Skip to main content

The Progressive Movement

The Progressive Movement

The Progressive Movement began late in the 19th Century. Its Central Tenets are Statism, Income Redistribution, Unionism, Government Management of the Economy, womb to tomb provision for its citizens, and a Libertine Social Policy.

To accomplish these aims, The Progressive Movement believes in State Ownership of Businesses—instead of Entrepreneurial Free Enterprise; Central Planning by the Government of the supply of goods and services, including fixing prices of wages, and of goods and services—instead of Free Market Capitalism; That all Citizens should have equal wealth except for the Elite Rulers; And that Sovereignty does not belong to Individual Citizens—but that the People only exist for the benefit of the National State.

Various large parts of this Ideology are identical to Socialism and Fascism, including the ideas that the use of courts, bureaucracies—even the police and military—should be used to accomplish goals that would never be approved by a Democracy or a Republic (such as The United States of America under its current Constitution).



The Father of the Progressive Movement

The Father of The Progressive Movement was H.G. Wells, the noted science fiction author. Wells was a devotee of Darwinism and part of his mission was to reassign human beings from the spiritual to the natural world. The best way to get to know the Father of the Progressive Movement is to read his own quotes:

"People of quality must be ascendant not democracy;"

"Base and servile types are little more than a leaping, glittering confusion of shoaling mackerel on a sunlit afternoon."

"The State that most resolutely picks over, educates, sterilizes or poisons its People of the Abyss will be most successful. Death would merely end the bitterness of their failure. It should be their lot to die out and disappear . . . since they are born of unrestrained lusts . . . and multiplying through sheer incontinence and stupidity."

"Idiots, drunkards, criminals, lunatics, invalids, and the diseased would spoil the world for others."

Wells believed we should prevent people below a certain intelligence and income from reproducing. At the least they should isolated for their failures on a island. "Remove the unfit so we have no need for jails or prisons."

He wanted to abolish democracy because the "common uneducated man is a violent fool in social and political affairs." What was required was a "great central organization that would dictate what would be done here, there and everywhere . . . imposing its will upon a recalcitrant race."

He called his own political philosophy "Liberal Fascism." Wells said of Joseph Stalin "I have never met a man more candid, fair and honest." Wells was a big booster of eugenics, which is based solidly on Darwinism, of course—that unfortunately found its full flower in Nazi Germany with mass extermination.



Progressive Education

John Dewey was the most influential reformer of the public education system in the United States in the 20th Century.  As a major player in The Progressive Movement, he completely rejected belief in God.  If you ever wonder why high school graduates can't read, can't make change, and do not believe in objective truth, look no further. 



Moral Relativism

Progressives are Moral Relativists, meaning, that concrete right and wrong do not exist; that nothing substantive can be said about morality. This can lead to obvious problems since Hitler, Stalin and Mao all thought the rampant murder of millions of people was perfectly moral—providing it served the interests of the National State.



Another member of The Progressive Movement was Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. It was Judge Holmes who made the Philosophy of Legal Positivism—that there is no connection between the law and ethics or morality; that the truth is whatever gives people satisfaction—popular in the legal profession. This school of thought dominated our courts in the latter 20th Century with the unfortunate effect of leading to a collapse of our once common moral language.

Judge Holmes famously said, as he ordered the forced sterilization of a woman, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . three generations of imbeciles are enough."



Scroll to Continue

Planned Parenthood

Another prominent Progressive was the Founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. Here a few of her words from her books or speeches:

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Regarding blacks, immigrants and indigents she said this, "Human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning . . . human beings who never should have been born."

Concerning the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities: "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control."

On the extermination of blacks: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Sanger espoused the thinking of eugenicists -- similar to Darwin's "survival of the fittest" -- but related the concept to human society, saying the genetic makeup of the poor, and minorities, for example, was inferior.

One of Sanger's greatest influences, sexologist/eugenicist Dr. Havelock Ellis (with whom she had an affair, leading to her divorce from her first husband), urged mandatory sterilization of the poor as a prerequisite to receiving any public aid.

The goal of eugenicists is "to prevent the multiplication of bad stocks," wrote Dr. Ernst Rudin in the April 1933 Birth Control Review (of which Sanger was editor). Another article exhorted Americans to "restrict the propagation of those physically, mentally and socially inadequate."

Regarding adultery, "A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow," Sanger believed.





The Ultimate Progressive

The Progressive newspaper New York Times employed—and the Progressive Pulitzer Prize was awarded to—one Walter Duranty. Duranty was posted in Moscow for 15 years to report back to the American people what was going on over there. He was so caught up in The Progressive Movement that he described Joseph Stalin as a "decent and clean-living man and a great leader."

Duranty reported that there was no famine in the USSR—though it is clear from his notes and letters that he was lying through his teeth, and that he knew full well the scale of the calamity, and even knew the USSR was deliberately starving millions of its own people. He also defended Stalin's notoriously phony show trials that resulted in the execution of millions of innocent people.



Community Organizing

A more recent champion of The Progressive Movement is Saul Alinsky. Alinsky is the father of the modern community organizing movement, of which ACORN was a prominent example.

One of his key philosophies is for a community organization to claim non-partisanship, in order to receive grants from the government (of monies confiscated from taxpayers) that are illegal to be given to a partisan group. This is obviously a sham, since none of their stated goals could be remotely described as Conservative, and their members vote for Democrats in elections virtually 100%. In effect, they use the wages of Conservatives to fight against them and everything they believe in.

Here is a quote from Alinsky, "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history, the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer."

Another of his famous quotes is this, "There's another reason for working inside the system. Taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future."

And finally this, "Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class."



