Skip to main content


James A. Watkins is an entrepreneur, musician, and a writer with four non-fiction books and hundreds of magazine articles read by millions.

Progressive Ideology

New political thinkers with a starkly different vision for America than that of The Puritans, and The Founding Fathers, gained prominence in the 20th Century.

The Progressive Movement sought to deconstruct all claims to truth, as well as the customs and traditions of the American Way of life. The Progressives sought to bend American minds to relativism—that there is no such thing as objective truth.

These progressive ideas have caused a great division among the American People. Essentially—but not exclusively—Christians and others who believe in a Creator God (that man is created in God's Image) line up on the side of the Founding Founders and the founding documents of America.

On the other side of a deep chasm are those who believe the universe is a random accident, who are Atheists or Agnostics, and who believe people are simply higher evolved animals descended from apes. These tend to be Progressives.



Herbert Croly: The Master Thinker of Progressives

Herbert Croly (1869-1930) is not a mainstream name. But he is well known among American Progressives (at least among intellectuals) as the "master thinker" of their movement. In view of that, let us briefly investigate the belief system of Mr. Croly.

Herbert Croly believed that Utopia could be created here on earth, but only through ever more radical means and ends. Croly favored the creation of an administrative state based on social science as a means to his ultimate goal—a new Communist "republic" of America. He wanted to overthrow capitalism, classical liberalism, and the American Constitution—through peaceful means if possible, and through violent means if necessary.

Since science had revolutionized industry and medicine, Herbert Croly believed the social sciences could revolutionize society and politics. He argued that behavioral sciences had made the American political system of the Founding Fathers obsolete.

He declared that the claims of the Founding Fathers to have discovered eternal truths about human nature to be naïve and absurd. Croly wrote that the Founding Fathers were merely selfish, rich, powerful men whose stance on private property was only to defend their personal interests.

Herbert Croly espoused the view that social learning should replace individualism, and that individual liberty must be subordinated. Modern psychology would discover the truths about human nature, making perfectly planned communities possible. Croly favored the abolition of natural rights; the abolition of the separation of governmental powers; and the abolition of congressional representation.

He admired Vladimir Lenin and despised free political institutions. His dream was to overthrow the political system of America, and replace constitutional officeholders with a bureaucracy of social science experts—free from any legal constraints (to act as they see fit).

Herbert Croly demanded the radical repudiation of the U.S. Constitution and the Founding Fathers. He claimed he was dedicated to social righteousness. The Bill of Rights was a false deity, according to Croly, and he condemned individual rights as nothing more than selfishness.

Scientific administrators (governance by experts) must replace partisan politicians to fundamentally transform America, which would then lead to infinite progress and perfection. Popular elections—and traditional religious morality—must be abolished for the realization of Social Justice.

Croly asserted that Americans blindly and ignorantly accepted the Founding Fathers ideas, and that it was the duty of progressives to enlighten them. He advocated violence in the form of "social warfare" and wanted an America that was universally unionized. These unions would then violently take industries and businesses away from the present owners, and place them in hands of their rightful owners: laborers.

To Herbert Croly, Christianity, Capitalism, and Social Conservatism were the enemies of progress. He wrote that Karl Marx was the Columbus of Social Justice. He also believed that the USSR would have been a success if not for the selfish desires of Western Civilization to suppress them.

The Soviet Union embodied the true principles of progressive "democracy." Croly endlessly justified their murderous regime—Lenin was a peaceful man, America was a dictatorship of terror. The liquidation of twenty million Russians by Stalin was a necessary use of administrative discipline. Those killed, and those shipped to the Gulag, were obstructing the Soviet vision of Social Justice.

Croly wrote that the Russian Kulaks [farmers] deserved to be liquidated. They opposed, or were indifferent to, the progress of the Soviet state. Croly justified mass murder in the name of Social Justice. The Soviets and Chinese combined killed 100 million people in the name of progress, and Croly thought that an acceptable cost for the creation of a new church—the administrative state.

To correct the fatal errors of the American Founding Fathers, Croly wrote that his followers should pursue a line that the United States Constitution is a "living document" that could be slowly and secretly transformed to reflect progressive ideology.

The progressives should operate clandestinely to subvert the Constitution while denying their intentions. Croly wrote extensively of how the progressives could present themselves as on the high moral ground—true patriots who would appear to be defending the American Way and the Constitution, while in fact destroying both while gradually recreating society in their own image. Croly declared that proclaiming oneself to be a patriot and a democrat enabled one to be as radical and authoritarian as one wished.

Scroll to Continue
Herbert Croly

Herbert Croly

President Woodrow Wilson

Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) was the only president of the United States who was a professional political scientist. He was steeped in German philosophy and state theory—which sharply contrasts with the fundamental principles of American constitutionalism.

Wilson was critical of the limited government established by the Founding Fathers, and he objected to their declarations of permanent principles. Wilson echoed Croly with his call for a completely independent class of bureaucratic experts to administer "progress."

He was a Darwinist—he believed that men descended from apes. His political ideas were heavily influenced by Hegel, the forerunner of Marxism.

Wilson did not believe that the ideas of the Founding Fathers were good for anything except back in their own period of time. He did not believe that political ideas transcended time, but that all were part of a progression.

Therefore, he rejected the notion that America was founded on timeless principles. The American people had an undue attachment to the outdated, mistaken principles of their Founders. Wilson felt individualism selfish, misguided, and revolting.

Woodrow Wilson was unquestionably a racist. He did not believe that different races of people, with diverse habits and instincts, and unequal acquirements in thought and action, could ever be harmoniously united in a democracy. Homogeneity of race, thought, and purpose was a necessary condition for a lasting democracy. Unity of national will was the only way for the nation to survive.

President Wilson believed the state should wield vast powers, without any limits to its authority. The old constitutional order of limited government stood in the way of progress. Wilson urged that the Constitution must not be interpreted as a rigid set of rules. The Founding Fathers had made a mistake in permanently limiting state power.

Wilson sought to circumvent the Constitution by implementing government power through regulations, rather than the cumbersome process of enacting laws. A huge bureaucracy of experts could operate the government scientifically—and free from "values"—through regulations. Wilson urged Congress to cede authority to unelected, professional administrators.

He thought Congress an obstacle to progress and believed what was needed in the future was a charismatic, popular president who could fundamentally transform American political institutions, by overcoming the tedious separation of powers system in favor of an efficient vehicle for the exercise of state power.

President Wilson had the novel notion that state powers extended beyond those granted by the Constitution. As he said, "Administration cannot wait upon legislation."

Bureaucracy should be given the power of the state, so as to not have to contend with "the clumsy nuisance of public opinion."

Wilson was quite clear that his political thought was not derived from the American tradition, but from the German tradition (yes, I may as well say it—the same tradition that produced the National Socialism of Adolph Hitler). The Germans believed in unlimited state powers, the American Constitution did not. Still, Wilson was a great politician. To the public, he touted Jefferson and Hamilton. It is in his academic and private writings that his true thought comes out. Just like a good progressive should.



John Dewey: The Father of Modern American Education

John Dewey (1859-1952) had no appreciation for the Declaration of Independence. According to him, no truth is self-evident. Science is the only the means to truth, and its truths are subject to change, so therefore there is no such thing as objective truth—all truth is relative and changeable.

