Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
found this article - The Progressive Movement - anyone care to debate intelligently what is contained within it? If so, what do you agree/disagree with?
"State Ownership of Businesses" is communism, not progressivism. Therefore, I can't discuss the article intelligently, much less read it in its entirety. (Why does the author capitalize so many words?) Francis G. Newlands was a progressive. So was Teddy Roosevelt. From my understanding, progressives hold that government has a role in supporting the advancement of society. The Newlands Reclamation Act of 1901 was intended to support commerce and business, not take ownership of it.
Sorry, the article appears to be nothing more than propaganda.
ETA: I just attempted to read the article. I started scrolling the page to see Hitler, Mao, the word Darwinism, and then...there it was...THE ENEMY OF PROGRESSIVES...[drum roll]...The Boy Scouts! LMAO!
C'mon OP. You can't seriously expect anyone to discuss this article intelligently. If you believe the tripe on that web page, you're a sucker.
Last edited by nvxplorer; 02-25-2010 at 12:20 PM..
LoneSentinle, orogressivism is not a dangerous movement nor has it ever been. Meanwhile there are some on the right who have syhmpathized with the likes of McCarthy and Mousilini.
"State Ownership of Businesses" is communism, not progressivism. Therefore, I can't discuss the article intelligently, much less read it in its entirety. (Why does the author capitalize so many words?) Francis G. Newlands was a progressive. So was Teddy Roosevelt. From my understanding, progressives hold that government has a role in supporting the advancement of society. The Newlands Reclamation Act of 1901 was intended to support commerce and business, not take ownership of it.
Sorry, the article appears to be nothing more than propaganda.
ETA: I just attempted to read the article. I started scrolling the page to see Hitler, Mao, the word Darwinism, and then...there it was...THE ENEMY OF PROGRESSIVES...[drum roll]...The Boy Scouts! LMAO!
C'mon OP. You can't seriously expect anyone to discuss this article intelligently. If you believe the tripe on that web page, you're a sucker.
*chuckle*....I never said I believe that all of the statements in the article are correct! Nor would I. I also found it funny that the Boy Scouts would be the ONLY enemy cited (if there really is much to give to that at all)...8p. But some interesting points are brought up and I do think some intelligent debate could be fostered from it - even if some of the article's points are laughable. I don't think everything associated with the Progressive Movement is evil, and actually some of what was accomplished throught its influence was absolutely positive... but to romanticize it as some leaders have is a 'bit of crazy' to me. Teddy Roosevelt is somewhat of a hero to me in what he did for us in the realm of conservation, but he DEFINETELY had some screwy ideas too though and I am glad we, as a nation, have sloughed much of that off.
Last edited by LoneSentinel; 02-25-2010 at 01:48 PM..
LoneSentinle, orogressivism is not a dangerous movement nor has it ever been. Meanwhile there are some on the right who have syhmpathized with the likes of McCarthy and Mousilini.
...*sigh*...you STILL have not one link to back up ANY POINT you have made. Are you not up to having any intelligent exchange? As I have linked in another thread...the 'original' Progressive Movement was linked to Eugenics as one of its ideals - which WAS very dangerous, as far as I am concerned. Here are a few links I provide to back up what I say:
Progressives saw sterilization as having natural advantages over traditional methods of helping the poor, such as charity. Sterilization was "scientific" -- its rationale could be found in the writings of Charles Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, the father of eugenics, who mused that superior people, like superior crops and farm animals, were the product of good breeding...
...Hitler's eugenics were an intergral part of his socialism and that the great supporters of compulsory eugenics worldwide in Hitler's day were overwhelmingly of the Left. Left-influenced historians commonly blur the distinction between a belief in eugenic or dysgenic processes and actually advocating a state-enforced eugenics program but we can find the facts if we look carefully. And it was American Leftists upon whom Hitler principally drew for his "inspiration" in the eugenics field.
What is less well known is that eugenic thought deeply influenced the Progressive Era transformation of the state's relationship to the American economy. Progressive Era economics, like the regulatory state it helped found, came of age at a time when biological approaches to social and economic reform were at their high-water mark. Reform-minded economists (and other social scientists) argued that the labor force should be rid of unfit workers--whom they labeled "unemployables," "parasites," and the "industrial residuum"--so as to uplift superior, deserving workers. Immigrants, blacks, and those deemed defective in character or intellect were regarded by leading labor legislation activists less as victims of industrial capitalism than as threats to the health and well-being of deserving workers and of society more generally. Mostly neglected by historians of American economics, these invidious distinctions crucially informed the labor and immigration reform that is the hallmark of the Progressive Era (Leonard 2003a).
Now, I have provided links that support my position. Can you provide ANY links to support yours?
Last edited by LoneSentinel; 02-25-2010 at 01:49 PM..
Reason: fixed the links
found this article - The Progressive Movement - anyone care to debate intelligently what is contained within it? If so, what do you agree/disagree with?
I'm sorry but you have based your request for intelligent debate on this article?
That is quite a large jumping off point considering it is quite the propaganda opinion piece in and of itself.
LoneSentinle, people on both sides supported eugenics. Neither side does now. And as stated in my earlier link, the Progressive movement was founded to give equal rights, and get rid of corruption within the political machine. And go ahead and look it up if you don't believe Ann Coulter syhmpathizes for Mousilini and McCarthy. You right wingers in here didn't mention progressives once until Beck did.
I'm sorry but you have based your request for intelligent debate on this article?
That is quite a large jumping off point considering it is quite the propaganda opinion piece in and of itself.
Ok....seems I made a poor selection of a piece to start with, as you and nvxplorer have convinced me of...I'll look for a different article to start the discussion I wish to have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