The Enemy of Progressives

Progressives singled out the Boy Scouts as a target for their wrath, repeatedly filing lawsuits against this organization—that has helped a multitude of boys become fine men—to prevent them from having a building in which to meet. This is understandable since the entire philosophy of the Boy Scouts is sickening to The Progressive Movement.

The best evidence of this is that ominous Boy Scout Oath: "On my honor, I will do my best; To do my duty To God and my country; And to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."

Scouts must promise to be honorable, loyal, useful, friendly, dutiful, courteous, thrifty, cheerful, kind to animals, and clean in thought, word and deed." Rather subversive ideas.



Brave New World

In closing, I will share with you some thoughts of a voice crying in wilderness long ago, warning us of the dangers of The Progressive Movement. In 1932, in his classic book, "Brave New World," Aldous Huxley wrote these words:

"All members of society are conditioned in childhood to hold the values that the World State idealizes. Constant consumption is the bedrock of stability Recreational heterosexual sex is an integral part of society. In The World State, sex is a social activity rather than a means of reproduction and is encouraged from early childhood; the few women who can reproduce are conditioned to take birth control. The maxim 'everyone belongs to everyone else' is repeated often, and the idea of a family is repellent. As a result, sexual competition and emotional, romantic relationships are obsolete. Marriage, natural birth, the notion of being a parent, and pregnancy are considered too obscene to be mentioned in casual conversation."

The Prognosticator

And I will leave you with forecasts Huxley made in two interviews. In 1949 he said that sometime in the future:

"I believe that the world's leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience."

And in 1959 he said, "And it seems to me perfectly in the cards that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing ... a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."


James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on March 18, 2017:

You are welcome, Michael Gould. I agree with you foreboding comments. Thank you for taking the time to read my work.

Mike Gould on October 05, 2016:

Thank you James,

This insidious push to progressivism is concerning indeed. Godless, conscienceless, hopelessly leading into the abyss. Next soldier... HRC

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on February 06, 2012:

HermanHusband— Thank you very much for taking the time to read my article. I appreciate your outstanding remarks. You have made excellent points.

It is hard to put a finger on when the Progressive Movement began. I published another article after this one that traces the movement back to Herbert Croly. Here is a link to that Hub:

I guess there are Progressives and then again there are Progressives. Some claim Teddy Roosevelt as one of theirs and while he might have used that word I see very little he might have in common with the godless, Marxist Progressives of today.

I like what you wrote, that Progressives are "those that looked at the Constitution as something to circumvent, and did not see it and its 18 enumerated powers as the supreme law of the land, and as something to strictly interpret, but looked for loopholes to get around it."


HermanHusband on February 04, 2012:

The more I'va been thinking about it, the more I believe that several eliments of the "Progressive" movement have their roots established long before the typical 1900 - 1915 time frame assigned by most historians. The Pre-progressives (for lack of a better term) are those that looked at the Constitution as something to circumvent, and did not see it and its 18 enumerated powers as the supreme law of the land, and as something to strictly interpret, but looked for loopholes to get around it. Perhaps the true founders of the progressive movement are Alexander Hamilton, John Marshal and Andrew Jackson may have opened the doors for later politicans, who took things to a whole new level.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 18, 2011:

primpo— Thank you for taking the time to read my articles. Many folks are shocked at the unveiling of the motives of the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger. My motive is to make people think a little deeper about why they hold the values they do. I sincerely appreciate your kind compliments. Welcome to HubPages!

Primpo from Bayville,NJ on July 16, 2011:

well you may have wrote this two years ago, but I just read it today. I had no idea about founder of planned parenthood. Great research and great hub.. cant wait to read more

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on February 11, 2011:

PatsyB— You are welcome. Thank you for taking the time to read my article. I am glad you enjoyed it. I very much appreciate your outstanding comments.

Yes, we are wandering far, far away from the ideas of our Founding Fathers. It is wasn't considered somewhat unpatriotic to say so in public, many progressives would lambast them anyway. Quite a few do.

I have published two Hubs about the Founding Fathers, the first about their words on the Christian Faith; the second about their political ideas:

I have also written a Hub about the health care crisis:

And I agree with you about the home mortgage collapse. I have written about that too!

I totally agree with everything you wrote in your remarks. Thanks again for coming by, and for your thoughtful insights.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on February 10, 2011:— I certainly appreciate your laudations. I like what you said about one error being compounded into even greater errors. You know, if you left New York for Chicago in an airplane and set your heading off by only one degree you would end up hundreds of miles off course.

The word "liberal" has been highjacked. Our Founding Fathers were liberals, in the classic sense of the word. That is why it was highjacked, to make it seem patriotic. Progressive is a better word, though even it is not true because what they promote is not progress.

Thank you for visiting!

PatsyB on February 10, 2011:

James, Thank you for this information. I have become quite a bit more interested in history and in politics since I learned of this man who has been described as the farthest left member of congress possibly becoming our president in 2007. I have watched in horror as more and more things are being done that pull us away from what our founding fathers intended.

I enjoyed your compilation of the facts on these progressives and also a lot of the comments. One commentor was talking about the banks deserving blame for the collapse of the housing market. However nobody mentioned the fact that some banks were pushed into doing that by ACORN and others.

