Populism Through Patriotism or Progressivism?

"Your love of liberty -- your respect for the laws -- your habits of industry -- and your practice of the moral and religious obligations, are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness."

George Washington

My post, “Progressives Want to Control Information” got this response, which I found needed more space than I had for a simple answer. Here was the comment and my answer follows.

Gaia said...

"Self proclaimed elitists?" Would you cite sources, please, because I've never come across a progressive so proclaimed. On the contrary, we want comprehensive health care for everyone; we want a good education for everyone; we want everyone to vote; we want everyone to pay a fair and reasonable amount of taxes; we want a fair judicial system for everyone. That's not elitist: that's an all-embracing populism."

It is such a simple and reasonable question, but it opens multiple avenues of responses. So I will pluck and pare down the volumes that popped into my head. First, you are intuitive in questioning my phrase “self proclaim elitists” and for good reasons. Anyone who would boldly claim such a title as elitist would come off as very egotistical and contrary to “serving the people”. I was using the term loosely, which I should have defined, to mean someone who acts upon and lives out beliefs of elitism. Self proclaimed in the sense that we act upon our philosophical beliefs. More on that in a moment but because I said it, I’ll give a couple of examples of this elitist attitude.

George Bernard Shaw has many interesting comments. Here is one. “I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly-appointed board, just as they might come before the income tax commissioner, and say every five years, or every seven years, just put them there, and say, ‘Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?’"

John Dewy – “Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”

God forbid we have no great answer for a “justify your existence” board or should we learn to think for ourselves. By the way, these two are considered fathers (of many) of the current progressive movement.

There are many others but it is really not the point here. What is actually interesting is that you ignored the fact that I tied elitism to the progressive movement and you seem to equate it to populism. Modern progressive populism is almost like saying frozen fire. It is a great creative word picture but not realistically possible. This is obviously my opinion based on my understanding of Progressives, which I’ll elaborate on later below. I understand your use of populism because it is a good argument against elitism and the philosophy seems to fit your true values.

Populism – “A type of political-social thought that juxtaposes "the people" against "the elites", and urges social and political system changes. It can also be defined as a rhetorical style employed by members of various political or social movements. It is defined by the Cambridge dictionary as "political ideas and activities that are intended to represent ordinary people's needs and wishes" - Wikipedia

We probably can agree to the idea of populism. I say right now that I don’t necessarily embrace the full concepts and the far reaching ideas related to the whole populism, but for the purpose of this apologetic I will address the simple definition above “intended to represent the ordinary people’s needs and wishes”. Where we greatly diverge is from our theoretical root for the idea. It is no secret that I get mine from our nations’ founding rooted in Judeo-Christian theology: that all men are created equal and that they have certain inalienable rights. All are also obliged to obey the natural law, under which we have not only rights but duties. We are obliged "to respect those rights in others which we value in ourselves" (Jefferson). This is my idea of an American patriot, borrowed from the Heritage Foundation.

How does a Progressive support populism? First, the predominant view and my understanding of a progressive view is one increasingly radicalized by its transformation into contemporary liberalism. Here are a few points comparing a “progressive” view from a patriots’. (I respectfully use much of the following from the Heritage Foundation)

As mentioned above, “all men are created equal and they have certain inalienable rights” is a patriot’s view. The Progressives rejected these claims as naive and unhistorical. In their view, human beings are not born free. John Dewey, the most thoughtful of the Progressives, wrote that freedom is not "something that individuals have as a ready-made possession." It is "something to be achieved." In this view, freedom is not a gift of God or nature. It is a product of human making, a gift of the state. This is a very important and contrary viewpoint.

Government's main duty for the Founders is to secure that freedom: at home through the making and enforcement of criminal and civil law, abroad through a strong national defense. The protection of life and liberty is achieved through vigorous prosecutions of crime against person and property or through civil suits for recovery of damages, these cases being decided by a jury of one's peers.

The Progressives regarded the Founders' scheme as defective because it took too benign a view of nature. As Dewey remarked, they thought that the individual was ready-made by nature. The Founders' supposed failure to recognize the crucial role of society led the Progressives to disparage the Founders' insistence on limited government. For the Progressives, freedom is redefined as the fulfillment of human capacities, which becomes the primary task of the state.

