Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
The Progressive movement was in response to the rise of corporations.
It was a response to way more than that. The early Progressive theorists viewed the world of their time as too different in its nature to be suitable for "The People" to fully realize their potential as individuals or as groups or as a society under the political strictures imposed on government by the Founders Constitution of a different era.
And they did believe that government was the sole means for that People to be given some sort of functional freedom as opposed to the strictly legal freedom from government tyranny as outlined in our Constitution.
And so, government had to be freed from the old Constitutional constraints of separation of powers and restrictive enumerations of power. The Constitution, if not actually discarded, had to become a "living breathing" thing that evolved with every new generation of people with their particular niche in history, and so with new iterations of public policy. And Policy was the key. And government could not be hampered in its ability to create whatever new policies its experts deemed to be good and necessary.
It isn't necessarily that they had bad ideas that is the dispute. Rather it is the method they propose, and essentially have, of getting there.
And the key to that way is to rule not by "democracy," but by expert administration. So more and more regulatory agencies, now in the hundreds, had to be created to draft various regulations at will, not by public vote--and have the legal power proforma to do so, to execute with enforcement powers, and to have the internal power to adjudicate public challenges. That is, they have the tyrannical ability to legislate, execute, and adjudicate, all in one agency--the definition of tyranny.
John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company came to control 90-95% of oil refineries in the U.S.
Journalists, such as Ida Tarbell, exposed the nefarious methods used by John D. Rockefeller to push out honest competitors.
The government responded to harmful corporate behavior through the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which sought to limit large corporations’ ability to fix prices and exclude competition. Under the administration of Theodore Roosevelt, the Sherman Act was vigorously enforced through over 40 antitrust suits.
Rockefeller made oil and its uses far cheaper for the public than if he had not existed. He was much more a good guy than a baddy. This is an interesting read: https://fee.org/articles/john-d-rock...-oil-industry/
Never mind that since the 1970s almost all of our small businesses have been decimated by corporate agglomeration to the detriment of our middle class, today we have Amazon, Tesla, Microsoft, Google….
And Musk has effective control of our government while FFOTUS with his obedient MAGA followers in Congress think they can control him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
And this all under the regime of the Progressive trend in our political system. How can this be? Are Progressives actually human? And capable of being paid off? Are they hypocrites, power mongers, Pretenders who grow rich at the trough of political power? Some of the Progressive grunts that took to the streets and protested early on may have been poor, but I don't know of any Prominent Progressive ideologue, early or current, or Progressive politician who is poor or "middle class. They seem to do quite well, much better than most, in their quest for some unattainable human equity.
Beyond filling their pockets and accruing power, I don't know what these grand Progressives do for the "middle class", or even the poor other than barely functional gifts.
On the other hand, the Rockefeller and Amazon and Tesla types create actual affordable products and jobs and wealth which can all be taxed to enrich the Progressive types.