Dewey was an Atheist. He sneered at religious people as misguided simpletons. Dewey sought to spread his ideas through the American Public School System, but also through all forms of education—which Dewey recognized as all forms of communication. His goal was to use the schools and the media to undermine faith in God and faith in the American Way.

John Dewey believed that with his help, the little people could be trained to let go of their beliefs, habits, thoughts, desires, customs, and social institutions. He wrote that modern science has destroyed the ancient view that the universe has a purpose.

Dewey was no fan of democracy. He wrote: "There is no sanctity in universal suffrage, frequent elections, majority rule, congressional and cabinet government. They are to be modified to suit the needs of the state."

John Dewey was a Socialist who disdained personal power and private profit. He thought the New Deal was way too conservative for him. He believed all wealth should be redistributed equally to everyone. He believed that the government should own all utilities, natural resources, banking, transportation, and communications—at the very least. He set the curriculum for American Public Schools for generations—even now.



President Franklin Roosevelt

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) was the only American president who broke the unwritten rule of stepping down after eight years. His ideas departed from the ideas of the Founding Fathers of America, particularly when he declared "freedom from want" as a basic right of all Americans. This opened the floodgates to today's notions of "rights" to almost anything imaginable.

Under President Roosevelt, the federal government expanded its powers to incredible levels, and in the process greatly diminished what were the traditional roles of private charity, civil society, and local community in American life. Roosevelt accomplished a fundamental transformation in the character of American government.

Roosevelt asserted that the American Founders did not go far enough in describing the rights all people should have. He claimed that all people had a "right" to make a comfortable living, the opportunity to work for decent wages. It was the job of the government—not individual initiative (gumption) or business (entrepreneurs)—to assure this was the reality. It is notable that he never referenced the right to own private property.

He was at least smart enough to recognize that to live on the government dole could be morally corrupting by encouraging sloth—an idea his political descendant LBJ forgot. FDR wrote: "The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. The federal government must and shall quit this business of relief."

78 years later we are still waiting.

FDR elaborated his political 'rights.' "All Americans have a right to a useful job; to adequate food, clothing, and recreation; farmers have a right to a decent living; businessmen have a right to fair trade; every family has a right to a decent home; people have a right to adequate medical care; the right to a decent education; and the right to protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment."

Of course, all of these new rights would require a massive central government to protect them.

Big government was born in America. An enormous federal bureaucracy was put into place. Regulatory powers were given to it to supervise banking, the stock market, transportation, and utilities. America was now a bureaucratized regulatory state. The selfish individual was replaced by the leviathan state. Many of his plans were against the law. No problem, Roosevelt would simply stack the Supreme Court with his friends. After all, the Founding Fathers had made it difficult to amend the Constitution, as they did not assume change automatically meant improvement.

Roosevelt—and all progressives—do not like competition. Governmental control over industry required a humungous bureaucracy, which would eventually put millions of people in the employ of the government—as adversaries to very businesses and industries upon which America depends for economic growth.

Under Roosevelt's National Recovery Act—later ruled unconstitutional—union membership exploded, and strikes by unions became pandemic. This eventually led to the flight of industry from American shores.

FDR liked Comrade Stalin. He said: "I get along fine with Marshall Stalin. He is a man who combines a tremendous, relentless determination with stalwart good humor. I believe he is truly representative of the heart and soul of the Russian people."

Roosevelt believed that Communism promoted forms of economic redistribution that benefited the common man. "We Americans only think of ourselves, but the Russians want to do good for their society."



John Rawls: The Most Influential Progressive Thinker

John Rawls (1921-2002) was the most influential progressive thinker of the 20th Century. He crystallized progressive thought.

It was Rawls who promulgated the view that the United States was gravely wrong to drop the atomic bombs on Japan.

He believed that America was tarnished by prohibiting certain sexual practices it found abhorrent. Justice—defined as fairness by Rawls—requires that we move as speedily as possible toward protecting the right of individuals to engage in whatever practices they wish.

Rawls believed that the family was an obstacle to fair equality of opportunity, since it sometimes gives people an advantage by having parents who are wealthier, better educated, or more loving.

John Rawls pushed the idea that not only should the government not favor one Christian denomination over another (the understanding of the Founding Fathers); and not only should the government not favor Christianity over other religions no matter how small a sect they were (decidedly at odds with American history); but the government also should not favor any religiosity at all over say, Atheism.

Rawls was a believer in total personal liberty, even if it included licentiousness and libertinism. He rejected claims of those who believed that not all liberties are for the good of society or even the good of individuals. He denied that the government should in any way promote virtue or morality. He denied that the government should be able to ban what most people consider degrading and shameful, such drug use, prostitution, incest, polygamy, or even bestiality. Oddly enough, in spite of these ideas, he seems not to think liberty extends to parents having the right to rear their own children as they wish, and implies private schools should be outlawed.

John Rawls believed in equal distribution of wealth, and was opposed to those who are talented or industrious earning any advantage to those who are not. He was also opposed to publicly valuing achievement, since every person should be publicly valued equally. To Rawls, no person deserved their talents, so why should they deserve the fruits of their talents or labors? The natural assets of different individuals should be regarded as commonly owned, in his view. This is Social Justice.




My source for this Hub is History of American Political Thought by Bryan-Paul Frost and Jeffrey Sikkenga.




James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on April 01, 2015: Thank you ever much for taking the time to read my article. I agree with you 100% that "when these progressive ideas are espoused, the source and inspiration of the ideas are not well known." And you are also spot when you say the Left hates Christianity and disdains the Constitution. Well put. You get it! I appreciate your outstanding comments. from upstate, NY on March 01, 2013:

I believe this Hub to be an important resource in order to know the beliefs of key progressive leaders. It seems when these progressive ideas are espoused, the source and inspiration of the ideas are not well known. Cherry picking the beliefs and actions of these key leaders has decieved many into believing these progressive lies.

What's disturbing about the political left, is that their distain for the Constitution and true Christianity is not widely known and they've kept it quiet for good reason.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on January 04, 2011:

CMerritt— Thank you for taking the time to read this piece. It is an article that is near and dear to my heart.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments. Jesus warned of the this, that men would seek the praise of men instead of the praise of God. A temporary glory in lieu of an eternal glory. How shortsighted men are!

I think it is obvious that our Founding Fathers would be thoroughly ashamed of what the nation they created has become.

The so-called progressive path is the path to perdition. That is why I care so much. The consequences most dire will not happen in my lifetime, as bad as they already are. But I care about the world I leave my descendents. Because I care about them. Weird, huh?

Chris Merritt from Pendleton, Indiana on January 04, 2011:

Hi James, I’m just now getting around to this hub of yours. Wow! This hub is such a great reminder of how history can clearly show us our mistakes. You pointed out several prominent leaders that have led us astray from what our forefathers set up for us. How God is continually being pushed aside, and demonized. Yet, certain leaders are being hailed as astounding contributors to our current social structure and have faith in the direction that this progressive movement is taking us. All while disregarding the obvious significance that our forefathers relied on the role of God and the Holy Bible. One would think that even those who have chosen not to believe in God, can still see the undeniable facts that most our forefathers clearly did believe, and utilized the Word of God as the cornerstone to building this nation. You can even look at Europe and other nations who have went down the path of “progressiveness” and see the results. Yet, many still pursue that path.