Another thing I'd like to mention is that nobody hardly ever addresses the biggest problems with healthcare. One is that the pharmacy companies are pushing medicine on people that is neither necessary, advisable, or even good for them. Medicines should not be allowed to be advertised on TV. Another thing is that healthcare should only pay for catistrophic illnesses and not for people to run to their doctor every few weeks for sniffles. I don't know how widespread the knowledge is that the FDA has shut doctors down for the simple fact that they were healing people and that was detrimental to the profits of the medical establishment. If you know a lot about that, I would love to see you write about that. from upstate, NY on February 09, 2011:

Wow, this is a sobering lesson in what many progressive liberals actually believe! The arrogance and heartlessness of their Godless philosophies is shocking! The smug elitism of these liberal icon's needs to be brought out in the open, which is what your so effectively doing! Brilliant work,this should be taught in our schools. This is a classic lesson in how one error (Darwinism) gives birth to greater errors Nazism and Communism. This is a great resource in understanding the basis for liberalism, many people on the fence, regarding political issues could be swayed if information like this is promoted.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on December 12, 2010:

SirDent— Thank you! That Sanger was one evil woman, brother. I appreciate those Scriptures.

Huxley leaves a lot to be desired as a man, as many of us do. Still, his book "A Brave New World" should be widely read. Reading it and looking at America today makes him look like a prophet!

SirDent on December 11, 2010:

LOL, Forgot to say great hub. I had read about Margaret Sanger before and how she wanted to sterilize certain citizens. The progressives are very aggressive these days and no doubt will ge their way eventually.

Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

Mat 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

2Ti 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

It was prophesied 2000 years ago.

SirDent on December 11, 2010:

Someone left a comment on one of my hubs about Aldous Huxley. I will put it in Parenthesis (Huxley was a great man. You do him a disservice with your caricature.)

This is what the world thinks of a drug addict who thinks all people should use drugs to be in a state of utopia constantly.

The hub is an old one of mine.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on December 11, 2010:

shynsly— You are welcome. I'd put that "thanks" on hold, my friend. :D

I surely agree with your sensible sentiments. Thank you for the compliments. Welcome to the Hub Pages Community.

shynsly from Sierra Vista, AZ on December 10, 2010:

Gee, and here I sat getting ready to thank the progressives for wanting to save us from our own stupidity! Of course I'm being a sarcastic ass... another great and informative hub, and again: thank you for posting!

If so much as one 20-something activist without a cause d-bag bothers to read it and for a single second actually puts some thought into his or her preprogrammed "beliefs", then it will have been worth your efforts!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 29, 2010:

stars439— This is one of my favorite Hubs. Thank you for taking the time to read it, my friend. And you are most welcome. God Bless You!

stars439 from Louisiana, The Magnolia and Pelican State. on September 29, 2010:

Wow ! Margaret Sanger said some volitile stuff. Thank you for enlightening me with additional education. God Bless You.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 12, 2010:

Mike Fink— Nothing to apologize for as you were not the least bit long-winded. Thank you very much for introducing me to R. G. LeTourneau. I've just now read a biography of him and he was a magnificent man!

The concerns you mentioned are all chapters in my first book, which is still in progress (there's that word again!). I hope to have it done by Labor Day.

People who do not believe in truth see no reason to tell it. People who believe in their heart of hearts that the ends justify the means are liable to do pert near anything to achieve their aims.

I agree with every word you wrote and I thank you very much for coming by and leaving your keen insights.

Mike Fink on July 11, 2010:

I appreciate your Hub!- Ive only recently learned of the true nature and purpose of the progressive movement, and what Fox news has shown it re-inventing/renaming itself as in our time...I see the benefits of actions taken by the movement, and understand why they have mislead the masses into thinking their well-being was being upheld and their futures protected...the mindset of the movement taken to its ultimate end/maximum free-reign is less palatable (nazism, eugenics...) while not solidly planted on either side of the political aisle, I would embrace those who see that this country's history has been re-written to re-direct the course of our nation's mindset, its youth drugged and indoctrinated with post-modernism, and, most importantly, the notion of God, and absolute truth being replaced with relativism, utilitarian and self-gratifying individualism...without a standard (remove God from original language), there are no values, anything goes, and pillars like the BoyScouts are no longer valid or welcome...we are forced to "tolerate" the intolerable and destructive, and are labeled as closed-minded and even hateful...without the moral standard of The word of God, we base our concepts on fallibe people, and decidedly shakey ground...I propose that this Word would guide people in government, industry and commerce, and social reasoning from top to such example I recently learned of is a man named R.G one man did soooo much good by adhering to biblical principals is beyond inspirational, and truly hope-infusing! sorry to be so long-winded...

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

niall.tubbs— Hofstadter was probably registered by the government as he was a registered member of the Communist Party. I do not believe he was prosecuted, no. He had the respect of some people and not others. George Will said of him, "Richard Hofstadter, the iconic public intellectual of liberal condescension”, who “dismissed conservatives as victims of character flaws and psychological disorders — a ‘paranoid style’ of politics rooted in ‘status anxiety’, etc. Conservatism rose on a tide of votes cast by people irritated by the liberalism of condescension."

Capitalism is what made America wealthy. It is what makes all nations wealthy. Socialism makes countries poor—not to mention totalitarian (eventually).

niall.tubbs on June 11, 2010:

James- Was Hofstadter registered with the U.S, government?

Was he prosecuted by U.S. Government? Was he a U.S. citizen? Was he a respected historian world wide?

You reference Communism always as Socialism; to be Socialist is to be Communist in full or in part. Your interest and understanding of history exceeds your written words.Compare and contrast Capitalism with countries that presently apply Socialism in full or in part.I differ not with you concerning Communism,it is Socialism to be addressed as plausible alternative to beloved Capitalism. I'm all ears,there is not much between them presently, factual opinions greatly appreciated.

