There’s a thought-provoking essay on progressivism in the guise of a book review at City Journal by Mike Sabo. Read the whole thing—it’s not particularly long. Here’s a snippet:
The Progressives’ strong belief in the notion of historical progress also guided their foreign policy. History had demonstrated that modern democracy was the “permanent and most advanced form of government,†Wilson once wrote. To make the world safe for democracy, the Progressives’ idealistic foreign policy necessitated an aggressive series of interventions in Haiti, Santo Domingo, Cuba, Mexico, and the Philippines.
History had chosen the United States to lead the “children†(as Wilson described other sovereign nations) so that they could someday reach the heights of democratic governance. And should certain “barbaric races†fail to do what they were told, Progressive historian Charles Merriam wrote in a particularly appalling passage, they “may be swept away.â€
Now what’s being “swept away” are the underpinnings of the most prosperous, happiest, most benign country in the history of the world to be replaced by what? Progress, we are told. I don’t believe that any 19th century Progressive would recognize the technocratic aristocracy being promoted today as progress.
Actually, Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover would, and they both would be glad. Rule by technocratic bureaucrats was indeed the goal of most 19th Century Progressives. See, “Philip Dru: Administrator: A Story of Tomorrow, 1920-1935” a futuristic political novel published in 1912 by Edward House, an American diplomat, politician, and Wilson foreign policy advisor. (from Wikipedia)
The goal of Progressives was to eliminate politics and replace politicians by professional administrators. The nearly complete transfer of legislative power from Congress to the permanent civil servants is their greatest achievement.
There has also been a transfer of executive power from the presidency to the civil and military services. The recent usurpation of foreign policy and war making powers from the Congress and President by the Joint Chiefs of Staff is merely one of very many examples.
Stop pretending that the US is a representative democracy or some sort of federal state. It hasn’t been since the April 12, 1961 (Ft. Sumter).
I doubt it. When they said “technocracy” they meant something very different than what is meant today. They meant white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, from the best families and graduates of the right schools. Nowadays if it means anything it means rule by apparatchiks.
When they seek power, they use all the tools at their disposal, is the term “The adults in the room” familiar? The left is trying to co-opt the language.
As linguistic retaliation, I like:
What we have is Crony Capitalism – or Crapitalism.
And “Social Gospel”.
Well lets get those apparatchiks get crackin’ on saving the world. Gambia here we come…….
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/572364-analysis-no-g20-country-has-climate-plan-that-meets-paris-agreement?amp
What until they figure out that no plan on the part of the other G20 countries will be “sufficient” as long as China and India remain on the path on which they are presently embarked.