Anyway, not to get on a rant, but I really liked this hub, and I think it carries a very strong message that all of us should hear.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 30, 2010:

JON EWALL— Pelosi's elevator does not reach the top floor. How she continues to get reelected tells us much about her constituency. Thank you for checking back in.


JON EWALL from usa on August 29, 2010:

James A Watkins


Another not spoken of too much is that speaker of the house Pelosi was a member before she became speaker.My guess was to hide her true agenda.Pelosi has pushed President Barak Obama's agenda like a true progressive.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 28, 2010:

TruthAwake— Thank you much for your gracious compliments. You are quite welcome.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 28, 2010:

JON EWALL— Thank you for that tip, my friend. I did go look at the Congressional Progressive Caucus and they follow the very ideology I portrayed on this page.

Some of our elected officials surely intend to fundamentally transform America into a Socialist country. I dare say they have learned the lessons of the four people in this Hub quite well.

I agree with you that the citizens need to wake up because their ideas have been tried and found wanting. Thank you for visiting my Hub. I appreciate your excellent insights.

TruthAwake from The Dirty South on August 28, 2010:

Extremely informative, well written piece. Thanks for sharing this.

JON EWALL from usa on August 27, 2010:


To understand who, what and why regarding the modern day progressives in our Government go to Google and check Congressional Progressive Caucus. There are many articles exposing members of congress who are in the progressive caucus. One may be surprised as to what is occurring in our government today under President Barak Obama and the leadership of Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi. The question remains for the citizens of the United States, do we want a Socialist or Marist type of government.

With the recent signing of legislation, Healthcare Reform, Financial Reform, taking over of the student loan program, ownership in the auto industry and Fannie and Freddie, the government controls 60% of the economy. America needs to wake up and speak out if we the people reject the transformation of our government as we know it today.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on August 27, 2010:

technorican— I appreciate your readership and your comments. I am afraid I do not follow what you are trying to say.

1) I understand perfectly well what this means. For example, if I said I was against Affirmative Action (as a policy) and you responded "YOU are a racist!"—that would be a perfect example of Argument ad Hominem Abusive (attacking the person's character instead of debating the policy). But I surely did not do that in my article. I presented the views of these four men as they are, and I did not comment on them as men.

Or are you saying that these four men used Argument ad Hominem Abusive?

2) If quoting the exact positions of these men causes excitement or anger—so be it. This Hub is written to educate. Many people hold beliefs with no idea what these beliefs really mean. This article helps explain what Progressive ideas really are from arguably the four most influential Progressives of the 20th Century. This way, an educated populace can still believe whatever they want of course, but hopefully they will at least understand what they think they believe. I think this article is far too dry and academic to be Argument ad Populum. If you think it is, please explain yourself better so I can understand where you're coming from. Your note is a bit cryptic.

technorican from Houston on August 27, 2010:

"in a republican nation, whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of the first importance." - Thomas Jefferson

There are many fallacies (errors in reasoning) above. Just to mention two:

(1) Argument ad Hominem Abusive disparages "the character of the opponents, to deny their intelligence or reasonableness, to question their integrity, and so on. But the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what that person says, or the correctness or incorrectness of that person's argument."

(2) Argument ad Populum, "the appeal to emotion, is the device of every propagandist and every demagogue. It is fallacious because it replaces the laborious task of presenting evidence and rational argument with expressive language and other devices calculated to excite enthusiasm, excitement, anger or hate."


Introduction to Logic by Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 21, 2010:

Allan McGregor— It's great to see you here, my friend. Thanks for your comments. Harrison Bergeron is a recommended story as well.

Allan McGregor from South Lanarkshire on June 21, 2010:

Just occurred to me James! - You missed out those most 'progressive of Progressives' - the Sci Fi creation of Star Trek: 'The Borg'.

No member of the Collective is capable of independent thought, all outsiders are either to be assimilated or eradicated, and 'Resistance is Futile'.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 17, 2010:

strutzas— Me too! Thank you for your comment and welcome to the Hub Pages Community.

strutzas from Kualapuu, Hawaii on June 16, 2010:

I hope people would be aware of political issues.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 16, 2010:

shazz01109— Thank you! Oh, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Political thought, political ideas, are far more important than parties. I appreciate your insights.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 15, 2010:

boba020682— Thank you! Thank you very much. According to Rawls, yes. That's right. His idea is that all talents belong to the collective and that all should share equally the benefits of all talents. I'm going to have to repost your last question and we'll see if anybody answers. :D

"Can anybody really believe that somebody who has the where-with-all to cure horrible diseases or create something of infinite value to society should not be rewarded for their efforts? Why would anybody bother?"

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 15, 2010:

Allan McGregor— Thank you for the compliments, my learned friend. Your comments are delicious. I must quote you for a few lines here:

"Leftist dogma insists there is no objective truth, then what you consider one man's 'nonsense' is as good as any other. But then, it is characteristic of the Left that freedom of expression never extends to the right to disagree with them, in much the same way that the notion of abolition of private property usually accompanies that of prohibition of personal opinion."

"This control of language is typical of what you rightly identify as the hallmark of German philosophical influence. . . More recently, we have seen the successful deployment of Orwellian newspeak under the guise of 'Political Correctness' which first arose in 1923 and derives from the concept of 'Communicative Rationality' expounded by the radically Marxist 'Frankfurt School'. Basically, you change the language to control the way people think and denounce those who disagree with your new concensus as bigots, racists, homophobes, etc. thus silencing their voice and rendering any opposition effectively impotent."

shazz01109 from Western Massachusetts on June 15, 2010:

Very informative article. I wish that people would be more aware of political thought, instead of being concerned with political Party so much.

boba020682 from Silicon Valley on June 13, 2010:


Great Hub!

It never ceases to amaze me how such supposedly bright guys can be so dense and short sighted.

So according to Rawls, the wino on the corner has the same social value as Jonas Salk and each should be entitled to the same income.

Is it just me or are these "brilliant" people really idiots? Can anybody really believe that somebody who has the where-with-all to cure horrible diseases or create something of infinite value to society should not be rewarded for their efforts?

Why would anybody bother?

Allan McGregor from South Lanarkshire on June 11, 2010:

Yet another excellent article.

As a Scot and somewhat well-informed on Scottish and British history, I learned a lot here about men I had never heard of.

I was interested too to hear about Woodrow Wilson's less publicised political leanings as it is slightly more generally known that not only was he reluctant to drag the US into WWI in 1917, but actually considered bringing America in in 1914...on the German side.

gatorgrad2001 seems peeved that 'Being passionate about your beliefs and principles is hardly synonymous with being anywhere close to defensible or even accurate positions on issues.'

Well, yes it does, because since Leftist dogma insists there is no objective truth, then what you consider one man's 'nonsense' is as good as any other. But then, it is characteristic of the Left that freedom of expression never extends to the right to disagree with them, in much the same way that the notion of abolition of private property usually accompanies that of prohibition of personal opinion.

But this control of language is typical of what you rightly identify as the hallmark of German philosophical influence.

In the 19th Century it was German theologians who began to question the veracity of Scripture and erode confidence in the Bible. And although Communism took off in Russia, Karl Marx was a German.