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

niall.tubbs— Richard Hofstadter was a Communist sir. That experiment has been tried. From 1917-1989 you had your communist utopia in the USSR; while in the USA you had free enterprise. One couldn't feed themselves and lived in horror; the other became the greatest, nation in the history of the earth where people lived with freedom. Look at Korea, communist north, capitalist south. Look at the old Germany, communist East, and capitalist West. How can you possibly say the things you say?

niall.tubbs on June 01, 2010:

Capitalism (capital investors)is cannibalism which feeds on entrepreneur,worker(blue or white collar),smaller private and public business. Enormous and mobile capital effects the national economy to the determent of smaller capitalist,and worker. The loss of job or business lie at the foot of those you admire for ambition,competition, and hard work.

History of interest; try Richard Hofstadter.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on May 25, 2010:

CaribeM— Thank you very much for taking the time to read this Hub. It is one of my favorites. I agree that there is a context I didn't have space to fully explore. The Progressive Movement was partly spawned by the ideas of Charles Darwin, the Descent of Man from apes in particular. Eugenics played a big part, as you can see. Social Sciences and Marxism have a big role. You are certainly right that the PM was not and is not monolithic. I agree more in depth study is required. This is merely a primer, an introduction to the key players, that might spur further reading. I try to keep my HubPages as short as possible in conformance with today's attention spans. Thanks for your comments and you are surely welcome.

CaribeM on May 25, 2010:

Watkins as I promised you, I read your attached hub in one of my HP's articles this is a very interesting narrative about the Progressive Movement, which I find one of the most interesting periods of American modern history. Your argument is very clear, and I do respect your point of view, but on the other hand, the so-called Progressive Movements, needs to be understood in the context of US social, economic, political and discursive context of the late nineteenth and early 20th century. (Maybe a Hub is needed to analyze them, they are to complex to deal with them here). Also, it is important to notice, that the PM was a series of reformist impulses that covered a wide range of complex and immediate issues, hence, "Progressives" many times differed and clashed in their strategies. Even though your article is very well articulated, IMH and respectful opinion, it needs more depth in terms of the historical context of the PM, and thus a more nuanced analysis. Take care, and thanks for sharing your very well written article with me.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on April 14, 2010:

betty— You go girl! I'll back you up. I agree with you. Thanks for making a stand.

betty on April 14, 2010:

steve rensch - main stream americans are not pro or con obama??? BULL! let me tell you this man has ignited main stream america to start caring and stand up to the likes of his despot agenda! this is the ONLY thing good obama has done for this nation!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 11, 2009:

RTalloni— Thank you. I hope it has some small effect. It is possible to change hearts and minds with the Truth.

RTalloni on November 11, 2009:

Well done. May your superb efforts to present truth gain momentum and reach the minds of the populace.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 10, 2009:

carolina muscle— You are most welcome.

carolina muscle from Charlotte, North Carolina on November 10, 2009:

Thank you, sir!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on November 10, 2009:

carolina muscle— Thank you and you are welcome. According to your home page we share a serious interest in history, philosophy and religions. Welcome to the Hub Pages Community!

carolina muscle from Charlotte, North Carolina on November 09, 2009:

Interesting perspective.. I can't really agree with you, but this is an intelligent and well stated position. Thanks!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on October 06, 2009:

linda-patriot— Thank you. Yes, I am aware of the linkage between Alinsky and Obama. I agree with you that there is a sinister plan afoot and we need to fight to stop it. I am glad you are in our corner.

linda-patriot on October 06, 2009:

What a great informative hub. You know obama taught Saul Alinsky's program in College. Just as you said these progressive powers that be have been controlling who our choices are for president and other offices. We have got to fight like hell to hold on to our constitution and bill of rights.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 12, 2009:

hardtimes— Thank you very much, sir! I appreciate that especially coming from a fine thinker as yourself.

hardtimes from USA on September 12, 2009:

Great article! Well done!!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 11, 2009:

niguilgreer— Yes, he was an intelligent man, to be sure. I am afraid that the more he developed his "theories" the farther from belief in God he got. The same thing happens to many of those indoctrinated with Darwinism today. I haven't read "The Descent of Man" in years but my recollection is that the very title refers to man descending from apes. I also know from Darwin's private letters he had trepidation about fully revealing his thoughts and the implications of his ideas because in the 19th Century this could have been physically dangerous to him.

It seems you have a clear grasp of the situation and I appreciate your remarks. Thanks for visiting, too.

niguilgreer from Arizona on September 10, 2009:

True, but throughout his book you will find references to creation. He may have developed into an agnostic later in life, which is always sad to see someone lose their faith. However, I think that it was the responses to his work that drove him to despair of man and the nature of God. The other interesting note is that his book rarely mentions evolution as man coming from ape. He was an interesting man to say the least with a fine and inquisitive mind.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on September 08, 2009:

niguilgreer— Thank you. I agree with you that eugenics came years after Darwin—as did what we call Darwinism. I cannot agree that Darwin had a deep faith in God since he described himself as an agnostic. He did not believe God created man late in his life, he believed men descended from apes and said so. I quote:

"He thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy."

"Darwin from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church."

"Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that generally “an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.”

