CommunityMy FDL

FDL Is Progressive PC for the Divine Right of Kings? Part 2 of 3

Is “Progressive” the Politically Correct way of saying the “Divine Right of Kings”?

PROLOGUE TO PART 2

Progressive & Occupy Together

This is part two of a three part series. As many of the facts and
premises for part two were laid out in part one, it will likely be
helpful to read and/or review part one. You can go to Part 1 by
clicking here http://goo.gl/ZWoC6C

As a quick refresher, we are evaluating 3 different governance
doctrines in manner similar to purchasing a car. These 3 governance
doctrines are:

  1. Divine Right of Kings;
  2. Consent of the Governed (Natural law);
  3. Progressivism.

To the best of his ability, the writer is attempting to frame
these analyses in a manner that creates unity and constructive dialogue
rather than emotional, political party-centric division. Whether you are
a Progressive, an Occupy person, 99%er, a 1%er or a TEA Party
person, this article should give you a great foundation to have
constructive discussions. Further, the writer is attempting to have you,
the reader, use your own powers of observation and reason to reach your
own conclusions. This as opposed to managing and manipulating you in
the manner of our current major media and the one and only one ruling
class pretending to be two major political parties. In this writer’s
humble opinion, the road to take back our country, restore the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, begins here.

We have already discussed and evaluated the governance doctrines of
the Divine Right of Kings and Consent of the Governed. We have discussed
the Populists movement, and pointed out that the conflicting sources
indicate it ended during the Spanish-American war or morphed into the
Progressive Era/Movement. We have discussed that the Populist Movement’s
primary inspiration was the corruption of government and corporations
with particular ire at the shenanigans of the “powers that be” involving
our country’s money and the valuation of that money. Those shenanigans
created hardship for rank and file Americans by enriching the “powers
that be” at the expense of the poor and the middle class.
(After the writer finished the first part of this article, another
physical source was made available to this writer by the library. It
appears as the last item in the list of sources at the end of part 2 of
this article. )
With that, let us discuss and evaluate our remaining governance doctrine of Progressivism.

KICKING THE TIRES CONTINUED
PROGRESSIVISM

Before going farther, reminds the reader that the credible sources are in dispute as to at least two major points:

  1. Did Populist Movement just fade away or did it morph into Progressivism;
  2. Whether there was a Progressive Movement, a Progressive Era and/or
    whether there were just various people and/or factions of people acting
    independently on different social, political, religious and/or economic
    projects that came to be considered “Progressive”.

As a further aside, this writer advises the reader that
sometimes various elements and tenants of Progressivism are at odds with
each other. This writer suggests to the reader a more organic feel for
Progressivism and a better understanding of its nuances and the thought
process they must engage in, may be had by taking the time to read this
writer’s referenced physical sources. (Critical Thinking)
Let us begin our evaluation of Progressivism with this simple
statement: Progressivism purports to protect labor (factory workers,
farmers and small entrepreneurs) from exploitation by and the corruption
of the trusts, big business and government itself.

Upon first impression, this new improved sporty, German engineered
governance doctrine appears to be better than the reliable yet stylish
perspective of reality that comes with the Consent of the Governed
governance doctrine. Bright, shiny and full of vigor, vitality and new
improvements, this 100+ year old governance doctrine of Progressivism
certainly appears flashier and more user friendly for the average
American than 300+ year old Consent of the Governed.
But the devil is in the details; as we have learned in our lifetime
of vehicle purchases; before we decide to purchase this governance
doctrine (which could be used to govern us for eternity) we better kick
the tires, check under the hood and read the fine print in its
particular social contract.
In keeping with his intent to create unity rather than division, this
writer believes that the following 7 points allow the unbiased reader
to evaluate Progressivism in a non-partisan manner.

  1. Progressivism’s Nature of Man Premise and Foundation;
  2. Religion;
  3. The Influence of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution on Progressivism;
  4. The Role and Authority for Government under Progressivism;
  5. Progressive Education;
  6. Administrative Governance Vs Progressive Managerial Governance;
  7. Examples of some early Progressive Legislation.
  1. PROGRESSIVISM’S NATURE OF MAN PREMISE AND FOUNDATION

Let us start with the foundation of Progressivism. Dewey and
Cooley assert the characterization of Natural Man in the Natural State
is as a social and altruistic animal. Do you find this to be true?
This, as opposed to John Locke’s Consent of the Governed (Natural
Law) premise that individual people are social animals, with tendencies
toward “reason and tolerance”, but who can be selfish. Or do you take
the position of Hobbes (Divine Right of Kings), who believed man tends
to be selfish, may sometimes be altruistic and is not by nature NOT a
social animal. Which of these premises as to the Nature of mankind do
you believe is most correct?