More recently, we have seen the successful deployment of Orwellian newspeak under the guise of 'Political Correctness' which first arose in 1923 and derives from the concept of 'Communicative Rationality' expounded by the radically Marxist 'Frankfurt School'.

Basically, you change the language to control the way people think and denounce those who disagree with your new concensus as bigots, racists, homophobes, etc. thus silencing their voice and rendering any opposition effectively impotent.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 09, 2010:

Vladimir! My old friend! Thank you very much. You are welcome.

Vladimir Uhri from HubPages, FB on June 09, 2010:

Great Hub James. Thanks.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 07, 2010:

Ruce Otter— I don't know what you mean in your second comment unless you are referring to these words of yours:

"fascist wrong wingers love the benefit from but ignorantly HATE those that brought these things into existence"

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 07, 2010:

Ruce Otter— Fictional rant? This article uses the very words of the people I featured in it. There is no fiction here. I have all the footnotes. What did I say in the article that is fictional?

I have read the words of the Founding Fathers extensively. Besides one private letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to his minister friend, where in the words of the Founders to you see the term "Separation of Church and State?"

Drivel? Those are direct quotes. You think the Founders wrote and spoke drivel? Well, no wonder you're a progressive.

It is true that in old Europe, where the Founders came from, you could be killed or certainly dispossesed of your property if you did not belong to and financially support the state denomination. That's why they made sure there was not an official Church of America with mandatory participation at the point of a gun. Does anybody make you go to church? Has anybody ever made anybody go to church in America? That is totally different from the aims of progressives to ban Christianity from the public square.

Ruce Otter on June 07, 2010:

Also, Mr. Watson,

Keep you arrogant and erroneous opinions of what I think to yourself.

You do not know what I think until I post it, so you totally discredit yourself by claiming to know what I think.

Ruce Otter on June 07, 2010:

James A. Watkins,

Whatever, your fictional rant is only fact in the minds of those that do not like facts! If you take the time to read the writings of the founding fathers, you will see that they were in fact in favor of a separation of the church and state.

I fail to see how reading any of that drivel posted on that hub page is proof of that the founding fathers only wanted "the state to leave the church alone".

The founding fathers experienced in the country that they came from a government that told them what religion they had to follow. That is why they were in fact supporters of a separation of church and state.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 06, 2010:

Ruce Otter— The Founding Fathers had no such idea as "Separation of Church and State" by the definition of today's Progressives. All they wanted was for the state to leave the church alone. For proof, see the quotes here:

The first act of America's first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of 4 chapters of the Bible. In 1777, Congress, facing a National shortage of `Bibles for our schools, and families, and for the public worship of God in our churches,' announced that they `desired to have a Bible printed under their care & by their encouragement' and therefore ordered 20,000 copies of the Bible. In 1782, Congress adopted (and has reaffirmed on numerous subsequent occasions) the National Seal with its Latin motto `Annuit Coeptis,' meaning `God has favored our undertakings'.

You have pointed out some fine examples of moral failure by conservative people. All people fall short of moral perfection. There remains, however, the positive of having high standards for conduct. They may be impossible to reach but the striving counts. One cannot ever be a hypocrite if one simply has no standards at all. But that is hardly a high moral ground.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 06, 2010:

tony0724— You made good points here, my friend. The Progressive view is that as mere animals, any urge should be satisfied. And Karl Marx clearly wrote that the family is an obstacle to total control by the state, as the family claims a sovereignty superior to the state. Thank you.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 06, 2010:

Ruce Otter— Actually, I think Henry Ford, a quite conservative fellow, brought most of these things into the work place. But hey, Progressives have done some things that have benefitted people. They would have no support at all if they hadn't.

I'm sorry that you think anybody who disagrees with you hates you. That is simply not the truth. I don't hate Progressive people. I love Progressive individuals. I don't hate the people I wrote about on this page. I only think the public needs to understand the underlying motives of this movement. Thank you for your comment. You made good points.

Ruce Otter on June 05, 2010:

"separation of church and state lie"?

What the hell are you talking about? Just because you don't like the founding fathers' ideas, that does not make that a lie.

"breakdown of the family"?

So you want to blame on progressives the breakdown of the families of wrong wingers Ted Haggard, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich? Those progressives must have some awesome mind control to pull off that feat.

"encouragement of deviant behavior"?

Please provide some evidence that progressives encouraged republican congressman Marc Foley to chase after underage male House pages.

tony0724 from san diego calif on June 05, 2010:

@ Russ there also would not be the seperation of church and state lie , the breakdown of the family and the encouragement of deviant behavior.

Ruce Otter on June 05, 2010:

If it was not for progressives, there would be no such things as the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, safe working conditions, safe food supplies, safe drugs and many other things that the fascist wrong wingers love the benefit from but ignorantly hate those that brought these things into existence.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 03, 2010:

joer4X4— Leftists don't do well when faced with an existential threat. Appeasement rarely works. You see it clearly. You have a clear eye, my friend. I agree 100% with all you wrote and I thank you for writing these words in this space.

joer4x4 from Philadelphia, PA on June 03, 2010:

Nice going James!

I love the old atom bomb debate. Either way from the left point of view the US would be wrong.

But it could have been the other way around. Our fathers could have fought on Japanese soil against ill equipped but armed seniors, women and children. After all that's all Japan had left.

It would have been quite a blood bath before Japan would surrender. Considering it took 2 nukes for them to quit, I imagine half the country would have been killed.

While I agree war is wrong, it is a reality. I think the next time there is a situation, we should send out the leftist with olive branches so they can prove their argument.

But they won't defend squat. I just can't help myself but it is pretty darn cowardly to badmouth a history that has given the left the greatest gift of all. The liberty to be wrong.

I want to see the left get away with their nonsense in Iran or China! But then again they can change religions faster than a lightning strike.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 03, 2010:

mysterylady 89— I remember the Vidal-Buckley debates. Great stuff. Yea, I like to stir the pot a bit. Gets the old patriotic blood flowing. Thank you for reminding me of those classic moments. :D

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 03, 2010:

tony0724— Thank you for that tip, my friend. I will check it out directly.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 03, 2010:

Tuckerp— "Well, I tell you what all these progressives have in common. None of them can drive a nail with a hammer!"

Now I know from funny and that's funny!!

You also wrote:

"The unions on the other hand. Want to work for somebody for 20 years and then be paid a full income and health Ins. for the next 40 years after. Entitlements are way out of hand. . . Progressives are out for a free ride"


I love your story. America was built on self-reliance. Your comments are too good. I have to quote you one more time:

"The only thing I want from my Government is to stay out of my life"

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 03, 2010:

John B Badd— You're welcome. Thinking is a good thing. I do it all the time. Well . . . most of the time. :D

mysterylady 89 from Florida on June 03, 2010:

Your Hub certainly did manage to stir up controversy! I feel as if I have been reading a William Buckley-Gore Vidal debate...with a great many side comments as well. Whew!

tony0724 from san diego calif on June 03, 2010:

James just to let you know George F Will wrote a brilliant Op Ed today June 3rd called " Limits of a welfare state". He basically echoes many of the ideas you have written down here. I would make it suggested reading for anyone who has thoughts on this matter !