I thank you very much for reading. The evils that resulted from his work were awful but they were not evils that he wished for or proposed. So, most of your comment is good and correct;and I appreciate you for leaving your insights.

niguilgreer from Arizona on September 07, 2009:

Great article. I would like to counter in regard to your references to Darwinism. Darwin never condoned, conceived, or supported eugenics or other forms of Social Darwinism. Darwin's contention with "survival of the fittest" was that the animal that was most adapted to their environment had the best chance of survival. Darwin had a very deep faith in God and still held God as ultimately responsible for the creation of man. He was the first to postulate that evolution was God's way of ensuring the survival of all species on Earth. Social Darwinism was a philosophy developed by evil people who, at best, only browsed Darwin's work looking for a convenient excuse to further their own agendas. At any rate, this was a great article and scary as hell.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 11, 2009:

Alexander Mark— I thought it important that they, and we, should understand the ideas of those who molded this worldview. Thanks so much for your support. You help make it worthwhile for me to write. :D

Alexander Silvius from Portland, Oregon on July 11, 2009:

Very frightening hub. Thank you so much for that, if a liberal was honest with themselves and read this, they would run screaming from the computer wondering what the heck they were doing.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 03, 2009:

eovery— Maybe you should write the Cap and Trade Hub?

eovery from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa on July 03, 2009:

Oh yeah, I forgot about our darlings, the Kennedy family.

Keep on Hubbing!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 03, 2009:

Glare— I am pleased you found it so. Thank you for the compliment and Welcome to the Hub Pages Community.

Glare from Washington DC area on July 03, 2009:

Oh wow, this is so interesting, I've never known about this.

Great hub!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 03, 2009:

eovery— Feel free to say whatever you want and as much as you want. I yield to the gentleperson from Iowa! :D

I agree with every word you wrote here. There is certainly a double standard when it comes to scandal. I mean, how can Ted Kennedy be the darling of feminists when he left a helpless woman to drown? It is because all they really care about is killing babies.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 03, 2009:

swathin2— Thank you. Feel free to join in. Welcome to the conversation. Nice to hear from you.

eovery from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa on July 03, 2009:

Thanks for this hub James. I just got back from a Boys Scout summer camp. I took some boys to a local summer camp for a few days. I guess I am out of touch with the boy scout attacks. If you have more information, send me the links, or link it here.

I was looking over all the names of the failed projects you named. All of these has such grand names, but they never did anything. Grand names for failures. But we have been losing the battle in the school systems. We need to get conservatism back in to the school systems.

Everyone makes a big deal about the corruption in the Rebublican party, but they applies they allow the democrates to get away with it. We have people on the Obama team that did not pay taxes, and were allowed to get away with it. This is criminal to me! We have consultants to the Obama team that we convicted terrorists. And so on. But we have one sex scandal and the republicans are SOBs. Clintons 8 years was nothing but a sex scandal. Rebublicans are beign put down as the big corporation capitalistic pigs, but as you point out, the biggest ones are democrats. Wall street, aren't they mostly liberals who train in everyday from Connecticut? and don't even get me started on the big money men in Massachusetts.

As for the cap and trade. This is the summary, "New taxation bill for the governmente that the common people will be paying." And Obama does really want emission lowered, becauses it would lower the amount of taxes he would collect. If one does not believe this, look at gas taxes. As less gases was being consumed, everyone started raising taxes on the gas, to make up for lost revenues. The same will happen in Dap and Trade.. Europe has had cap and trade over there for almost ten years. It did not amount to the reduction as they thought.

Sorry about the rant, or hub, but it appears you have several hubs on this hub already.

Keep on Hubbing!

swathin2 on July 03, 2009:

nice converstaion between you guys. a lot helpful for the new ones like me

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 02, 2009:

Hxprof— WOW! Your wise words are better than my Hub! Thank you very much for contributing this fine analysis. I agree with every word you said.

Hxprof on July 02, 2009:

There's no doubt that the thinking of those you mention in this hub have, over the last 150 years, had great impact. Evenso, I now take no sides in politics. America has been led by the Republican and Democratic partys-by conservatives and liberals- over this same period of time and here we are in 2009 with some of the most power-hungry and arrogant people I've ever seen in office. The real problem is one thing you mentioned in your hub-Dewey completely rejected a belief in God. Dewey shares this with most of the clowns you mention here. Without God America has no bearings. The United States is now drifting aimlessly, and this has left our country in deep peril. God had his hand in the founding of this country. To whom much is given, much is expected; America has not followed through on what was expected.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 01, 2009:

Mr. Brute— You inspired me to do this Hub.  Thank you!  I also appreciate your cogent commentary above.  It adds tremendously to the Hub.

I had been waiting for you to publish your Hub on HG.  If you do it and/or a Hub on Huxley I will link to it/them from this Hub.  It's the least I could do.  :D

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 01, 2009:

Thanks, Steve. I always enjoy our conversations. I hope to get that one out Monday. I have two in the works in the mean time about different subjects.

TheMindlessBrute from Orlando,Florida on July 01, 2009:

Something wicked this way comes in the name of "Progress" of course.Anticipations is the key to unlocking the brilliance of H.G. Wells.Sir Julian Huxley,one of Darwin's chief apostles,inspirational teacher of H.G. Wells,was also the first Director-General of U.N.E.S.C.O.(United Nations,Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization) and the brother of the great Aldous Huxley.Aldous had first hand insights into the goals of the progressive movements and hidden in his work"A Brave New World"is a dire warning to humanity.

This common thread between these men among others is important to the winds of change in our once free republic.The Cap and Trade bill is but another step in the direction of complete surrender to the United Nations for our nations educational,scientific and cultural re-organization.The better term for our current trajectory is "regress" as even Eugenics is rearing it's head again and I can see it just over the horizon.

U.S.A. Today had an article on it last week and the sterilization programs in America during the 1930's.That may be too abstract so let me bring it closer to home and close with this:you need look no further than the brother of our current White House Chief of Staff Ezeikel Emanuel,the Director of the clinical Bio-Ethics Dept. at the National Institute of Health and presidential advisor on Universal Healthcare.

Dr.Emanuel is a proponent of end of life care,or physician assisted suicide and for the education of such as neccesary for the greater good.He projects an estimated savings of 2 to 3 trillion dollars by implementing these programs nation wide.He also admits that this will not be possible unless there is an economic collapse or a pandemic such as the swine flu.