The American Founders tried to promote the moral conditions of an independent, hard-working citizenry by laws and educational institutions that would encourage such virtues as honesty, moderation, justice, patriotism, courage, frugality, and industry. Government support of religion was generally practiced with a view to these ends. One can see the Founders' view of the connection between religion and morality in such early laws as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which said that government should promote education because "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind."

In Progressivism, the domestic policy of government had two main concerns. First, government must protect the poor and other victims of capitalism through redistribution of resources, anti-trust laws, government control over the details of commerce and production: i.e., dictating at what prices things must be sold, methods of manufacture, government participation in the banking system, and so on. Second, government must become involved in the "spiritual" development of its citizens -- not, of course, through promotion of religion, but through protecting the environment ("conservation"), education (understood as education to personal creativity), and spiritual uplift through subsidy and promotion of the arts and culture.

As can be seen, the paving of a road to populism ethics could be reached by diametrically opposed political platforms: of an American patriot or a modern Progressive. A few final questions come to mind. Which political platform embraces the heart or intent of populism best? Which one has the best proven track record of intentionally protecting the people from elitism? Where should my faith be to bring about such desired principles: man or a higher power? My answer is obvious by the argument outlined. A true American patriot (to quote Gaia) “want(s) comprehensive health care for everyone; we want a good education for everyone; we want everyone to vote; we want everyone to pay a fair and reasonable amount of taxes; we want a fair judicial system for everyone.” Which is the best road to get there?

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."

Samuel Adams

Ground Zero Mosque Brings the "P"s Out

“Be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits.”

Elias Boudinot – President of the Continental Congress from 1782 to 1783 and Director of the United States Mint from 1795 until 1805

The ground zero mosque controversy sure deals with “judge the tree by its fruits”. I had a good friend on a social network post a link to a petition by the ACLU, which I disagreed with for reasons other than its stand on freedom of religion. Here was my comment on it.

“As read, no patriotic American would disagree with the obvious tenets of this petition. There is no argument about freedom of religion. No contention of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s or others agreement to this fact. But what is missing is the ethical argument. Yes, they can build the mosque and have the right to do so. Example: The family of my child’s killer has a right to build next door to me, but should they? A majority would question the wisdom of it and protest. They would question the “intolerance” of that family. Why wouldn’t that family understand and not only agree but want to build somewhere not so offensive? The answer to that would be telling. This petition states some truth, but from a perverted perspective of that truth.”

A friend of this friend posted something simple, and I paraphrase, about not trusting the “patriotic American” phrase because it dealt with “hidden agendas”. I don’t know if they even read the rest of post but if they did that phase seemed to close their mind. I replied by copying pretty much what they wrote and inserted “ACLU” in place of patriot to make the point that we all have some kind of agenda and it only differs from the platform we stand upon. My point was missed and they questioned it blankly and then a short time later remarked with a belittling comment. I left it at that. I afraid others on the network did not, but that’s another story.

Oh, what do I mean about the p’s? Well, as I thought about this I couldn’t help but imagine there are many people who stand on issues with differing perspectives. I wore a label on my sleeve when I chose to use the word patriotic. I did this intentionally as to let people know I was coming from, what is generally considered, a conservative point of view. I would much rather be considered a patriot who knows why I believe something rather then a parrot who can talk it but without perception. We all talk from a platform and it is best to fully understand it, rather than just stand on it. Normally what happens with the latter is one ends up just being P-Oed and has difficulty acting politely. I am sure you have witnessed the same thing in the media the last few weeks around the controversy of the mosque. All I suggest is, be open, listen patiently to others’ ideas but know where you stand and be able to give an account with dignity.

Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787

Progressives Want to Control Information

“There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation (clarification), than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.” (Parenthesis added)

James Madison

Nothing irks me more than when self proclaimed elitists (most progressives) claim and work under the impression that they have the only right answers to govern the people. Here is just one recent example of that pious but ignorant philosophical stance.

 

“With many state legislatures poised to take up some kind of reform-related legislation next year, a group of liberal state lawmakers is preparing Fall events to defend the law in their state houses against “the very conservative politicians and interest groups that are really confusing the American public,” the group's chairman, Iowa State Sen. Jack Hatch, tells PULSE.”