Tuckerp from Clifton Tx on June 03, 2010:

Well, I tell you what all these progressives have in common. None of them can drive a nail with a hammer . Most of them have a funded job . Not like they plant pea's or something .

And the unions on the other hand . Want to work for somebody for 20 years and then be paid a full income and health Ins. for the next 40 years after . Entitlements are way out of hand . And they don't move an inch .

Progressives are out for a free ride . They have to . Cause they are spoiled brats .

I got to the 8th grade . I own everything I have . Including my 94 acre ranch . I have 0 debt . I pay tax , internet , TV and thats about it . Isn't that the real American way of life ? To work and make you a life of happiness . The only thing I want from my Government is to stay out of my life .

"I am not a friend of an energetic Government . It is always oppressive . " Thomas Jefferson

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 03, 2010:

Robert— I agree with you, my friend, that the Bush bashing is getting old. Yesterday I heard Bush was blamed for the Gore divorce and the Gulf oil spill! You are also correct that many immigrants come here (legally) and make good lives for themselves. You rarely hear them bellyaching. It is the native born, raised on entitlements, who think that just for breathing they are owed something by somebody. Thank you for your excellent comments.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 02, 2010:

John B— Your comments are excellent as always. Thank you for coming by.

You hit on several important points but the most important is that our "poor" are not poor at all by the standards of the world. Half of the people in the world make one dollar a day. In the USA, you are considered poverty stricken if you make $20,000 per year. So you are only poor relative to those who make more.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 02, 2010:

John B Badd— It is true that 50% of Americans pay no income tax. Most of these vote for Democrats most of the time. As George Bernard Shaw said: "If you rob Peter to pay Paul; you can always count on the vote of Paul."

I like vouchers and I'll tell you why: People who want their kids to get a private education, either Christian based, Jewish, or secular; away from all the multiculturalism, phony history, anti-American lesson plans, and socialist leanings of the public school system, should be able to use vouchers because the voucher represents their own tax money. If you pay $10,000 a year to send your kid to a great school, you still have to pay in $10,000 to the public school, too, in taxes. This protects the incompetency of the public school from level competition. If a taxpayer could use that $10,000 he paid in taxes to send his kid to whatever kind of school he wants—which is freedom and liberty I might add—who is going to pick the public school? Half? If so, that shows you how bad they are doing and might spur them on to improve. JMO

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 02, 2010:

JON EWALL— You wrote:

"It is shameful that in public education that the dropout rate in some cities may approach 50+ %"

We might want to blame multiculturalism for this one. How many times have I heard black kids cracking the books described as "acting white?"

All of your comments are outstanding. I appreciate your insights. Thank you for coming by and adding much to the conversation.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 02, 2010:

DeBorrah K. Ogans— Thank you very much for your gracious compliments! Your commentary is wonderful. I'll repeat some of your words here:

In order to empower themselves they seek to unravel, undermine, cast doubt on and or totally disrespect God the Father as Creator and Maker and His principles for life and living!

"[The Progressives have] an unquenchable lust for domination and control over the lives of others! They seek to suppress the Truth and establish their own form of righteousness apart from God!"

John B Badd from Saint Louis, MO on June 02, 2010:

Thanks James, you have me thinking about it now also.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 02, 2010:

John B Badd— You're welcome, sir. Well, communities took care of their own for centuries. There is no record of Americans starving to death in the 19th Century, or having a serious homeless problem. The thing about the cost of college is this: When did it become so damn expensive to go to college anyway?

When the federal government got involved in it, that's when. When did the cost of healthcare explode? When the government got involved in it, that's when. Why don't you see communities providing more charity than they do? Well, they still do plenty but many people have been conditioned to think it is the government's job, and the government confiscates half the money made in this country now. That money can't be used for local charity because the government took it.

All the stuff you said about differentiating between those who milk the system and have more than others without working, versus those in true need, is exactly while local charity works better. You see, in a neighborhood people know who has had bad luck, or is in between jobs but is a good, hard working person, versus drunks, drugheads, and lazyasses. Also, private charity generally has a spiritual aspect to it (Salvation Army, etc) and that is what is great about it—they get to the root of the person's problems—and that is exactly why progressives oppose private charity as they are anit-God. Thanks for your excellent and heart felt commentary. I enjoyed your words and you set me to thinking. Which is good.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 02, 2010:

no body— Your comments show that you see the world clearly. I want to quote part of what you wrote. Thank you.

"How progressive the Antichrist will have to be! How else could one man rule the world and bring all things together against the very things of God?"

Robert on June 02, 2010:


Why is it when you present anything about what is going on in our country those who disagree fall back on we are upset that we lost the election and George Bush did it. One wrote that it is a right to a good job, who said? We have the opportunity to pursue a good job and a good life. Key word is pursue. Get off your lazy ass and go get it. How many stories of those who had nothing and now have what they need because they worked for it do they have to hear? When the bread lines form,let's see if they have the strength to stand in line to get fed or will they wait for that bread to delivered by the Progressive Bread Truck.

John B on June 02, 2010:

While poverty is a worldwide problem, a comparison between our poor and the poor of other nations reveals much about what poverty really is. Not living in an intercity slum, I can only guess. How many folks in America live with dirt floors? How many don't have emergency health services available? How many don't have phone sevice and some sort of transportation? How about television? Access to the internet either in home or close by or on a smartphone? Any people in the U.S. living without these things might be checked for substance abuse. If money for necessities is squandered on drugs or alcohol, perhaps there is truly no hope for that percentage of unfortuneates. Would increasing welfare for those improve their lot?

Immigrants pour into our society and always have. There are people on waiting lists and illegals entering in droves.

Does this sound like a country built on this evilness called capitalism? How many people are migrating to Europe these days or anywhere else other than here? Seems like the only way to prevent all these freedom seekers from desiring to be here would be to totally institute Socialism as our "primary" form of government. Oxi-moronish or just moronish?

Whoever wants it can have the last word?

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 02, 2010:

SilverGenes— I'm glad you enjoy my Hubs. I enjoy you, too. I'll be waiting for your lengthy comment or new Hub, whichever comes first. :-)

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

soumyasrajan— I quite agree with your intelligent commentary. Thank you for visiting my Hubs and making such astute remarks. I have enjoyed our interaction.

John B Badd from Saint Louis, MO on June 01, 2010:

Jon Ewall I am not sure what the future holds. I do know that you are right in that we need to fix our broken public education system. I do not think vouchers are the way to go however. I think all schools need equal funding at least on a state level. We do not need to federalize everything.

I find it hard to believe that 50% of us do not pay taxes. Makes me feel like the fool if it is true because half the country knows something I do not lol.

I do not know much about Europe's politics but I know their system does not work to well in times of recession; we will have to wait a few years to see how well it rebounds. I know we can not continue to let insurance companies and banks control our politicians and silently run our nation. That has to change.

JON EWALL from usa on June 01, 2010:

John B Badd


I had the fortune of attending a private grade/middle school but my mother paid for it with her social security (she is disabled, I think it was called SSI when I was a kid but now it is Social Security, I'm not sure what the difference is


You learned a great lesson from your mother , she recognized the importance of an education. It is shameful that in public education that the dropout rate in some cities may approach 50+ %. The failure of the government and the educational system need to be revisited as to why our youth cannot succeed in attaining a decent ( free ) education.

It was reported that 50% of the population do not pay federal taxes. Let's wonder if that is fair in a democratic society. Federal entitlements are a way of life for many of our youth. The pride of working and enjoying the fruits of our labor cannot be a thing of the past.

What does the future hold for our country's youth and the poor in these troubled times.

President Obama, some 18 months ago , promised jobs and a better economy. The Obama administration and this Congress has failed the American people. Transforming our country into a european type of government is a failure.

What does the future hold for our nation ?

Elder DeBorrah K Ogans on June 01, 2010:

James A Watkins, Excellent commentary on the Progressives! As always you have showcased your astutely presented observations! I always find it quite interesting when one wants to denounce and undermine the credibility of Christianity and replace its principles with an alternative barometer from which they gauge what is right and wrong. It is the epitome of self grandiose pompous deception. In order to empower themselves they seek to unravel, undermine, cast doubt on and or totally disrespect God the Father as Creator and Maker and His principles for life and living!

Although cloaked acumen as supposedly superior intellect what really wants to take the helm is an unquenchable lust for domination and control over the lives of others! This is also an indication of the reprobate mind that Paul shares with us in Romans. One who lives to serve created things rather than the Creator himself! They seek to suppress the Truth and establish their own form of righteousness apart from God! Progressive ideology is what many unknowingly embrace as the rules and principles continuously change as we go along.... I TRUST GOD!

Thank you for another excellent informative article Professor! In His Love, Peace & Blessings!

John B Badd from Saint Louis, MO on June 01, 2010:

Thanks for the feedback James. I guess it is hard for me to imagine a world where the small communities take care of their own. I grew up in the inner city and it was a pretty bad place to be most of the time. I also came from low income family and went to community college on a Pell grant after graduating from a public technical high school. I had the fortune of attending a private grade/middle school but my mother paid for it with her social security (she is disabled, I think it was called SSI when I was a kid but now it is Social Security, I'm not sure what the difference is either).

If it was not for government aid I do not know if I would be a better person or in prison - it is hard to tell what would have been. I do know because of the opportunities my country gave me I have a respect for it and a sense of debt to it I may not have otherwise felt. I also feel your frustration at the people who milk the system.

I did installation services for a few years and often went into section 8 (low income government subsidized) housing only to see they had nicer furniture, electronics, and vehicles outside their homes than I had. This made me angry and I questioned why I even bothered working on more than one occasion. But the truth is for every person taking advantage of the system there are others who truly need and appreciate the help.

I know many people think they are owed the handouts that are giving to them but I think of myself as half way intelligent and I can see I was fortunate to grow up in a country that did not throw me to the wolves.

Robert E Smith from Rochester, New York on June 01, 2010:

How progressive the Antichrist will have to be! It is the way things in the world need to go to pave the way for him to step onto the stage. How else could one man rule the world and bring all things together against the very things of God? It sickens me to see it though and makes me long for Jesus to come back NOW!

SilverGenes on June 01, 2010:

James, I am not ignoring your excellent questions. My response is rather lengthy and still growing so it might become an accidental hub on its own. Did I mention how much enjoyment I get from your hubs even when we do not share the same viewpoint? :-) Back to the keyboard....

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

maven101— Thank you for the high praise indeed!

Larry, you are a genius. I just love that reference to Harrison Bergeron, a short story by Kurt Vonnegut. For the uninitiated here is a brief synopsis of the story:

"In the story, social equality has been achieved by handicapping the more intelligent, athletic or beautiful members of society. For example, strength is handicapped by the requirement to carry weight, beauty by the requirement to wear a mask and so on. This is due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the United States Constitution. This process is central to the society, designed so that no one will feel inferior to anyone else. Handicapping is overseen by the United States Handicapper General, Diana Moon-Glampers.

Harrison Bergeron, the protagonist of the story, has exceptional intelligence, strength, and beauty, and thus has to bear enormous handicaps. These include headphones that play distracting noises, three hundred pounds of weight strapped to his body, eyeglasses designed to give him headaches, a rubber ball on his nose, black caps on his teeth, and shaven eyebrows. Despite these societal handicaps, he is able to invade a TV station, declare himself Emperor, strip himself of his handicaps, then dance with a ballerina whose handicaps he has also discarded. Both are shot dead by the brutal and relentless Handicapper General"

soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on June 01, 2010:

Hi! James

Thanks a lot. I quite agree with you- A commonwealth of English speaking nation may be a very good idea. You know I just wrote a hub about an English lord who was governor in South India and loved his province and did a lot of interesting development. One of the sentence in that hub is "the number of people who use English in India is more than that in USA and UK put together". English is now as much of an Indian language as of UK or USA.

Oh! I quite agree, even if one does not like, of course one has to deal with nations with unsavory regime. What I am worried, is has it gone too far or is it really needed or corruption or lethargy drives it? When you see a country like USA financing and fighting a war from both sides, it should worry every one.

Larry Conners from Northern Arizona on June 01, 2010:

James...A big thumbs up for a most informative and interesting Hub reflecting deep thought and research...

I'll simply comment that the world of Harrison Bergeron, where the idea of equality is " progressed " to its ultimate conclusion, is the proclaimed goal of the progressive agenda...It starts with the young, in academia, and seeps into American culture through political correctness and the subverted use of language...Progressives learn at the knee of Noam Chomsky how to subvert language to change perceptions and meaning, and from Saul Alinsky how to implement those changes to create progressive action...

The idea of allowing " expert administrators " unfettered powers, without congressional oversight and control, feeds into the basest instincts of man...the inevitable corruption of power...Larry

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

Loves To Read— You're surely welcome, my dear. Thank you for your ongoing support of my writing. I do appreciate your encouragement.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

akirchner— You're welcome. Thank you for the accolades. I am grateful for your words of encouragement.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 01, 2010:

John B Badd— You wrote:

"Those men who created the constitution put a lot of thought into it and how it could last through the ages."

Yes, it is designed to last as long as we are able to keep a self-governing republic.

The Founding Fathers were well acquainted with education. They felt that education was a local matter. That individual communities should fund and build schools, hire their schoolteachers, and set curriculum that best suited the values of their own community. No one has a more vested interest in the education of their children than the parents and local community. Federally mandated education leads to loss of local control, and then loss of interest in that education (since the locals have lost any say so in it).

The Founding Fathers were well acqauinted with charity. It was each community that was to care for its own poor folks, according to their circumstances—which only local people would have knowledge of. It never occurred to them to have a giant federal trough of entitlements, manned by an army of bureaucrats, doling out money regardless of, and having hardly any knowledge of, the circumstances of the poor individual or family.

Jesus told you and me to feed the poor. He never said to relinquish this responsibility to Caesar.

Thank you for tuning in and for your excellent comments.

Loves To Read on June 01, 2010:

It is criminal how these so called leaders could introduce their unethical ideas to the public and get enough followers to back them up. Very interesting hub thank you James.

Dave McClure from Worcester, UK on May 31, 2010:

@Aguasilver - We know they had two (at least). But that's now. No-one knew how many they had back then.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

soumyasrajan— You are welcome. Have Socialists contributed toward development? I can't think of much, no. I think if we look at the most important inventions of the past we would be hard pressed to find any created by Socialists. The Gulag maybe. The gas chamber?