I can keep going forever on what I see but who will believe a mindless brute.I can only point out the bittersweet irony of a Jewish man's views and those of the Nazi Eugenicist who killed millions of his forefathers under the guise of it being beneficial for the greater good.Perhaps I should point out the most fundamental of differences between the opposing worldviews you wrote about in America is two nations,Universal Healthcare,Who God is and this hub...but I think it is better to watch Dr.Emanuel speak his worldview and illuminate the reasons why I consider progress to really be regress and we are about to embark on a path of darkness is this country,in this century that has already been traveled by humanity in another country,in the previous century:

Dr.Emanuel on America today(this offers a possible explanation of why the progressives target the boyscouts):

Steve Rensch on July 01, 2009:

You and me, brother.

But I really look forward to your hub. I want to see the reconciliation of the conservative position with your and my experience over the last year and that of people who have suffered more than we. (Suffering is not the right word.)

And I agree with you about the earth's resilience. There is a God, and he does still function.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 01, 2009:

Robert— Cap and Trade.  I will have to research that subject for a few days. 

I know what you are saying about a fatal wound.  I am not discounting the damage people do but I do think the Earth is tougher than we give it credit for.  The Earth is powerful!  The Earth has hurricanes, tornadoes, violent thunderstorms, constantly struck by lightening, volcanos, earthquakes, and suffers from solar flareups and meteorites.  But, I agree, we must be good custodians. But the Earth is no sissy.

Robert on July 01, 2009:


Thank you for responding and you are correct about the Lakes. Remember cleaning up the fish kills just to be at the beach? It is reversable but far far too many do not believe there are environmental concerns. They believe they are made up by parties only looking out for their own interest.

I mean this sincerely when I say you are eloquent and studious when you blog and a great blog on Cap and Trade would be beneficial for all. May I make a comparison for the sake of reversable? Your body forgives many things as it a great machine built by our Creator, but you can stab the heart only once and it will not heal. So care has to be taken so that it will live up to its potential, just like our planet.


James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 01, 2009:

Steve Rensch—  We are all here to learn, brother.  A History teacher?!  My favorite subject.  I have a literal wall of history books behind me.

I realize that in 1700 words—perhaps the maximum attention span of many blog post readers—these ideas cannot be fleshed out.  Just the crux is submitted with plenty of material that may be Googled by anybody to gain more insight into any particular area that interests them most. 

I will do an article articulating the Conservative position soon.  I agree that is even more important.  I did this one because I hear people say they are "Progressive" who have zero idea what the word means or where it came from—and I think they should know.  After all: who could be against Progress?

There is plenty of blame to go around.  I agree with you that the average person has been hurt the worst.  I know.  I had a business I built over 14 years (144 employees & $18M in annual revenues) that went under 5 months ago and left me out of work and flat broke.  What do you think I am doing spending all this time on Hub Pages?! :D

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 01, 2009:

Robert—  Thank you.  I agree a lot of damage has been done but I would not say irreversible.  Because I remember when the Cuyahoga River was so full of petroleum products it was on fire; Lake Erie had no edible fish; and Lake Michigan was filthy—and all of that HAS been cleaned up.  So, I have to hope it can be done.  I am concerned about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. 

Thank you for your commentary.  Your words are wise.

Steve Rensch on July 01, 2009:

James and Braudboy --

Perhaps because my priorities have been elsewhere the last few years, I don't think I am as informed factually or historically as either one of you. (Sorry admission for a former history teacher.) But I feel your explanations of recent events are as simplistic and self-serving as those of the Democrats during the last election.

I certainly have no defense of Clinton's decision to remove barriers to bad loans so poor people could get houses they couldn't afford. Short-sighted thinking at its worst. But the people who took it, twisted it, pushed it, and made fortunes off it are, to my mind, from the same pool as Wall Street, which as we know made the lender fraudulent/irresponsible practices profitable by buying those loans. I don't think government is doing a good job of confronting the problem now, but the problem is new, there are no manuals on this one, and everyone deserves a little time. And to pretend that the struggles of today are because government got in the way of business doing what it wanted to do is a bit ludicrous.

Is government overdone? You bet. Has that been the result of both parties' leadership, regardless of their campaign promises. I believe so. But as a 35 year civil litigator, I have seen what people do to other people if they think there are no consequences. And the actions of the lenders/banks/insurers/etc over the last few years have done nothing to change that belief.

But the problem with your position, which has much merit in many respects, is that you are totally separating yourself from mainstream America. Mainstream America is not pro- or con-Obama. It is just trying to make it. And most of the members of mainstream America (and I'm not talking about the poor who Clinton tried to benefit) have been badly hurt by the arbitrary actions of the same people who you say we should trust absolutely. I am one of those people. I've worked hard and kept my word my whole life, but in the last two years I have been defrauded many times over by those people.

The point is not that we should therefore jump to socialism or greater governnent control. Rather, the point is that you (meaning, the Right) have lost the ability to state your message in terms relevant to those people who have been hurt, most of whom have lived their lives the way I have and are now in shock. If you just want to be right in your principles, go ahead. But then you can only blame yourselves if Obama gathers them up.

Remember, we can argue as to whether the lenders and bankers and brokers were responsible for the current crisis, or if it was the fault of those people selfish or gullible enough to have fallen into bad loans. I don't care which is so. But I notice that it was the latter group that is suffering in all this, not the former group. If you expect to be viable in your views, you cannot simply dismiss the experience of those people, who are the majority of Americans.