POLITICO Pulse, Aug 19th, 2010

Jack Hatch and all his liberal friends believe the common people are too ignorant to discern appropriate understanding of all views and feel we can only be “confused” by having more than one perspective to choose from. What scares Jack and friends is exactly the issues James Madison addressed above. If the people like the truth and it conflicts with ideology needed to change or annihilate the republic our nation is founded upon, then we shouldn’t be “confusing the American public”.

This doesn’t mean the majority always has it right and our republic has systems within it to help understand and slow process until truth is discerned and people can right any misguided directions that lead us from our great American republic. A great case in point is the majority now feels the direction our present government is headed is not the direction we wish to go. Basically, “we the people” have had time to see and feel the decisions of our current administration and know it is the wrong way. The majority made a mistake November 2008, which led to the Tea Party movement and similar “interest groups”. Jack Hatch, his cronies and the current administration don’t like it when the people “are confused”, which is really people thinking, educated and having choices. The real “confused” ones are them that don’t understand or like the working, living republic we currently have. Now it is up to us to keep it by voting for those who agree with the truth of the American Republic. Nothing will confuse a progressive more.

Where Does America Garner Its Morals and Ethics

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams – 1798

Once again this week, a story developed that should cause Americans to ask the question of this blog title.


“A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong.” Todd Starnes Published July 28, 2010  FoxNews.com

What is telling about this story is the reason Julea Ward is given for her removal. The university contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association code of ethics. Another student, Jennifer Keeton, 24, has been pursuing a master's degree in school counseling at Augusta State University since 2009, but school officials have informed her that she'll be dismissed from the program unless she alters her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct. Not because of poor academic showing or demonstrated deficiencies in clinical performance, but simply because she has communicated both inside and outside the classroom that she holds to Christian ethical convictions on matters of human sexuality and gender identity.

So the question becomes, where does the American Counseling Association get its code of ethics? Certainly not solely from the America John Adams presumed or for that matter, than most all the signers of our Declaration of Independence. Julea and Jennifer are only reflecting morals our nation was found upon. The issue of gay life style is controversial but for a Christian is clear, given the scripture. It all boils down to where this country will receive direction related moral issues. Should we accept and allow the results of a kleptomaniac as an alternate lifestyle because they can’t help it; they were born that way? If not, then why the gay lifestyle? Both are from the same moral compass. Take it a step further, why not accept and protect the serial killer because he can’t help himself; he was born that way?

You may get a sense of where I stand. But let me quote myself from another work I’m working on. The character Leland explains his stand on a gay lifestyle.

"Time has proved this 'alternate' life style hasn't saved people in any way. Rather it's caused multitudes of havoc. They have a right to believe as they wish. Never should they be mistreated or abused simply for having an opposing opinion on sexual preference. They need the help and support of society the same as everyone else. The thing I struggle with is how we Christians should react to that. We don't have laws protecting an employee from being fired if he's drunk or high on the job. Nor is a compulsive gamblers' job protected if he decides to be absent from work for weeks to go on a gambling binge. I say that because the Bible tells us these things are wrong.

"These acts erode and undermine the basis of a good working society and it is the Bible that teaches this. Yes, gays have rights but not anything reaching beyond that which will counteract the worldview this country was founded on. This means no special or equal family status, military standing or any other special privileges they're now striving to achieve, because the Bible says it’s wrong.

"I know the Lord teaches us to love one another and we should, but we need to show that love in the context of His word. Sometimes love is very tough, just as Jesus was with people at times. You notice when the Pharisees brought the women to Him to be stoned He directed those who had no sin to throw the first stone. They all walked away because they had to, but remember He told the women to sin no more. Jesus gave her a chance to understand her plight, but expected her to break the cycle she was in."

Search - Richard Coller

This issue will be with us for years to come. All I can say to Julea, Jennifer and all who want a degree in any counseling program is this. They had better understand where that institution derives its moral base and attend a school that will allow biblical counseling. They will be a better counselors for it.

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

George Washington

Protection from Ourselves

It’s been awhile since I have published anything on my blog. Sorry about that, but another project has kept me very busy until now. So, to kind of catch up let us look at the general idea about why the Tea Party movement has been so active while the Obama administration has been in office. If you read Federalist paper #63 you will find James Madison considered the people could easily undermine their own republic. For that reason he suggested a Senate appointed for a six year term. I’ll let him explain.

“Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people. To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.” (emphasis added)

James Madison – Federalist Paper #63 Independent Journal, Saturday, March 1, 1788

The large numbers of Tea Party supporters (and others with similar concerns) are probably those who “they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.” The founders of our republic understood that “the people” could be misled under certain circumstances. We could fail to patiently garner visions that propel the republic America was founded on. That the people might be compelled by men of anti-republic sediments using ideologies conflicting founding principals and easily misunderstand the corroding effects: et, “too big to fail”, “redistribution of wealth”, “social justice”, etc. This is not ideology attributed to one party but found throughout liberals and conservatives, but has high jacked the liberal philosophy more effectively.

Our republic is founded on individual freedoms, individual rights, individual accountability, individual salvation, and individual numerous other responsibilities that keep a republic working as it should. Any type of socialism that requests collective or group responsibilities directed by a government acting as “big brother” or “director of the majority” against the majorities’ will is anything but a republic our founders envisioned. As “we the people” of the American Republic wake up and realize our individual accountability to our neighbors and nation, there will be more of the Tea Party and similar movements working against progressive, social government actions.

As James Madison indicates, people with republic ideals will discover they are driving off the road and want to steer back on course. Obviously, it is easy to drive back to the road from a shoulder or parking lot, rather than a muddy field. Hence, the reason he argued for a system that would react slower and thoughtfully in times of reactionary or misinformed people. Americans realize we are headed for a muddy field even though the “map” directs otherwise. We know it is time to turn this country back on course because the GPS is falsely programmed.

Government Spending Credit Report - Inform “We the People”

Let us use Education as an example



"Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom."

John Adams

“Too big to fail” and “government bailouts” are all we have heard about for close to two years. The latest request is by Education Secretary Arne Duncan to ask lawmakers to put aside “politics and ideology” as they consider a request for $23 billion in “emergency” funding for public schools. As a taxpayer this is very disturbing to me and I’m sure to the largest percentage of Americans. When is all this “bailout”, “rob Peter to pay Paul” economics nonsense going to be checked? What a great subject to deal with head on. Everyone would agree that our children’s education is something we need to support. Keeping that in mind, we need to have the right information in order to understand how to support that great goal.



I’m sure you are asking “what is he talking about?” First, let me tell you that I’m close to this subject because my daughter is a public school teacher and the major bread winner for her family. Like most Americans I’m proud that we have a system supported by the government (notice I say supported – important to keep in mind) that helps guarantee each person can have a quality education maintained by all taxpayers’ money. Our teachers need to know that we stand behind everyone of them who performs to goals of our expectations as a whole.



The current system has failed in the sense that we seem unable to support it finically. Why is that? There have been suggestions. Education analyst Lindsey Burke of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C., said this.



“More federal funding is not going to solve states' fiscal problems and could in fact exacerbate those problems, by really preventing states from making the difficult budgetary decisions necessary to reduce costs and effect long-term systemic education reform. The real problem within the public education sector has been more and more non-teaching staff positions. These positions continue to grow and really put a strain on state budgets. Roughly half of those people employed by the public education sector are in non-teaching positions.”



This makes a lot of sense to me and I believe we can help direct monies to government supported programs like education if we apply something every American family has either learned to do or should do. Most successful American families have learned to budget based on their family income. That includes borrowing and using credit wisely to achieve intended realistic goals for our needs then wants: in that order. One great tool we have today to assist the decision making on our budgeting is to learn how to use credit reports. These have much information on them that direct us on when we should and should not use credit, how much we could handle and when we should make a change to keep us financially viable.



I’m sure you have caught on to what I suggest. Why not have credit reports for each of our government agencies and recipient of said agency (aka, each school district) that our representatives could use to gauge fiscal responsibilities. For that matter, with today’s technology, it could be made available for all the people to check and inform our representative of our thoughts and wishes. These could help understand status before criticality and make adjustment long before it is serious (too late at this point, but many families learned the hard also). We want our government and all its representatives (politicians) to operate just as we need to. I know there are others much more capable than me to suggest how this might work and it may be too simple for those who serve the people to comprehend but many a family has succeeded by applying principals around this concept. It’s time the government listened to the people and acted more like us.



"Would it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass through so many new hands."

Thomas Jefferson

News, Information and Opinion – What About A Free Press?

“The only security of all is in a free press. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”

Thomas Jefferson

Not many would argue how our constitution stands on the idea of a free press. Most on both sides of the political arena want to make sure these rights stay free, information flows unreservedly and opinions can be expressed. What I find interesting is how people decide what might be wrong or right. When it comes to news, plain and pure facts and political opinions many will decide the truth based on whether it is liberal or conservative in nature. And both types make the mistake when defining facts from opinion. A friend was certain to make sure I understood this by listing a few places where she received much of her information and didn’t want to hide her understanding of these viewpoints.


“Liberal, yet their facts check out.”

I appreciate the honesty and I have no problems with it. Interesting but I question whether she could equally say of other sources, “conservative, yet their facts check out.” As with many, I think it might be a struggle. So many will predetermine facts reported based on knowing who supplies the information. I might be considered naive but until it is proved otherwise; I tend to believe all the mainstream media outlets, as a rule, try to make sure they report the facts. Now, please understand there is a great difference between the facts of a news report and an opinion based on those facts. This same person has this to say about one news outlet.



“… and wouldn't trust Fox News as far as I could throw my car.”



In her defense, because I find it hard to believe differently, I presume she meant she could not trust the opinions of said news outlet. But then again, the blogs sphere and other news stories (where ever one gets them) seems to indicate people prefer to blur the difference because it is easier to consider truths based on liberal facts or conservative facts. A fact can be proven and if not then it just may be an opinion and that is another issue to discuss. But let’s stick to the facts. It is much like preferring a Chrysler over a Honda. Both are cars but people would argue that point because of such a bias for one or the other. They may choose to believe one is not a car because of who makes it. With that kind of attitude you might see me driving a Honda and tell me to go buy a car. All I’ve really learned is that you don’t like Hondas. The question then becomes, “Why do you prefer a Chrysler over a Honda?”



For current events, I look to all sources of information and evaluate them on their own merits. If it is a fact, which can be tested, then it matters not from whom I garner it from. One thing I do purposely is look for what is reported and notice what is ignored. That says more sometimes than the facts themselves. This means I need to look at all sources to compare who is reporting what. There is the tendency by many reporters to ignore or not report “facts” that make it difficult to support either their liberal or conservative perspectives: and that of course is revealing in itself. So I might not trust as much a news outlet that ignores certain facts or stories because it does not support their idea of what’s news worthy and support their opinions. But guess what, that is news also.



It is not so much who is reporting what, as much as the viewpoint it is filtered through. The problem is many people don’t have a good understanding of what they believe or why they believe it so generally sway from one ideal to another as it feels right. Or their principles are so fanatical that they can not accept any variations or conceive what others might prove as truth. I agree with this statement.



“The truth lies in reading the Constitution, a knowledge of history, and studying the commentaries by the authors, which clearly explains their intentions without the need of conjecturing intellectuals educated with propaganda 250 years later.”



If you can’t consistently point to values, principals and ethics that require integrity to persistently convey ideas, then one might need the support of a particular liberal or conservative bias to sort through.



For instance just yesterday I heard about Attorney General Eric Holder indicating the president was willing to look at changing the Miranda rules to help process terrorists. Many conservatives think this is a good idea but even though I lean towards conservative opinions I strongly disagree with this sudden 180 degree turn around. Why? Without going into the details, this idea goes against what I believe about our American justice system, why we have this law and it would only weaken our liberties as we know them.



Check all avenues of news information. I do listen to Fox, CBS, ABC and I especially am interested in NBC/MSNBC for what they consider news worthy and what they ignore. I compare what the Huffington Post, Washing ton Post, Wall Street Journal, Politico and other major “papers” report. News magazines such as Newsweek, US News, The Weekly Standard and Time all give varying perspectives on current events. But I rely a lot on the Internet also for information that might not make the regular media. It is interesting the people who fight most for “freedom of the press” are often times the same ones who dwell on which is right and wrong regardless whether it is news (facts) or opinion.



“Grant me thirty years of equal division of inheritances and a free press, and I will provide you with a republic.”

Alexis de Tocqueville - 29 July 1805, Paris – 16 April 1859, Cannes