I think that India is one of our best friends in the world. Of course, we have a special relationship with England, Japan, Ireland, Australia, Israel, and others. Sometimes I think we should close the United Nations and form a Commonwealth of English speaking nations—including India. What do you think?

I did read your article that you were kind enough to provide a link to. It is very good. You know international affairs better than I. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.

ps Sometimes we do form "friendships" with unsavory regimes as a sort of realpolitik. I'm not sure what to think about that. My idealist side says no but global realists can present good arguments as to why it sometimes necessary for national security.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

aguasilver— You certainly addressed that bit of historical revisionism far better than I could. Thank you very much, John. That is a great comment of truth. You have the power of discernment.


James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

singlmomat52— You are quite welcome, dear. Thank you for your kind compliments. I appreciate the encouragement. :-)

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

djbraman— Thank you for taking the time to read my article. I appreciate your heart-felt commentary. You wrote:

"When morals go in a nation then goes character and the foundation has crumbled."

I agree with you wholeheartedly about this.

"There were plenty of our founding fathers who were Godly men and knew that a nation could not prosper without the foundation of Christ and the Holy Bible. Write about some of them"

I have written about them three times, including twice last week:

Audrey Kirchner from Washington on May 31, 2010:

It does seem that we are most interested in American Idol than America and that is really, really sad. Thanks for another powerful piece and your writing is just marvelous, as always.

John B Badd from Saint Louis, MO on May 31, 2010:

I am an American who loves my country and supports the constitution 100%. Those men who created the constitution put a lot of thought into it and how it could last through the ages.

That being said, just because the constitution dose not say you can do something does not make it unconstitutional.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say we shall not educate everyone. No were does it say we shall not feed and cloth the hungry. Didn't Jesus say we should do these things? (and yes it is better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish - but you have to teach him to fish first, and it is better to give him a fish than let him go hungry!)

The founding fathers were very progressive for their time. I know the conservative crown did not like them.

Judge not . . .

soumyasrajan from Mumbai India and often in USA on May 31, 2010:

Thanks a lot James!. I am enjoying your replies to comments. Though I am not so sure about the sentiment you sort of imply "all faults are due to Progressives only" is the right path. I feel you do not mean it just the style you adopt perhaps purposely as a reaction conveys that wrong feeling. Don't you feel after all a lot of capitalistic development has also come because of some of ideas initiated by these so called socialistic or progressive ideas (though these words are funny - as if others are not towards progress).

I like your sentence in reply to my comment

"I found it ironic that as the world is waking up from the marcotic of Socialism the United States is going the other way."

Is it not true with almost all aspects. Democracy, Individual, freedom (USA seems to be interested in financing and arming mainly army top and feudal lords in many countries - Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc. and trying to move away from democratic countries like India, Israel, Japan etc., and this is being enhanced at a time when it is engaged in fighting terrorist monsters created by these feudal lords and rulers, this is also resulting in curtailing freedom in USA itself ), free trade (USA seem to be bent on supporting faulty policies of China by allowing it to manipulate foreign exchange which has hurt quite a lot of USA Industry - actually China as you also rightly point out is strong enough without going through such manipulations but American administration seem to be encouraging it and ready to make their country weaker, I wrote some days back a short article about it.

There are many other much more detailed analysis by American experts, One can go on with this list of movements by USA administration in directionless manner.

But the need is to wake up politicians, administrators and decision makers)

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

Dusty!! I recognized you right away, fifty. Thanks for punching up my buttons.

Happy Memorial Day, my veteran friend. Thank you for your service to our country. I must declare I have never heard this wonderful expression:

"shivering like a dog shitting peach seeds"

Now that is descriptive use of the language, brother.

I appreciate your sentiments fully. I always love to see you on my pages.

John Harper from Malaga, Spain on May 31, 2010:

Addressing Paraglider, I would state that my father found that the Japanese were rather slow at surrendering, indeed when he walked across Burma he found the only thing they understood was an 'honourable death' taking as many with them as they could.

So he and the rest of the Brits took to killing all and any of them they found, even if they walked towards him with hands raised, because they normally had a grenade in their mouth and would pull the pin when they got close enough.

My father came back, most men who went to Burma did not.

So maybe giving the Japanese High Command a demo bomb would have not worked too well, and besides, at that stage, just how many bombs did America have to demonstrate with?

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

fred allen— Thank you very much for the laudations. I am grateful to read your words. I appreciate your affirmation and encouragement. You'll have the opportunity to buy my book this fall. I'm about to get on it.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

Paraglider— Your point is well taken. Apparently most thought it would take something cataclysmic to make the Japanese surrender. Among people who lived through it, that was almost universally believed.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

ethel smith— You're quite welcome, my dear. I'm almost done with this subject and then its back to fun stuff! :)

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

WildIris— Well, I appreciate your concerns. To present the history of the Progressive Movement would require 900 pages. Since this is only a 2500 word Hub, I read the whole 900 pages and decided to select the five Progressive thinkers that I think have been most influential (besides Supreme Court Justices, whom I wrote about separately so as to not tax today's attention spans). I studied the five men here and I think that these ideas of theirs were the most important they had—or the most different from the ideas of others. Obviously, this is a Reader's Digest Version. But I at least provided a snapshot and with the names you or other readers can surely, if you're interesting, research these men further, or the movement further, to gain a more complete understanding. I truly meant no offense. Thank you for coming.

ps I previously wrote about another important set of Progressive thinkers as well.

singlmomat52 on May 31, 2010:

You present many different views here. All welcome because so many of us are trying to make some sense of all that is going on. Thank you so much. Always rich with information. Thanks again for another great Hub!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

gatorgrad2001— I didn't think that I dismissed, discredit, or disparaged anybody. I am unemployed because the government got involved in the housing market to socially engineer equality, and through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and at the demand of the Community Reinvestment Act, ruined the home mortgage business, and it all came crashing down. I am also at fault because I wanted in on the action and bought more house than I needed or could afford (if things went south).

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

soumyasrajan— Thank you for your gracious compliments. You wrote:

"there is no example where this model of "all are equal" or "government looks after welfare" has worked. Very soon rulers are engaged in making it a feudal rule and all the welfare ideas remain just slogans."

You are so right.

"You seem to feel a little sad that Wilson had duality? Is it not true with almost all extreme progressives when they got power all over world?"

You are right again. It is true.

"I feel in USA and most of Western European countries this life of minimal decency has been created. That is one of the biggest achievement. Only difference I feel is important is in implementation. Who should manage to give this right."

Well said. Points well taken by me.

"It is only recently that India changed from government proposition to business proposition and it seem to be working. I hope it remains like that."

Yes! And in China, too. I fond it ironic that as the world is waking up from the marcotic of Socialism the United States is going the other way.

