

On the surface social work seems to be a good thing. However, what social work and community organizing does is take God out of charity. Rather than participating in a cause that comes from God and the community of God, the government has taken something that began as an act of charity, assisting new immigrants in assimilation into the American culture, and changed it into the "Nanny State." People who may have felt the pull of charity and may have wanted to become involved in "social work" in the form of missions now have the excuse, "I pay taxes. Let the government handle it."

When we allow government to do our charity work for us, we fall into the trap of allowing government to be our conscience as well. Now we see public service messages on television from how tall our children need to be before they can wear a regular seat belt to how much we are supposed to exercise per day. The government wants to regulate our salt and sugar intake. They spend millions of dollars a year telling us that smoking is bad for us. Superficially, this is all good, but since God has been taken out of our charity, He has been taken out of almost everything in public life under the guise of the "separation of church and state."

In conclusion, out of the settlement house movement arose the new profession of social worker. This profession was created by progressives to promote the progressive agenda of big government social management. Now 122 years later this government management of people has become the norm. It is even attempting to replace the role of religious mission and charity to the point that people expect the government to intervene in circumstances from child neglect to wildfires.

My next post will delve into another aspect of the women's movement: birth control and abortion. We will meet Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. I will discuss how progressives have not only driven God out of public life; but also out of the most sacred of relationships, marriage.

Progressives and the Women's Suffrage Movement

I am back and hoping to post at least once a week. I have left my teaching position in public schools to work full time with my husband in our auto salvage business. However, I do wish to continue educating people through my blog.

My early posts have been about the origins of the progressive movement here in the United States. After learning much about its origins and motives, I began to wonder about the women's rights movement, its history, and its ties (if any) to the progressive movement. Guess what I found out. They are interlinked.

The origins of the women's movement came about over the right to vote. The fifteenth amendment of the United States Constitution clearly states in Section 1: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude --"

Notice that it states "citizens." Also, notice that it has no reference to sex. Men have an aggravating way of being literalists. If it doesn't say it specifically, then it doesn't grant the right. Let's look at the ninth amendment. It states, "The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This means that even though not all rights are listed in the Bill of Rights rights are not limited to what is specifically named in the Constitution. Therefore, women have always had the right to vote. Unfortunately, the men in power were afraid of what independent minded women might do in the ballot box, so they worked to deny the right in violation of the Constitution.

The status quo in the late nineteenth century was that the primary occupation of a woman was to raise children and keep the household running while the husband worked to make the money, at least on the east coast. Women in the United States have always been on a more equal footing with men. Especially in the West where women worked side by side with their husbands on the farms they homesteaded. If the women didn't work, the family farm would fail. However, in the East the upper classes and upper-middle classes had taken on Victorian manners and expectations of women. A woman should be refined, run her household with class, and remain in her "sphere" to let the men make the decisions.

As with any new movement, men looked on the women's suffrage movement with skepticism. Many men in the East equated the right to vote with the downfall of morals in society. One prevailing argument was that if women were given the right to vote, the divorce rate would skyrocket, and women would begin having sex with every man who walked by (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

Women argued that they had a unique view of issues and had something vital to offer the nation through the exercise of the right to vote. Progressives supported women's suffrage because many women in the East in favor of suffrage were also members of the temperance movement. This movement led to the failed experiment of prohibition where "moral" people who knew better than everyone else dictated what people could drink. Prohibition led to organized crime gaining a strangle hold on the black market for buying and selling alcohol. (Does any of this sound familiar with anything going on down Mexico way?) Racists in the East also argued in favor of women's suffrage. They believed that if the "lower" races of colored people could vote, then upstanding white women should be allowed to as well.

Western states did not seem to have a problem with allowing women to participate in the election process. Five western states passed legislation allowing women the right to vote by 1912. Eastern states began to grant women's suffrage in 1913. The year before the nineteenth amendment passed thirty-nine states had granted women at least partial participation in the election process.

