People are fascinated by the story of a Texas Baptist pastor running for office as a Democrat. Whoever heard of such a thing? Well, the Progressives have. Not the people who call themselves that today, but the original Progressives. You have to pull down your American history book to talk to them today.
The original Progressive movement was alive and thriving in America a century ago, entwined firmly around another public crusade that shared its goals: the Social Gospel movement.
In fact the phrase "What Would Jesus Do," so vividly mocked by the modern left, is from "In His Steps," an 1897 novel by Charles Sheldon that was one of the most popular books of that generation. The old Progressives weren't mocking. They were nodding in agreement. This article tells the story of the book:In simple style, In His Steps tells the story of self-satisfied congregants of a midwestern church who are challenged by a tramp during a Sunday service to live up to their declaration of faith. The tramp then dies in their midst. So moved are the minister and his parishioners that they pledge to live their lives for one year asking themselves, "What would Jesus do?" Their example [of] how they suffered, faced ridicule and emerged victorious inspires other churches throughout the country to do the same.The article is fascinating reading for modern folks who associate a mix of firm Christian conviction and politics with smug Republican conservatism.
The modern political faction that claims the title of "progressive" has stolen the laurels from the graves of men like Sheldon without earning them. The old -- and to me, true -- Progressives were, like modern progressives, based in urban areas, and they often were wealthier than the average American. They included some of the most popular literary figures of the day, and they were deeply concerned with social justice issues.
Unlike their modern namesakes, though, they were rooted in religion. In fact, the were, in part, a reaction against secular excesses of Social Darwinism. Like many political labels, "Progressive" was more an umbrella than a uniform. But the Progressive movement was tightly entwined with the Social Gospel movement. Their causes were the same ones, and they were consistent with the Sermon on the Mount. They sought to reform American society in the same ways, and they saw the same looming threats to democracy and American virtues in the old "sins" like greed and pride.
Progressives in and out of Congress brought America child labor laws, minimum wages, insurance on bank deposits, and votes for women. They also had notable failures, such as Prohibition.
Yes, it wasn't a pack of prudes that gave us Prohibition. It was the same people who gave us votes for women. The Women's Christian Temperance Union was among the leading Progressive/Social Gospel organizations of its day, with a range of causes that also included women's suffrage and prison reform. Like the child labor laws, Prohibition was meant to be a specific solution to specific problems, including the corrupt machine politics of the cities, which were rooted in the saloons.
They were optimists, these Progressives, and they believed in America. They railed against corporate greed and the suffering it caused, but they knew that corporate industry was here to stay and that its products were advancing the quality of life overall. Their goal was to correct big business, not to smash it to bits. With the cross-pollination from the Social Gospel movement, they sought to hold powerful men to standards of moral behavior rooted, explicitly or not, in the New Testament.
Contrast that to the blunt nihilism of so many of the modern progressives. Contrast it to their virulent mocking of white Protestant Christianity, their furious anti-globalization mentality, their enthusiastic adherence to the idea that everything about America is corrupt, racist, militaristic, evil, and unfixable.
For all their pride in "speaking truth to power," few in today's movement can match the old Progressives in their critique of America's problems -- and in their effectiveness in promoting specific solutions to them. Upton Sinclair's scathing "The Jungle" led directly to the passage of the Pure Food & Drug Act. What good has Michael Moore wrought for all his cleverness?
Reminds me of my grandfather: women's suffrage, racial equality, and prohibition. I am not clear on where he stood with respect to labor. My grandfather was also strict, intolerant, and given to inflicting physical punishment -- not that unusual in those days, I suppose -- and my dad was glad to get away. My dad also voted for Norman Thomas in 1940 and idealized Clarence Darrow; I suppose those affinities came from somewhere.
The biggest mistake the Democratic Party has made is to cede the whole domain of religiously-based values to the Right.
This certainly wasn't the case in the 1950's, 60's, and even the 70's. The civil rights movement, and much of the anti-Vietnam War movement, was church-based. How many of you can remember Barbara Jordan, speaking as if with the voice of God?
In recent years, where are the voices thundering, "Thou shalt not bear false witness!"
Where are the people quoting, "As you have done to the least of these My children, you have done unto Me."
I wonder what percentage of young Democrats could even recognize those quotes? There's power there. And the Democratic Party is saying, in effect, "If you're driven by religious faith, then go vote Republican." And the Republicans are saying, "If you're one of us, then listen to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson." No wonder we're in such trouble!
There's a few problems with the Social Gospel:
1. We have this thing called the Establishment Clause. Anybody remember that?
2. It tends to run about 95% socialist and 5% cherry-picked scripture, at best.
3. People admire sincere expressions of faith, not the cynical exploitation of faith. They admire Mother Theresa, but not the Borgia popes. They will not be impressed when anti-Christian bigots suddenly start to quote Matthew and Mark. Now, the Progressives were not all Elmer Gantrys, but the faith that sustained them is rare on the left.
4. Religion is an important part of the non-governmental buffer between the individual and the State, a buffer which is vital to non-totalitarian societies. It is not something the government has a right to co-opt.
5. Somebody said once that you can't serve two masters. When Caesar and Christ are put on the same throne, Caesar calls all the shots while Christ gets the sad job of explaining them to the poor bastards in the pews.
Liberal icon, John Dewey, writing in the May 10, 1922 New Republic;
"_ _ _ the church-going classes, thse who have come under the influence of evangelical Christianity. These people form the backbone of philanthropic social interest, of social reform through political action, of pacifism, of popular eduacation. They embody and express the spirit of kindly goodwill towards classes which are at an economic disadvantage and towards other nations, especially when the latter show any disposition towards a republican form of government. The Middle West, the prairie country, has been the centre(sic) of active social philanthropy and political progressivism because it is the chief home of these folk _ _ believing in education and better opportunities for its own children _ _ _ it has been the element responsive to appeals for the square deal and more nearly equal opportunities for all _ _ _ It followed Lincoln in the abolition of slavery and it followed Roosevelt in denunciation of "bad" corporations and aggregations of wealth _ _ _It has been the middle in every sense of the word and of every movement."
Mike Daley
Thanks Callimachus, that was great! I also liked Glen's comment. I have a friend who teaches at a college in the midwest who embodies the sort of intensity and faith that these folks have, and it takes all our efforts to keep him out of trouble. He figures me for a godless heathen, in a nice way of course.
Actually it was Republicans who delivered on women’s suffrage. The minimum wage is and has always been a sop to the labor unions and a bane to small business owners and younger unskilled workers. Child labor laws only became feasible when the industrial revolution reduced the size of families needed to work on farms and FDIC lead to the S&L crisis of the 1970’s and 80’s (although arguably it has been more boon than bane).
Other notable failures of the “Progressive movement” include the ponzai scheme known as Social Security, wage and price controls which created today’s health care crisis, farm subsidies and most other corporate welfare programs, Medicare and Medicaid, antitrust statutes, forced busing, AFDC and two generations of destruction of the nuclear family, the Soviet-style public education system (also a product of the anti-Catholicism of the Progressives), the graduated income tax, military conscription, the various bank panics and depressions caused by devaluing the currency, the abuse of “eminent domain” in the name of “economic development,” and the cartelization by regulation of much of the American economy (e.g. transportation, steel, energy, etc.).
Chomping at the bit to make sure that the "least of these" can be aborted on demand.
One quibble, today's Progressive movement is also rooted in religion (from the old progressive movement). They have simply dropped the metaphysical aspect, while keeping the zeal (and fury for apostates and unbelievers).
Glen: Who said anything about government co-opting religion? What does the establishment clause have to do with this discussion? Are you saying that when a civic movement sites religion as the moral basis for thier beliefs, that somehow the establishment clause is violated? It sure seems like that is what you are saying?
Thorley: So, as best as I can tell, your theory of history is that the good things that the Progressives did (abolish slavery, enact child labor laws, etc.) were the inevitable result of the sweep of history, were as all the bad things that happened are thier fault? And strangest of all, you are aware that for the period in question, it was the Republicans who were the Progressives. It's ridiculous to assert, "Actually, it was the Republicans that delivered on child labor laws.", as if this was some contridiction to the claim that Progressives did. If you want an example of a 'Progressive' values President, you site someone like Teddy Roosevelt (who founded the party), or even going back Rutherford B. Hayes (Prohibition) or Abraham Lincoln (Abolution). The Democrats were late on getting on the band wagon, and when they did it was only with a populist like William Jennings Bryan.
Taft was the man that eventually transformed the Republicans from a progressive party to a conservative one. It was that that led to FDR and the withering of the party, which only Reagan managed to reverse.
I'm a little confused by your last comment, celebrim. IIRC 19th century liberals led the movement to abolish slavery. The main contributions of progressivism were prohibition, the income tax, and the popular election of the Senate. The progressives weren't liberals. They were populists. The various splinter groups that have gone by the name of the Progressive Party are only vaguely related to the progressives of the 19th century. The relationship of the Progressive Party to the Republican Party is not unlike the relationship of the Green Party to the present-day Democrats.
Neither the 19th century liberals nor the 19th century progressives would recognize the present-day people who call themselves progressives as their ideological descendants. As best as I can tell they're more like Fordists and resemble the Social Democrat parties in Europe.
Politics motivated by religion do not violate separation of church and state, and neither does a Baptist Pastor running for office. Deriving a Christian Shari'a from the Bible and making it law is something else, though.
The goal of politics is government, of course. The goal of modern "progressive" politics is to become the government of everything.