Robert on July 01, 2009:


A great blog. While working on cap and trade blog remember there is a 15 mile algae bloom in the gulf caused by pollution. Please don't vilify the environment to make a political statement, our politicians are already doing that. There is no downside in considering environmental impacts on everything we do. Don't follow the media follow the science and learn that our waters can no longer be cleaned. They still contain residuals of chemicals and pharmaceuticals that perhaps your body can't handle. The excesses of both sides will be the death of clean air and water. Balance and common sense will make everyone happy, no political rhetoric.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 01, 2009:

ethel smith— They are a scary bunch of bananas, that's for sure. I do appreciate you for taking the time to read it and leave word.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 01, 2009:

braudboy— I could not agree with you more. I wrote about this very issue in my Hub

Thank you so much for your commentary. You are very discerning when it comes to the economy and politics. It is a joy to hear from one who gets it and you definitely do.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 01, 2009:

DK5— I certainly can do a "Cap & Trade" article. Thanks for the idea! I am so glad you like my work. It makes it all worthwhile.

Ethel Smith from Kingston-Upon-Hull on July 01, 2009:

Those last few sentences are particularly worrying. Don't all the people look a little scary, apart from Huxley?

braudboy from Long Beach, MS on July 01, 2009:

Steve- the real difference is that governments have much more control over your daily lives than wall street. Wall Street cannot pass legislation that changes the very way we live. THe real power is in Washington. Wall Street, if government stays out of it, cannot hurt you near as much. THe main reason Wall Street hurt so much in recent events is the interference of Liberal Politics that forced the sub-prime lending of mortgages to families with poor credit backgrounds that overwhelmingly suggested they would not pay back these loans. Wall Street, if left to their own devices would never invest in this program. BUt, our government got involved and backed these loans to encourage investments that ultimately crashed. If Wall Street knows that government is not backing any of their investments, they will be much more careful before they leap. And if they do leap and fail, government needs to stay out of the way. THe markets know how to correct themselves. THere will be winners in the markets who will take over any void left by the losers.

DK5 on July 01, 2009:

Hi James,once again great stuff. I am learning more and more with each hub of yours. Any chance you will be doing a hub on cap and trade? I find your hubs very informative. Dk5

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on July 01, 2009:

Arthur— It does, does it? I left it open to interpretation. :-) Thanks for reading and commenting.

Arthur on June 30, 2009:

Sounds Like Obamanism to me!

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 30, 2009:

Steve Rench— I did not mention any current politicians in hopes folks would put on their thinking caps and see it for what it is.  And I am not saying you're not doing that.  But I hate to hurt the tender feelings of the supporters of the current administration.  If pressed however, it is well known that Obama and his wife are huge fans of Alinsky and Hillary Clinton studied under him and loved him. 

That Wall Street and Big Corporations support Republicans has not been true for 20 years.  Their political contributions are public information.  Why would big business support Radical Liberals instead of the so-called party of Big Business?  Easy one.  The twin movements of Environmentalism and Bureaucratic Regulation.  The largest corporations know full well that small and mid-sized businesses cannot afford to comply with a new layer of expensive-to-implement regulations every year—or even keep up with them all.  So, the more regulated business is the better it is for Wall Street and the worse it is for Main Street.  Surely you know that Google, Microsoft, Warren Buffet, Pepsi, Apple, etc etc etc are solidly in the Democrat camp. 

I am not saying Republicans have not done wrong and have no blame—they are only human.  mmm . . . my two oldest children were close in age.  When they were kids my daughter was very slick.  She (just like a Liberal) could get away with anything and rarely get caught. She knew how to slap or pinch another kid without anybody seeing it or slip out the window with nobody hearing it. My son (just like a Conservative) was so on the surface that everything he did wrong he got caught right away.  He would slap or pinch another kid right in front of us. I didn't realize this until they were teenagers. For a long time everybody who knew them bragged to us about how our daughter was a perfect angel but that boy—we better do something about him.

Your post raises good questions and I appreciate your thoughtfulness.  There is a lot of truth in what you say. 

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 30, 2009:

Lady Jane— "Anticipations of the Reactions of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human Life and Thought" (1901); "A Modern Utopia" (1905): A speech at Oxford (1932); and articles in the 1930s in "The New Republic" and "The Nation" magazines—which both endorsed his ideas wholeheartedly. 

Thank you very much for the visit and laudations. :-)

Steve Rensch on June 30, 2009:

It seems that you and your commentators share an underlying agreement about something of which I'm not aware. 

Other than my brief and unsuccessful attempt in the 60s to become a hippie (marijuana made me puke and, when my hair got long, I looked like Bozo), I realize I am anything but a "liberal".  And although I was raised in a conservative Republican family, Wategate cured me of that.  Not having an attachment to the right or left makes things confusing sometimes -- there are certainly no quick answers to anything -- but it suits me.

I, like you, feel some urgency about these times.  But where you seem to see them as our last chance to grasp the truth of conservative principles and to dismiss liberalism forever, I see them as proof that the doctrines of the left AND the right have both failed to contain the greed of men who abused power to the detriment of other men who were too lazy to monitor the power they granted.  And these men of greed seem to wear liberal or conservative labels equally.  Can you really say that conservative Republicans in Congress and Wall Street have degraded us any less than the liberal do-gooders? 

To me, the Progressive Movement is of no real significance.  A bunch of boys trying to be different, to find a new way.  What they put out was a little silly, but to imply that their wanderings somehow empowered the butchers, Hitler and Stalin, is also a little silly to me. They were evil men: the label meant nothing to them.

You may or may not end up being right about Obama.  But my fear is that knee-jerk thinking on both the left and right will deprive him of the right to show us all who he really is, "good" or "bad".

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 30, 2009:

Peggy W— Thank you for taking the time to check out my Hub and leaving word. I appreciate it.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 30, 2009:

Temperance M— Twentieth century philosopher Ayn Rand referred to progressive educators as "the Comprachicos of the mind." She accused them of "crippling a child's mind by arresting his cognitive development."

Aren't I helpful? :D 

Thanks for reading and commenting.  Ayn Rand—good call!

Ann Leavitt from Oregon on June 30, 2009:

You've done a great job showing us the horrific belief system of this "Hall of Shame." If only more people understood where these subversive ideas came from, they would be less inclined to promote them.

Which H. G. Wells books or documents were you quoting? I have read some of his fiction and caught undertones of his views, but had never seen such strongly put, sickening quotes. Thanks for revealing these people for who they truly are and being a watchman for our generation.

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 30, 2009:

tony0724— You preach it brother!  So many of my fellow citizens refuse to be weaned from the government teat even though they are 30 or 40 years old!  The pre-planned dumbing down in our schools has accomplished its purpose.  Your comments are right on target and much appreciated. 

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 30, 2009:

amandakjones— I appreciate your insightful commentary.  I agree with what you're saying.  Think of all the little boys on Ritalin today because they are ignored by their parent—one of whom is out partying and the other largely removed from the scene by the Government through "Family Court."  And they are feminized by their teachers who are appalled by playing army or cowboys or dodgeball or bombardment. 

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 30, 2009:

Reena Daruwalla— Thank you for your gracious remarks.  Like a lot of horrible ideas, people used to broadcast them out loud and write them down in books and articles.  Now, they just think these thoughts but don't dare vocalize them.  The earlier ones learned from those such as Alinsky how to use subterfuge. 

Peggy Woods from Houston, Texas on June 30, 2009:

Lots to ponder, think about and (unfortunately) fear as much of this seems to be coming to fruition. BTW.........I have no idea what happened as you made a comment on my Herbert Hoover hub and I approved it and it disappeared in thin air. Please come back and comment again if you will.

Your hub certainly gives people something to consider!

Temperance M from Oregon on June 30, 2009:

wow...after reading all that I need to go back to Ayn Rand for a bit to balance the brain out >.>

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 30, 2009:

Websense— Thank you for your fine comments.  I agree with you.  It looks as though this movement will come to fruition if the People don't get off the Kool-Aid soon. 

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 30, 2009:

advisor4qb— Luckily not, as she died in 1966.  But her organization, obviously lives on.  They certainly do not publicize these quotes but they carry on her core mission.  I appreciate you for reading my Hub. 

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 30, 2009:

Madame X— I owe it to TheMindlessBrute for providing me with a tip about Huxley.  It had been so long since I had read "Brave New World" that I thought it was Orwell who was prescient.  And Orwell was but not in the league with the power to see the future of Huxley.  What's going to happen?  That is up to the American People.  There is still time—barely.

Thanks for your comment. 

James A Watkins (author) from Chicago on June 30, 2009:

Gypsy Willow— It is scary indeed. We have many politicians today who are acolytes of these people. Thanks for reading!

tony0724 from san diego calif on June 30, 2009:

Liberalism and the progressive thinking of which you speak are for the weak. As secularism and the Idea of the nanny state are being promoted so rigorously as now they get to tell us what medicine to take , what cars to drive and other forms of big brother Government . I will freely say that the liberal and progressives philosophy Is for the weak . And the people who embrace It are too scared to stand on their own two feet .

And as the prophecies of Orwell and Huxley come to fruition , the lemmings of our country and the liberals embrace It wholeheartedly . In my day b4 Napalitano called It hate speech we had a word for It , cowardice !

amandakjones from Michigan on June 30, 2009:

The very end of your hub, "brainwashing by pharmacological methods" totally reminds of an excerpt from Ron Paul's "Revolution" manifesto where he writes about the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. A presidential report initiated in 2004 which calls for mandatory mental health screenings for all American children beginning in preschool. Grants have already been sent out to establish pilot programs in numerous localities across the country.

He writes, "Before considering just how outrageous this proposal is, let us consider the obvious beneficiary of such a program; the pharmaceutical industry. There can be little doubt that under such a program, millions more children would suddenly be discovered to be in need of psychotropic drugs. Some 2.5 million American children use such drugs already, with a 300% increase from 1991 through 1995 alone. The figure increased another fivefold from 1995 to 2002."

Reena Daruwalla from INDIA on June 30, 2009:

What a riveting and comprehensive post. To me it was extremely educational and what amazed (and horrified) me the most were the words of H G Wells whom I have hitherto thought of as the affable writer of the very readable 'History of Mr Polly'. You have enhanced the sum of my knowledge this morning; thanks.

Websense from Raleigh, NC on June 30, 2009:

Pharmacological methods - maybe that's the kool-aid the obama-bots drink by the gallon.  :-)

James, lots of good historical information. I believe Obama is trying to bring about the fulfillment of the Progressive Movement.

advisor4qb from On New Footing on June 30, 2009:

That Boy Scout blurb was giving me a Gallagher flashback.

That Sanger lady isn't still in any position of power somewhere, is she?

Frightening theory she was pushing there...

Madame X on June 30, 2009:

"Pharmacological methods" !!!! I never met a liberal who wasn't blasted on anti-depressants. They take away one's conscience and any ability to develop morals. God forbid, James, what's going to happen to us? Great hub - as usual.

Gypsy Willow from Lake Tahoe Nevada USA , Wales UK and Taupo New Zealand on June 30, 2009:

Scary stuff, James. Even today seems like Nirvana compared with this.

Related Articles