"Europe did [go with socialsim] and you do see destruction it causes to a lot of talented people in Europe when they start getting free money from Government"

You are one smart person. Thank you for gracing my Hub with your wise presence. I love what you wrote to me here.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

HealthyHanna— You're most welcome. Thank you for taking the time out of your busy life to read my work. I greatly appreciate it.

djbraman on May 31, 2010:

If we could get a hunger for what the word of God has to say about self rule we would get some real education. These figures you have highlighted is why we are in the situation we are, minds that have led us into lack of morals. When morals go in a nation then goes character and the foundation has crumbled. We got to get back to a firm foundation, IN GOD WE TRUST. There were plenty of our founding fathers who were Godly men and knew that a nation could not prosper without the foundation of Christ and the Holy Bible. Write about some of them, that was what real character was when the nation was being blessed. We have been tolerate of rights so much now that people don't even know what real character is, and the idolatry has taken over this nation. Don't wonder to far before you can figure out why all the natural disasters, God said, when you close my name out, you will be under a curse. Wake up America.

Dusty on May 31, 2010:

James, oh yes! I punched all your buttons up! It appears you punched the buttons of many and got them shivering like a dog shitting peach seeds. I salute you for a fine article on the progressives. The folks that would crush my ability to have worked hard and applied my talents to figure out how to rise above and retire 25 years early to enjoy my life. The folks that think My money should have been spread out to lay on their ass folks with "entitlement" thought patterns. Screw them! I gambled my earnings and I won. I came from poor roots, I first bought my father, God rest his soul a home to replace his shack, and a new truck. I was raised and taught by this man, I owed him. The rest of the folks here I owe nothing.

FDR, folks sticking up for the guy who loosed federal troops on WWI Veterans, burning what little belongings they had, for a peaceful demonstration to collect their bonus vouchers. I don't need to write the history lesson of FDR it's free here on the internet. Take note he kissed their asses to get favor from them for WWII, to again send them to do a job he wouldn't dream of doing himself. I have more to say but I'm toasted here on "Memorial Day" as progressives dishonor, we VETERANS, alive and dead. Progressives screw 'em. 50

fred allen from Myrtle Beach SC on May 31, 2010:

Wow! It's no surprise you have such a large following! I am amazed at your intellect. I was watching Glen Beck when I decided to check my email and noticed you published this hub. After reading it I could only thank God for men like you who are gifted enough to inspire others to understand and oppose the shift from timeless principles to progressiveness thinking. So many people have their heads in the sand when it comes to our personal responsibility to protect the fundamental principals this great country was founded upon. I would buy a book written by you!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

SilverGenes— I always welcome your comments and any voices from Canada. After all, you don't have Free Speech up there so you can have it here. :-)

You are certainly correct about Churchill and FDR. That might not have played out that way had FDR not been deathly ill. Men will hold on to power to their last breath. Unless that man is George Washington.

You are surely right about this:

"There is no better view than hindsight when it comes to analysis."

I understand you take umbrage at my third paragraph. Church and State are separate in America. Always have been. Face the issues together? The division in America has not been sown by Christians—but by Progressives. It is the latter who wish to overturn the American Way of life, not the former. Just give up archiac directives? Such as what directives?

Why is it OK to tell the Christians to give up their worldview? Why not tell the Progressives and Atheists to give up their worldview? Everybody comes at the world and at solving society's problems with their own belief system. Why should the godless minority view hold sway?

Thank you for your outstanding comments. I enjoyed reading them.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

Saintatlarge— Your commentary is deeply profound, Brother. You hit on many important truths about the nature of men and the nature of power. That is precisely why the American government was set up with the separation of powers and the checks and balances in our Constitution. As anachronistic as Progressives may think them to be, the Founding Fathers understood human nature very well.

Those who lust for power and lust for the control over the lives of other human beings in this country must first dismantle the Constitution that stands in their way. They fully know this, and aren't shy about saying it. As evidenced by their own words above.

You are absolutely right that changing hearts and minds is the only way to have a virtuous society that can govern itself. That is why Progressives have worked hard to downgrade the importance of charity—it being the greatest way to change hearts and minds to virtue. By confiscating half the wealth in the country the government both leaves far less money available for charity and makes it the government's job to administer it—leaving hearts and minds as they are.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

Paraglider— Sorry, I missed your addendum the first time through. I am no extremist, my friend. I'm not advocating the violent overthrow of the government, or the abolition of our beloved Constitution, or that anyone should be harmed. It does trouble me that President Obama is caricatured as Hitler. It bothered me even more when it was done to President Bush constantly—by the same people complaining about it now—because Bush is certainly FURTHER from Hitler than Obama. But neither man should be compared to Adolph Hitler. Nobody should be compared to Hitler. I think some amped-up conservatives see themselves as returning the favor.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

Kaie Arwen— You are welcome, Kaie. I appreciate you "hitting the links." :-)

Thank you for visiting and commenting.


James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

partisan patriot— "a Boil on the Butt of Decent Humanity!"

I dare say that is the funniest thing I have had written to me in a long time. Thanks for the comic relief. :D

Oh my goodness, I see you were just warming up:

"They all believed that Utopia could be created here on earth, but their version of Utopia was one in which they along with their fellow elitist were on the top rung of the Ladder of Existence and the rest of us groveled in the sewage below the bottom rung desperately attempting to grab hold but were continually pushed back down by the heel of their redistributive boot!"

WOW! You do get it!

Then you deliver the clincher:

"This present regime is in the process of overthrowing capitalism by supposedly peaceful means and the average American more interested in who the next American Idol is or what those Glittering Jewels of colossal Ignorance that constitute the View have to offer each day or better still what Pearls of Wisdom Queen Oprah has for them!"

There is nothing I can add or take away from that.

Dave McClure from Worcester, UK on May 31, 2010:

'I believe that military historians still take the stand that the atomic bombs were a "good" thing'

That doesn't surprise me, but I've never looked to military historians for ethical guidance. The bomb could have been dropped over a desert, to show its potential. A warning could have been issued - the next one is for real. It was not necessary to kill so many. Nor to condemn the next generation to mutation through parental radiation poisoning.

Unless, of course, your esteemed military historians disagree?

Ethel Smith from Kingston-Upon-Hull on May 31, 2010:

Thanks for a little more American history James.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

aguasilver— You're welcome, John. Your remarks are truly discerning. Thank you for visiting and commenting. This is great:

"people seem incapable of recognizing that the power elite have long ago planned the elimination of individual freedoms and responsibility"

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

always exploring— uh . . . this article is not about the last election per se. It is about a political movement that stretches back over 100 years and about which few Americans understand. The true aims of Progressives are hardly known to most as they obfuscate on purpose—that is precisely part of their strategy.

I agree with you that FDR was awesome in the first few years of World War Two. I hope I did not say anything disrespectful of President Roosevelt. If I did, I will correct it. I presented his documented world view. I'm not anti-FDR. He got caught up in the trendy mode of thought of his day—most intellectual types jumped on the progressive bandwagon. I don't think he foresaw the results of his ideas, and how some of them would be extrapolated by others who followed.

Thank you for coming by. Your comments are well said and well received.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

Captain Jimmy— Thank you for those Scriptures. I appreciate your kind compliments. Thank you for taking the time to read my article.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 31, 2010:

Joni Douglas— Yes, he is admired and studied and taught by Progressive professors. The most studied book of his is "Progressive Democracy." A main concern of Croly’s in "Progressive Democracy" was that the United States Constitution was fundamentally inconsistent with American democratic aspirations. That is where the rub lies.

All utopias fail. Even little bitty communes fail, because they go against fundamental truths about humanity.

Your remarks are brilliant and I surely enjoyed reading them today. Thank you!

Related Articles