The women's suffrage movement ended in 1920 with the passage of the nineteenth amendment of the Constitution which stated beyond any doubt that women have the right to vote. I know that I did not go into much detail in the fight itself. Especially the way women who were thrown in jail over suffrage were treated by their jailers. Their treatment was abhorrent.

Women's suffrage did not end some women's desires to have a completely equal playing field with men. Many progressive women were not satisfied and wanted more. The National Women's Party, which was founded in 1916, wanted the passage of an Equal Rights Amendment. From what I can infer about the women's rights movement, most of the women participating in this movement were members of the upper classes who had gone to college and been educated in the new social sciences. These women also had a great deal of time on their hands because they had servants to do their housework and shopping for them and could spend their time thinking about how they could change the world with their progressive ideas. Also, the removal of God from society, another progressive goal, had a great influence on the women's movement as well. (More on this in a later post.)

Now, don't get me wrong. I am glad that the nation in the early twentieth century finally acknowledged women's right to vote. I participate in elections every time they come around. However, the way the progressives latched on to this movement and began pushing for more rights for women is where the women's movement goes astray. The fourteenth amendment is an equal rights amendment, and women already have equal rights with men.

Next time I will show another movement that was big with progressive women, the Settlement House Movement.

Source:

Brinkley, Alan. American History: A Survey, Volume II: Since 1865. McGraw-Hill College, Boston, MA. 1999.

Unions - A Tool of the Progressive Movement

Nov 26, 2008 274×199 pixels – 19KB Filename: uaw.jpg

Photo by: Political Roast Photos

In the mid to late nineteenth century, the success of the Industrial Revolution brought huge profits to the owners of oil, steel, railroad, and manufacturing companies. Unskilled workers flocked to northern factories from the South and Europe. The law of Supply and Demand according to Adam Smith states that when there is a large supply of a good, i.e. labor, the price will be low, i.e. wages. During this period workers began to organize to gain higher wages and better working conditions. However, corporations could always find new workers that were willing to take the jobs with poor conditions and pay.

Conventional wisdom would have us believe that the unions were fighting for the individual rights of the worker for their rightful wages and working conditions. However, unions have actually done great harm to businesses large and small in the United States. The textbook that I have been using for my research vilifies the factories and corporations for taking advantage of the worker. Granted, the company towns with their company stores and company housing made it seem as if the American worker was reduced to a form of serfdom. However, I believe that if people did not like where they were, they could leave and take advantage of opportunities out West.

Unions are a way to redistribute wealth. One of the arguments the text uses in favor of unions is that the industrialists made up 10% of the total population of the nation, but they controlled 90% of the money. Unions and progressive textbook writers look at this as unfair. They forget that Rockefeller and Carnegie started poor and worked their way up in the world. Unions used this class warfare to gain sympathy for the worker in the media and to maintain that market driven wages were unfair to the American worker. The goals of unions were to promote social reform, an eight-hour work day, arbitrate disputes between companies and workers, and pass safety and health codes.

Again, I agree that working conditions back then were not the best, but instead of waiting for the market to determine wages and working conditions. Progressives were bent on using the government to regulate businesses and infringe on their freedom. America was the land of opportunity because it was. If someone did not like where they were, they could move to find opportunity elsewhere. Success always required hard work and risk. Risk that was taken on by the businesses that were profiting from American ingenuity.

One tool that organized labor uses is the strike. Many strikes were held on May Day, a traditionally socialist holiday. Some strikes that were held erupted in violence brought about by socialists and anarchists. Companies were also criticized for hiring replacement workers, "scabs." I say why not. If I have employees who don't want to work, then they need to be replaced with some who do.

I know I am heartless. People don't always have the resources to find work elsewhere. I say then look to the illegal immigrants who are pouring into this country with nothing but the clothes on their backs. They are able to find jobs, and they work hard to earn enough money to feed their families and put roofs over their heads. Pardon me if I don't have much sympathy for Americans who have everything they could ever need including a free high school education and yet think they are too good to work at a minimum wage job.

Now we have unions that are pervasive in our country. All government agencies have unions representing their workers. We have unions that protect the jobs of teachers who are not worth their salt. We have unions who now make business decisions for the businesses they are supposed to work for, i.e. the United Auto Workers. We have unions for athletes who make more money than God because they believe the owners of sports teams make too much money. Again here is a prime example of redistribution of wealth. The economy of our nation has been crippled by them.

I know that this is not at all politically correct. However, our nation needs to make a change and go back to a truly capitalist society. Capitalism is not always fair, but at least it has a level playing field. If you can build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door. If you build that mousetrap and make a huge profit from it, you deserve to be able to spend that profit however you see fit. It should not be up to the government or unions to determine how much of your hard earned money you should be able to keep.

Please let me know if you need me to go into more detail or if you have any questions you need me to answer.

My source for this post:

Bailey, Thomas A. and David M. Kennedy. The American Pageant, 7th edition. D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Mass. 1983.

Woodrow Wilson - The Great War and Progressive Policies

For now his blog is focused on the origins of the Progressive movement in the United States. See earlier posts on the early progressives and Theodore Roosevelt as the first progressive president. My latest post focused on progressive reforms done by Woodrow Wilson during his first term as president. Wilson won his second term on the basis that he was able to keep the United States out of World War I, which began during 1914. This was even after the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 which resulted in the deaths of 128 American citizens.

Wilson and his secretary of state, Bryan, were professed pacifists and worked very hard during their first term and the beginnings of their second term to remain a neutral nation in the conflict in Europe. Many Americans had a soft spot for the Allies (England and France) because of their Anglo ancestry. American businesses profited from the neutrality because they could sell goods to both the Allies and Central Powers (Germany, et al.). Even when shipments destined to Germany were intercepted by the British, the British government would reimburse American companies for the value of the cargo that was confiscated.

The Wilson administration began to realize that the United States may eventually be drawn into the conflict because of the leanings of the populace toward the Allied forces and the fact that Germany realized it. Like a good Boy Scout, Wilson wanted to be prepared, so he passed two items of legislation. The National Defense Act of 1916 which was designed to beef up the army and the national guard. This law needed to be passed in their opinion because the arsenal of the nation was becoming old and outdated and according to the Constitution the military could only be funded for two years.

Another policy that was more progressive in scope was the Council of National Defense. This was a council formed by six Cabinet officers and seven civilians who were to coordinate industry and national defense. This goes back to the ideal where progressives believed that an economy needs to be a well oiled machine that is controlled by the government and big business.

After an increase in violence against American shipping to Europe on the part of Germany, Wilson finally broke down and requested a declaration of war from Congress. Support for the war was brought about by anti-German propaganda that depicted the Germans as murderers. Also the American media ignored the culpability of the Americans in supplying the Allied forces with items that killed Germans. Also, slogans that stated, "England's defeat our defeat" filled the newspapers.

After the entry of the United States into the war, Wilson was trying to find a way to broker peace. He made a speech on January 8, 1918 that outlined fourteen points that would guide a peace settlement. This is very progressive in nature in that one person or nation should outline how the rest of the world should conduct their business. A paraphrased list follows.

1. No secret deals between countries.
2. Freedom of the seas in international waters.
3. Equal trade conditions among all nations.
4. Reduction of armaments to a level only for domestic defense.
5. Impartial adjustment of colonial claims.
6. Evacuation of Germans from Russia, allow Russia to determine its own domestic policy (Communism), and allow Russia into the society of free nations (a wee bit hypocritical).
7. Evacuation of Germans from Belgium.
8. Evacuation of Germans from France.
9. Readjust Italy's borders to prewar borders.
10. Limited self-government of Austria-Hungary.
11. Evacuation of Germans from Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro, and guaranteed Balkan independence.
12. Independence for Turkey and self-government for other nations under Turkish rule.
13. Independence for Poland.
14. A formation of an organization like the League of Nations or United Nations.

The Fourteen Points were well received by people in Italy and Poland. Republicans and the Allies were not quite so receptive.

Other progressive policies were the War Industries Board, the National War Labor Board, War Trade Board; Fuel Administration; Food Administration; Shipping Board; Emergency Fleet Corporation; increases in the income tax, corporation tax, excess profits tax, and luxury taxes; Committee on Public Information; Espionage Act of 1917; Sedition Act of 1918; and the draft. These policies worked toward regulating industry toward the war effort whether individual industries wanted to support the war effort or not. The increase in taxation forced individuals to give money toward the war effort whether they wanted to or not. At least the sale of bonds gave people the freedom to choose where their money went. The Espionage and Sedition Acts put limits on freedom of speech to where if an individual spoke out against the war, he or she could be arrested. Performances of German composers were also forbidden. The draft forced individuals who may not have supported the war to fight in the war.

This period of history leaves some interesting questions. Would the war have gone on much longer if the United States had not become involved? Were government regulations needed to manage big businesses who were already profiting from selling arms and supplies to the Allied forces? Should any nation's shipping really expect to be left alone on international waters when they are delivering arms in support of nations involved in a known armed conflict? Is individual freedom really less important than the desires of a government waging a war that is not supported by some people in a country? Should the United States wavered from traditional neutrality that was recommended by its founders?

As a mamma grizzly I look back and say that Wilson was a globalist progressive that wanted the Soviet Union to be successful (look back at the fourteen points). Individual freedom was not important to him (look back at his progressive policies). Our nation never returned to pre-war ideals. The propaganda machine of the Committee on Public Information assured this.

We as a nation need to look back at what this nation was like before Wilson. We need to value individual freedom. We need representation in Congress that will look at the freedom of the individual for guidance, not the tyranny of the majority or the minority in many cases. Our freedoms have been eroded. Many lawmakers look to the precedents set forth by Wilson as a basis for their usurpations. We as a people need to go back to reading the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution for guidance, not what is popular.

If anyone reading this has any questions or elaboration, please leave me a comment, and I will make every attempt to give a prompt response. God bless.

Woodrow Wilson - Pre-WWI: Progressive Idealist Reformer

The next true progressive president after Teddy Roosevelt was Woodrow Wilson. He was the son of a Presbyterian minister and the grandson of a Scottish immigrant. He grew up under Reconstruction in North Carolina. He was very religious and a pacifist. He worked as a lawyer and a university professor who received a doctorate in political science (remember that this was a new field of study brought about by progressives). He determined that big business was exploitative of the common man, and he made it a goal in life to bring about a New Freedom for the American people.

He won the presidency in a similar manner that Bill Clinton did in 1992. A third party (Progressive Bull Moose) split the Republican electorate the way Ross Perot did with his third party bid.

Domestic Policy
Until the passage of the 16th Amendment, Income Tax, the main source of income for the government was from tariffs. Many items imported into the nation were taxed in excess of 40% which gave a competitive edge to American corporations and earned them tremendous profits. The Underwood-Simmons Tariff lowered and eliminated these tariffs which gave foreign countries the ability to compete with American businesses and bring prices down.

After the ratification of the 16th Amendment, congress passed a graduated income tax that ranged from 1% - 6% depending on income. This rate was raised in 1916 as an emergency measure in anticipation of the Great War. In 1917 revenues from the income tax exceeded revenues from trade tariffs. (This left no motivation for the government to lower or end the income tax.)

The Federal Reserve System was also founded under Wilson. Until that time the banks were centralized in the East, and it was difficult to get currency to the western states. Under the Federal Reserve the banking system was decentralized into twelve districts and managed by a board of directors appointed by the President. National banks were required to join and keep a percentage of their assets in reserve at the district bank. Money for the Federal Reserve was raised from loans from businesses. (This means that every Federal Reserve Note is a debt to someone.)

The Federal Trade Commission Act empowered the President to investigate businesses who participated in "unfair business practices," break up trusts and monopolies. Wilson enforced this law until it became inconvenient for him, especially when we entered into WWI. (More on this tomorrow)

Another law that regulated big business was the Clayton Anti-Trust Act of 1914. This law forbade practices that interfered with competition, created monopolies, or resulted in price discrimination. It also restricted interlocking directorates and holding companies. These were practices where the same person could serve on the board of directors of several corporations at the same time and thus direct policy and price fixing. Basically keeping the power of these large corporations in the hands of a few people.

The LaFollette Seaman's Act of 1915 looked fantastic on paper. It required the American merchant marine to pay decent wages, provide humane treatment, and decent food for sailors. The problem was that it raised the standards so high that American merchant companies could not compete with the tramp steamers of other nations.

Two other progressive laws that were enacted in 1916 which led to the devastation of the agriculture industry in the 1930s were the Federal Farm Loan Act and the Warehouse Act. These laws enabled farmers to borrow money from the federal government at very low interest rates and borrow against their crop futures. This became a problem in the late 20s and early 30s because farmers borrowed so much money that after WWI there was not the same demand for their wheat and could not pay back their loans.

Also in 1916 the Workingmen's Compensation Act and Adamson Act were passed. The Workingmen's Compensation Act provided disability assurance for government workers. (The beginnings of the overwhelming benefit packages that government workers have that are supported by taxpayer monies.) The Adamson Act required interstate rail operators to have an eight-hour work day and to pay overtime to their workers.

Since Wilson was from the South, he limited his reforms to industries who employed mostly white workers. He also re-segregated government agencies. He also worked against women's suffrage. Two of my sources relegated these problems to one paragraph in otherwise glowing praise for his progressive reforms. (Bailey and Mulder)

Foreign Policy
In what was becoming now a tradition of U.S. presidents Wilson changed his mind about who the United States' friends were. Roosevelt and Taft (the preceding president before Wilson) had allowed U.S. businesses to invest in Latin America and China, which was known as "Dollar Diplomacy." Soon after he came into office in 1913, he forbade businesses to invest in these countries.

He made a treaty with Haiti in 1916 which made it a protectorate of the United States. The Haitian people did not like this because they wanted to have an independent government. On the other hand, Wilson signed the Jones Act of 1916 which would give independence to the Philippines once they established a stable government.

In 1917 Wilson changed his mind about investment in China and began to allow U.S. businesses to invest in that country again.

Also in 1917 Wilson purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark for $25 million. The reasoning behind this was to prevent Germany from establishing submarine bases in the Caribbean.

Mexico
It turns out that Mexico has been a thorn in the side of the United States for quite some time. In 1913 President Madero was assassinated by Huerta who established himself as General-President of Mexico. Wilson refused to recognize the new government of Mexico because of the way Huerta came into power. Wilson also worked to arm Herta's opponents, Carranza and Pancho Villa. After an incident with the arrest of several U.S. sailors, Wilson asked Congress to allow him to use force in Mexico. His request was granted on April 22, 1914. The United States captured the port city of Vera Cruz in an attempt to capture a German vessel. A meeting of five American countries including Mexico and the United States quelled tension between the two countries and resulted in the resignation of Huerta from office. In January of 1916, Pancho Villa murdered 18 Americans which prompted an invasion of U.S. forces by General Pershing. Villa evaded capture.

This is another example where the United States should have just left well enough alone. If Wilson had not worked toward overthrowing Huerta, then Villa may not have been able to use the arms we gave him against U.S. citizens.

Next time I will focus on the United States' involvement in WWI and the influence of Wilson's idealism on world affairs. If you have any questions or need me to go into more detail about any of my posts, please leave a comment, and I will answer you as soon as I can.

Sources Cited

Bailey, Thomas A., and David M. Kennedy. The American Pageant, 7th edition. D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Mass. 1983.

Brinkley, Alan. American History: A Survey, Vol. II: Since 1865, 10th edition. McGraw Hill College, Boston, Mass. 1999.

Mulder, John M. "Woodrow Wilson," World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 21. World Book, Inc., Chicago, Il. 1995.

Teddy Roosevelt - Republican and Progressive

It is interesting to see that the first progressive president was a republican. Many of his policies that began under his presidency have influenced many foreign and domestic policy decisions up to and including today. Following is a list of various policies and laws that were passed under TR. If I don't go into enough detail, please leave a comment and ask a question.

TR became president after the assassination of William McKinley.

Foreign Policy
One of his mantras was "Talk softly and carry a big stick." The stick being the United States military.

He staged a revolution in Panama against Colombia to get the Panama Canal built because he didn't want to pay the Colombian government what they wanted for rights to the canal zone. The U.S. ended up paying it anyway to make peace with Colombia.

The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine gave the U.S. the authority to be loan collectors for European powers that were owed money by countries in Central and South America. He also used it as an excuse to meddle in European problems in North Africa because he feared that France and Germany's dispute over Morocco would lead to a global war. (This only postponed the inevitable.)

He also strong armed Canada and Great Britain when there was a boundary dispute between the U.S. over the border between Canada and Alaska. Teddy threatened the British representative in the arbitration.

The Second Hague Disarmament Conference was officially called by Russia, but Roosevelt was actually the one who prompted the conference. It did not result in disarmament, but it did gain some agreement on more humane ways of waging war.

In the Russo-Japanese War, the U.S. could not decide which side they wanted to be on because we had been friendly with both countries. We ended up siding with the Japanese because they were the underdog and had begun defeating the Russians in battles in Manchuria.

These foreign policy positions were the first time in American history that the United States began to truly meddle in affairs of other nations around the world. The other night Glenn Beck voiced the observation that the reason other countries hate us is not because of our freedoms but because of the way we make "friends" with countries abroad. Look especially at our relationships with Colombia and Russia at the turn of the last century. Another example that I will detail later is our relationship with Cuba.

The founders of our nation were very clear in their speeches and writings that the United States should be a neutral country and not get involved in foreign affairs. We had enough natural resources and ingenuity to be self-sufficient without meddling in other nations' affairs.

Domestic Policy
His "Square Deal" consisted of control of corporations, consumer protection, and conservation of natural resources. A few of these policies will be detailed here.

The Interstate Commerce Commission established maximum shipping rates that railroads, and eventually trucking companies, could charge.

The Meat Inspection Act of 1906 was a response to an investigation into Chicago meat packing plants and European threats to ban American meat. The investigation was prompted by the book The Jungle by progressive writer Upton Sinclair.

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was passed to prevent the adulteration and mislabeling of foods and drugs.

TR also wrote several executive orders that placed 125 million acres of forest, millions of acres of coal reserves, and many water resources that could have been used for hydroelectric power and irrigation into federal reserves.

The goal of many progressives was not social reform but social control. Big government worked hand in hand with big business to attempt to run the economy and resources of the United States with the greatest efficiency. Conservation planning and the regulation that came about afterwards ran many small businesses and individual entrepreneurs out of business which left big business and big government in control of the economy.

TR went on to run for a third term on the ticket of the progressive Bull Moose party which divided the Republican party and resulted in the election of Woodrow Wilson.

Looking back on the domestic policies, especially those regarding consumer protection, I wonder if even the government back then gave individuals credit for having a brain of their own to make their own decisions about what to buy. I mean if I went to a market and got bad meat, I wouldn't buy meat there again until the quality improved. When the stores stopped buying meat from those packing plants because they couldn't sell it, then the packing plants would have needed to clean up their act so they could make money.

Roosevelt and the progressives at the turn of the last century were too impatient to allow the marketplace and the government follow their natural course. Therefore, they enacted laws that were not in the individual's best interest and were unconstitutional as well.

My sources are the same as yesterday's post. My apologies for not using footnotes today.

The Beginnings of the Progressive Movement in America

I watch Glenn Beck's show on Fox News in the afternoons. One thing that he tells his viewers every day is to not trust what he says at face value. He tells his viewers to do their own research, so they can verify the facts for themselves. I have begun to do that. I have had a little time over the last couple of days due to the blizzard.

From the little bit of research I have done in a couple of American history textbooks, I have concluded that the Progressive movement was a political movement begun by socialist immigrants to the United States in the last decades of the nineteenth century (1880s - 1890s). They wanted to wage war on capitalism - monopoly, corruption, inefficiency, and social injustice (1). They also wanted to strengthen the federal government and use it as an agency of human welfare (1). They also believed that the U.S. constitution was too weak a document to handle the social and political problems of 1900 America (1).

Education and the media are other tools that they began to use to spread their ideas. Social science was a new area of study that used scientific techniques to study societies and their institutions. One social scientist who was highly influential in the progressive movement was Thorstein Velben who wrote The Theory of the Leisure Class. In this book he wrote about a new economic system that would be run by engineers. His theory was that modern society should be run like a machine. During World War I, members of the Council of National Defense who were followers of Velben organized war boards to divide the economy by function (manufacturing, agriculture, etc.) rather than regionally (2). Another influential progressive writer was Jacob A. Riis, a Danish immigrant who wrote for the New York Sun. He wrote a book titled How the Other Half Lives which criticized the slums of New York. This book greatly influenced the first progressive president, Theodore Roosevelt.

One of the theorists who influenced the progressives was Charles Darwin himself. His theory of evolution led him to believe that history is a random process dominated by the fiercest or luckiest competitors. Social Darwinism was used by pragmatists to support their ideal that only scientific inquiry can guide modern society. A society's traditions or moral values had no influence over Truth. Politicians also abused Darwinian ideas by stating that the strong should naturally dominate the weak (2) which led to Manifest Destiny and the exploitation of the Native Americans in the United States and Imperialism and Colonialism world wide.

What does this have to do with today? When a government takes freedoms away from corporations, it can also take freedoms away from individuals. The ideas of socialism are not native to the United States. They were brought here by socialist immigrants who wanted to impose their ideals on America. They used education and the media to spread their ideas until students now ignore the traditions of the founders and Christianity and only rely on Darwinist evolution for their moral guidance. Young people now take it for granted that the purpose of the government is to take care of them, not that they need to take responsibility for their own well being.

Now I want you to know that I do not condone the political corruption and problems in the manufacturing sector at the turn of the last century, but I believe that the fact that Judeo-Christian values were tossed out the window by both Socialists and Capitalists alike which led to the belief that the weak had the right to dominate the strong and that moral behavior was irrelevant.

As Glenn Beck says, do not take my word for it. Please research some of these people on your own.

Sources:
(1) Bailey, Thomas A. and David M. Kennedy. The American Pageant, 7th edition. D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Mass. 1983.
(2) Brinkley, Alan. American History: A Survey, Vol. II, Since 1865, 10th edition. McGraw Hill College, Boston, Mass. 1999.

Brief Introduction to this Mamma Grizzly

I am a new blogger. I have posted some notes and shared them among my friends on Facebook, but this is the first time that I have taken my ideas to the rest of the world.

I am a former democrat who voted for Dukakis in 1988 and Clinton in 1992. I was pro-choice and referred to myself as a democratic socialist. I wanted government regulation of the environment and thought that nationalized health care was a good idea.

I was in Berlin in April of 1990. I saw the decay that was left behind by a totalitarian communist government. That was what turned me off from socialism. Then I started to analyze what I had been taught about F.D. Roosevelt's New Deal and Social Security. I realized that these were communist policies.

Since then I have grown up even more. Having children of my own changed my mind on the abortion issue. Starting a business of my own with my husband opened my eyes to the intrusiveness of the government. I also began to listen to talk radio and realized that I really didn't believe what I thought I did about socialism.

Now our nation is at a crossroads. Are we going to follow the path of communism that leads to neglect and decay? Are we going to return to being a free nation and cast away the shackles that the progressives and socialists have so slyly slipped onto our wrists?

I hope we follow the latter path. You will find that I have a different way of looking at things. Be patient with me. Let me know what you think.