Thursday, September 22, 2011

The Mighty Tree of Progressivism

In a rocky area of Colorado, just south of the Wyoming border, much of the land there contains massive boulders that project straight and tall from the hillsides that are otherwise covered in pine trees.  Seeds from the pine trees find their way into cracks and crevices of the gigantic rocks and, amazingly, trees manage to emerge from there looking as if they’d grown straight from the rock itself.  They grow out and then bend towards the sky or they grow sideways, but they grow.  Certain seeds, once planted, have a way of thriving in spite of the odds.  This is how it is with the seeds of progressivism.

Wikipedia defines progressivism as A political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action.”  If I may take the liberty of putting my own spin on that, I would say that progressivism is a movement whereby one group of citizens seeks to impose their will and their vision upon the rest of the country by misappropriating and manipulating the power of government.  Under progressivism, the government gets progressively bigger and bigger.

I don’t know precisely when the seeds of progressivism blew into the cracks of our government, but the organized effort to nurture the seeds and help establish the roots in this country seems to have begun in earnest with Teddy Roosevelt’s inheritance of the presidency.  The legislation, programs, and attitudes advanced by Roosevelt and others helped sow the idea that meddling in every aspect of our lives and businesses is a legitimate function of the federal government.  That was all that was needed to establish the roots and base of what would soon grow to be a mighty tree.  Other administrations came along and, seizing upon this notion that the force of government should be exploited to “solve” society’s every problem, they began adding their own layers to the tree.  Progressivism begets more progressivism, and the laws, programs, regulations and agencies that grew out of the original “reforms” became the branches of the tree, and these in turn grew branches of their own.

Like any of those clubs and scams that are easy to join but require real effort to cancel, progressivism – once ingrained – works on auto pilot.  When a tragic accident occurred recently at an air show resulting in numerous injuries and fatalities, the ink was not yet dry on the newsprint before the media began the standard cry for the government to DO something.  And so another branch began to sprout from the now giant branch that represents the FAA.  One more regulation.  That’s what we need.  It no longer occurs to people to simply accept the fact that there’s a certain amount of risk at air shows.  If the perceived risk becomes too high and people stop buying tickets, the air show producers would be motivated to institute and advertise their own safety measures that would reduce the potential risk and bring their customers back.  It is possible to solve certain problems without the giant hand of government.

One of the biggest ironies of progressivism is the tendency to look to government solutions to address the problems caused by…progressivism!    Look at what’s happened with the “war on poverty” that was part of progressive Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” agenda and which now is a giant branch on the tree of progressivism.  It’s led to hundreds of other branches in the form of acts, programs and agencies established to carry out this intentionally nebulous plan.  Things like generational dependence on welfare and 40-plus million people currently on food stamps are among the unfortunate but predictable results.  Looking for ways to curtail abuse of these programs, some have suggested micro-managing food stamps, forced sterilization programs and drug testing.  In other words, let’s add yet more branches to the tree.  And I have to confess that I’ve been guilty of this type of thinking at times.  It’s a reflexive response when one is under the assumption that government is ultimately responsible for us.  We’ve become so mired in trying to contain tenth-generation branches that we’ve lost sight of the real source of the problem which is the roots, the trunk and the primary branches.

It’s time to take an ax to the tree, striking as deeply into as we possibly can.  It won’t be easy, as this tree now dwarfs anything you might find in the infamous redwood forests of California.  To complicate matters, it’s completely surrounded by a sea of leftists who want to protect this particular tree at all costs.  And the final rub?  Our champion tree cutters – the folks we look to for leadership – are only armed with… herrings.

As we observe the fight for the presidency over the coming months we should be asking, “Who among them, if any, is ready to wield an ax?”

13 comments:

  1. CW, I always like your analogies - they are spot on. I was actually out rock climbing today and saw one of those trees growing in the middle of tough rock wall. Sometimes, I actually like trees on climbing routes because I actually use them as an anchor to prevent against a ground fall. But there are times they just get in the way of what I am accomplishing and that sounds a lot like liberal bureaucracy in government.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hahaha, Patrick! Now THAT was a great analogy. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. CW you wrote: "I don’t know precisely when the seeds of progressivism blew into the cracks of our government,..." For your consideration only I would like to propose that these seeds blew into the cracks of our governmental system when we moved from the Articles of Confederation to our Constitution (penned behind closed doors as you will recall). Though I have zero belief that was the intent at the time, I humbly suggest that the seeds may have been planted at that time.