Again, we are referring to the Nature of Man in the State of Nature;
that is, before there were governments. You ponder, “How can you observe
the Nature of Man in the Natural State and from those observations, use
your reasoning to select which characterization of the Nature of Man is
most correct?”
Perhaps somewhere in the world there exist a people living in the
Natural State? However, do you have the time and the money to go observe
them?

Perhaps we could conceive of the Natural Man in the Natural State to be similar to….

To continue reading for free, please click here http://goo.gl/joiJCm

Those were my thoughts.

In Closing:

Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.
If what is written here rings true to you, perhaps another helpful
exercise would be to ponder why you have not heard about this in your
local paper or in the major media. [You may find articles about issues
from this writer’s local area posted in your area and wonder why. The
reason is this: Remember those travel junkets taxpayers pay for (the
ones the bureaucrats skip to go to the beach or the casino) but
allegedly used for training? Well some government apparatchiks actually
attend those training seminars. And learn nationally en-mass techniques
to “manage” WE THE PEOPLE. Since they all receive similar training in
oppression, it is likely the problems you are experiencing with
government in your area are similar to the problems in your area (unless
you live outside the USA). With that commonality in mind, it is this
writer’s intent that insight garnered from this writer articles about
his local issues can be used by the reader to understand and applied to
their local issues.]

Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow
citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual
endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE
as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [Last Paragraph,
Declaration of Independence http://bit.ly/ruPE7z ]

This article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine http://ushistory.org/paine. I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense” http://amzn.to/kbRuar

Keep Fighting the Good Fight!

In Liberty,

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak
http://Facebook/Don.Mashak
Don Mashak Google Plus http://goo.gl/1AUrE

The Conundrum: While our #Government works full time with
compensation and funded with our money for the cause of #Tyranny; WE THE
PEOPLE are forced to work part time without compensation for the cause
of #liberty with what is left over of our time, money and energy,

WE THE PEOPLE TAR #WETHEPEOPLETAR
http://WETHEPEOPLETAR.blogspot.com
http://facebook.com/WETHEPEOPLETAR
http://twitter.com/WETHEPEOPLETAR

End the Fed(eral Reserve Bank System) #ETF
National http://bit.ly/ta3Rju Minneapolis http://bit.ly/tjZJKF

Bring Home the Politicians #BHTP
http://BringHomethePoliticians.com

Lawless America #LawlessAmerica
http://LawlessAmerica.com

Term Limits #TermLimit
http://TermLimits.org

Justice in Minnesota #JIM
http://JusticeinMN.com

Critical Thinking Notice – This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking (http://bit.ly/ubI6ve)
in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear. Do not
passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this
author… unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust
and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate
you to the contrary of your perspective

TAGS [Progressive, Progressivism, 99%, 1%, Occupy, Conservative, Liberal, TEA Party, Movie, Republican, Democrat, Natural Law, John Locke, Consent of the Governed, Divine Right of Kings, Hobbes]

PHYSICAL SOURCES

The Progressive Mind 1890-1917 David W. Noble (1981)

America Enters the World – A People’s History of the Progressive Era and World War I – Page Smith (1985)

The Annals of America 1895-1904 Volume 12 Populism, Imperialism and Reform Britannica (1965)

The Annals of America 1905-1915 Volume 13 The Progressive Era Britannica 1965

Rebirth of a Nation – The Making of a Nation 1877 – 1920 Jackson Lears 2009

The Selfish Gene – Richard Dawkins 1976

A People’s History of the United States 1492 to Present – Howard Zinn 1980, 2003

Special thanks to Monticello and Elk River Minnesota Public Libraries

And many internet and/or other sources too fluid and/or non-credible to cite as references

Progressive, Progressivism, 99%, 1%, Occupy, Conservative, Liberal, TEA Party, Movie, Republican, Democrat

Previous post

REPORT: Tobacco-style Climate Denial - Greenpeace's "Dealing in Doubt"

Next post

New Back Door AUMF Bill Being Crafted By Senate Hawks; Alan Grayson is Opposed

Don Mashak

Don Mashak