    You also wrote: "As we observe the fight for the presidency over the coming months we should be asking, “Who among them, if any, is ready to wield an ax?” EXCELLENT Q. Answer -- the only one I really see coming close to wielding an actual ax would be Herman Cain. He just doesn't have the political saavy to do anything but what he actually believes is best (at least right now, that is).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well done both in the analogy and in the analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mrs. AL-

    I worked on this post for about a month or so because I found it hard to get my mind around what EXACTLY progressivism is and how it differs from liberalism and leftwingsim. Ultimately I came to see it as an abuse of the power that gov’t was originally intended to have. Of course, some will say that the ABUSE started with the process of forming the gov’t, which is where I think you’re going. By that reasoning, though, I think my old anarchist “friend” might have said that the seeds blew in with the Articles of Confederation, as he believes any gov’t is an abuse of power. Personally I tend to think they are two separate issues; however, my thoughts on this are in a constant “tweeking” state.

    As for Herman Cain, I like him and I liked his answer in the debate last night about getting rid of the EPA. That being said, answering a debate question where you’re asked to pick which department you’d get rid of in theory and actually running on a platform of eliminating that department are two different things. So it’s hard for me to say if Herman is ready to wield the ax but I would say he emerged as my favorite from last night’s debate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interface-

    Thank you and thanks for stopping by.

    ReplyDelete
  7. CW,
    Good post and good question.

    In my opinion the only event that would cause a major course correction is a revolution. I know that sounds drastic but when we consider the utter inability/unwillingness of our legislators to enact legislation for the good of the country instead of a freebe to garner votes, what else is there?

    Case in point, up until the civil war, states were independant. Afterwards, the federal government grew into the albatross that it is now and states are treated little more than decoration.

    Now that some states have filed suit against the feds the feds resort to extortion or outright legal terrorism. Some states have attempted to resolve federal issues on their own but have found themselves in legal quagmires.

    We have a legislative branch at both state and federal levels that are inept and pander to the news cycle for a photo-op or soundbite.

    We have a judicial branch whose responsibility is enforcing the constitution which the do not read. As well as supposedly being non-politcal which they are not.

    We have the executive branches which put party before people.

    Short of replacing 10's of thousands of politicians I do not see another way out.

    We deserve the government that we vote for.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hardnox

    We’ve got a big problem alright. It may be that all paths ultimately lead us to the point of revolution somewhere down the road, but I don’t believe the appetite is out there right now for the kind of revolution I think you’re talking about. Keep in mind that it’s been less than 3 short years since “we” voluntarily elected a radical leftist for POTUS! What does that say about the mindset of this country? What’s more amazing is that some 40% of voters still like this doofus even though it could not be more clear that he’s bad for the nation. Furthermore, a big chunk of the remaining 60% are “moderates” who are completely clueless to the fact that the Left has been engaged in their own quiet revolution for about a hundred years now. That’s what we’re up against.

    As I’ve written in the past, this is an eternal struggle. We are never going to win any one battle or even a series of battles and be able to sit back with a sigh and say, “We won.” The most we can hope for is to get and hold the upper hand by being CONSTANTLY engaged in battle and always vigilant against the guerilla warfare tactics of the Left. But we have no hope of ever winning anything until people finally recognize what the Left has known for a long time now – we are already at war.

    ReplyDelete
  9. CW,
    Well said and I completely agree.

    As we all know, the '08 election was a media con-game meant to sway the moderates and it worked.

    Most conservatives are usually too busy working to stay engaged. Jefferson warned us about "eternal vigilence" being our civic duty, to that end we have been sorely remiss.

    Leftism encroaches incrementally. First its a helmet law, then a seatbelt law, then an anti-hate law, and on and on and on. Ultimately it is a legal crapstorm to untangle - if it ever can be.

    Most of our laws don't pass constitutional muster but stay in place because no one challenged it all the way to the SCOTUS. The legislation should have been vetted before it was voted on (which most people believe actually happens) but the politicians know how the system works and how the game is played.

    If conservatives protest then we are labeled as mean and nasty. Usually, we say "screw it" under our breath and move on. I believe that this is not the case anymore. A great many folks are awake as proven last November.

    We'll see if the con-game gets replayed soon enough.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As you know, CW, from having read my latest essay, we are singing from the same hymnal, albeit you -- a capella -- in three-part harmony and I annoyingly out of tune. This was a great read.

    Herman Cain has proved that he is not the guy. He wants to throw more billions at FEMA . . . immediately and without strings attached.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Now, drpete – we both know you do a great job driving the point home! But thank you for your kind words.

    In regards to Herman Cain, that’s not necessarily a deal breaker for me in light of what our choices are. Looks like it’s Ron Paul for you! :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. My favorite candidate, CW, is former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson. http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

    ReplyDelete
  13. The joke thief? Come on! Hahaha – just kidding.

    I don’t know too much about him except what I’ve seen in the debates. My observation thus far is that, like every other candidate whose hat is in the ring, he suffers a major flaw. In his case it’s a lack of charisma (not to mention the fact that libertarianism is a hard sell to start with). Whether it’s fair or not, that type of thing matters.

    I'll check out the link, though. My mind is still open. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete