The Progressive Movement

A Non-Partisan Comprehensive Discussion of Current Tendencies in American Politics

Benjamin Parke DeWitt

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351476072
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Historia
• Subtopic: Historia del mundo

Benjamin Parke DeWitt's study of the Progressive Era represents a comprehensive history of the theory and practice of politics from a progressive perspective. His account of the history and projections about the future of the progressive science of politics provided the American liberal-progressive tradition with its first full narrative history at a time when it was not yet the dominant interpretation of the American political order. Its greatest importance, however, lies in DeWitt's conception of where the broad-based progressive critique of the Founders' was heading.DeWitt's history of the origins and projected destiny of the progressive tradition commands a respect that places him in the same company as better-known writers. His historical narrative of the liberal progressive tradition was implicit among a number of writers before the Progressive Movement, but no contemporary writer provided a better roadmap of where progressivism was going than DeWitt. What gives DeWitt's critique a twist is his focus on the individualism of the founders, which he regards as the heart of their anti-democratic principles. His critique of this individualism is the foundation for his argument that collectivism is arguably a more democratic alternative.Benjamin Parke DeWitt is one of the lesser-known, often overlooked writers who worked to establish the liberal library of American political thought. This book deserves to be read as one of the neglected gems of the Progressive Era that it chronicles. This is an important addition to the Library of Liberal Thought series.

PART I

THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT

CHAPTER I

The Meaning and History of the Progressive Movement

THE term “progressive movement” has been so widely used, so much discussed, and so differently interpreted that any exposition of its meaning and principles, to be adequate, must be prefaced by careful definition. To some—comparatively few—the progressive movement stands for the attempt of one man, disappointed in his efforts to control his political party, to found another and return himself to power. To others, who are willing to concede that the movement is not confined to a single leader, it represents the efforts of a small body of self-seeking politicians to gain position and influence by making capital of a movement that is temporarily popular. To others, the movement expresses the effort of a few sincere but misguided enthusiasts to carry out an impossible and chimerical program of social reform through government and legislation. Some believe that the movement is partisan, limited to the party that bears its name; others believe that it is broader than any single party and that its supporters are found in political parties everywhere. Some believe it is new, fleeting, and evanescent, destined to disappear quickly from our political life; others hold that it is permanent, deep-seated, and fundamental, involving a modification and readjustment of our political theories and institutions.

Whatever difference of opinion may exist concerning the meaning of the progressive movement, every thinking man and woman must be convinced that the nation to-day is passing through a severe political crisis. After a period of unprecedented industrial and commercial expansion, during which time little or no attention has been given to the problems of government, the people have suddenly realized that government is not functioning properly and that radical changes are needed. Manifestations of this excitement and unrest are seen on every hand. Men write of a new democracy¹ and a new freedom.² In 1912 the vote of the Socialist party—the party of protest against existing conditions—almost reached the million mark; and in the same year a new political party, appealing to new ideals and new standards, polled four million votes. The Democratic party in the nation, after a stormy convention, nominated and elected as President, in 1912, a leader who insists upon high standards of public service; and the Republican party, chastened by defeat, and forced to recognize the present political tendencies, has already set about the work of party regeneration in many states. Everywhere there are evidences that the nation has passed into a new political era.

In this widespread political agitation that at first sight seems so incoherent and chaotic, there may be distinguished upon examination and analysis three tendencies. The first of these tendencies is found in the insistence by the best men in all political parties that special, minority, and corrupt influence in government—national, state, and city—be removed; the second tendency is found in the demand that the structure or machinery of government, which has hitherto been admirably adapted to control by the few, be so changed and modified that it will be more difficult for the few, and easier for the many, to control; and, finally, the third tendency is found in the rapidly growing conviction that the functions of government at present are too restricted and that they must be increased and extended to relieve social and economic distress. These three tendencies with varying emphasis are seen to-day in the platform and program of every political party; they are manifested in the political changes and reforms that are advocated and made in the nation, the states, and the cities; and, because of their universality and definiteness, they may be said to constitute the real progressive movement.

To understand the origin and development of the progressive movement, it is necessary to consider briefly the circumstances surrounding the formation of the federal constitution in 1787. The men who framed that constitution had to decide two questions: first, how many and what functions government, as opposed to the individual, should be allowed to exercise; and, secondly, what power should control the exercise of these functions.

Now, at the time our federal constitution was adopted, there were at least three reasons why the people desired as little interference as possible by the government in the affairs of the individual. In the first place, the colonists had just finished a war with England, a war which it is ordinarily supposed was justified as a protest against taxation without representation, but which was rather a desire to get rid of a government that was becoming irksome. The colonists appealed to the inherent right of man to be free. After emerging from a long and severe struggle to rid themselves of one government, they were not in the mood to impose upon themselves another. They had had enough government; they would see now what the individual could do.

A second reason for limiting the powers of the government is to be found in the political theory prevalent at that time. Rousseau ¹ had proclaimed the superiority of the individual over the state and attempted to explain how the state received its power originally. Man was originally, according to Rousseau, in a state of nature. He was free in all respects. Necessity compelled him to yield his individual liberty to the state, but even then he and his fellows were entitled to absolute control of the state. The theory of Rousseau became widely popular. The individual was apotheosized. In America, Paine wrote “Common Sense” and “The Rights of Man,” both imbued with the doctrine of Rousseau. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, with its insistence on individual liberties. Of Jefferson’s opinion on the extension of the powers of the state, one of his biographers says: “He could hardly bring himself to declare that the people should govern, because he had a lurking notion that there should be no government at all. ‘The rights of man,’ the favorite slang phrase of the day, signified to his mind an almost entire absence of governmental control.” ² The political philosophy of the day was laissez-faire.

A third and final reason why men restricted the powers of the state was the needlessness of governmental interference. In most cases, the individual could take care of himself. The men in the country at that time were the boldest and most self-reliant that Europe had contained. They would have scoffed at the idea of having any superior power tell them how long they ought to work and what pay they ought to receive. Then, too, social and economic conditions allowed individual action. In 1790 only six cities had 8,000, and only two, 25,000 inhabitants. Land was plentiful; the great West with all its opportunities for wealth-making was unexplored. No wonder the colonists felt confident in their own ability to take care of themselves; no wonder they despised government and felt within them the thrill and inspiration of a new freedom.

When we approach the second important question which the colonists had to decide; i. e., by whom the exercise of governmental functions should be controlled, we find no end of confusion. The colonists, we have seen, decided that government, as opposed to the individual, should exercise as few functions as possible. When they came to decide into what hands the exercise of these few governmental powers should be placed, two possibilities offered themselves. One was to place the people, in a fairly broad sense, in control; the other was to place in power a small minority which, protected from the clamor of the people by numerous checks and balances, would govern in the interests of the best citizens. There is no reason why men should divide on this second question exactly as they do on the first. A man may believe in extending the power of the state over many functions now exercised exclusively by the individual and still be opposed to allowing a majority of the people to direct the exercise of those functions. Germany to-day is perhaps the most paternalistic of nations; it is far from being the most democratic. And the men back in 1787 did not divide in the same way on both questions nor lay equal emphasis upon them. Hamilton believed in the rule of the minority, and yet he did not advocate and in fact could not advocate (because there was no need) any great extension of govermnental powers. Jefferson believed that the people should be given control and yet believed that in an ideal state there would be no government at all. So far as restricting government to the exercise of a few functions is concerned, Hamilton and Jefferson were not very far apart; so far as the method of exercising the functions necessarily assumed by government is concerned, they were as far apart as the poles. In a word, in 1787, most men agreed in opposing any extension of the functions of government; they differed in their views as to the way in which the necessary modicum of government should be controlled.

The subject has been much beclouded because of the fact that in 1787 a new government was being formed. The colonies sent delegates to a convention to determine what governmental functions should be exercised by the new government. The questions that arose in that convention were not questions of the extension or restriction of the powers of government. They were questions of the extension or restriction of the powers of a particular government. They were questions concerning the division of powers between a government about to be formed and governments already existing. When we speak of Alexander Hamilton as favoring a strong government we do not mean that Hamilton wished to allow the state to control matters up to that time controlled by individuals; we mean that Hamilton wished to take power from the separate colonies and confer it upon a central government. Hamilton’s plan for a national government “embodied two ideas which were its cardinal features and which went to the very heart of the whole matter. The republic of Hamilton was to be an aristocratic as distinguished from a democratic republic, and the power of the separate states was to be effectually crippled.” ¹ Of the three great compromises of the constitution, between agricultural and commercial states, between large and small states, and between free and slave states, not one concerned the question of extending the influence of government generally.

The fight, then, in the constitutional convention was not over the extension of the functions of government, but over the method of controlling the functions to be exercised. On this point, there was great diversity of opinion. Of the three forms of government, the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the democracy, the last found the least favor. “... The fathers of the American Federal Republic ... over and over again betray their regret that the only government which it was possible for them to establish was one which promised so little stability”² (i.e., a democracy). Hamilton favored a king, and most of the others favored some sort of aristocracy. “The evidence is overwhelming that the men who sat in that convention had no faith in the wisdom or political capacity of the people.” ³ Jefferson, the prophet of the people, was not even there. The convention turned out a constitution calculated to give to a select minority the guidance of the destinies of the nation.

The federal constitution, therefore, provides for a government which shall touch the life of the individual at as few points as possible and which shall be dominated by a minority. The government then formed for the nation reflected the existing state governments as far as the extension of the powers of the state is concerned. It was not a true reflection, however, of the sentiment of the mass of people in the states as to the method of control. Democracy was much more in evidence in the separate states than it could be under the elaborate system of checks and balances of the federal constitution. “Had the decision been left to what is now called ‘the voice of the people,’ that is, to the mass of the citizens all over the country, voting at the polls, the voice of the people would probably have pronounced against the Constitution ...” ¹

Although the state governments were more democratic than the federal government, their democracy was not above suspicion. It was at best a diluted democracy, of the sort of which Periclean Athens was proud. Throughout the thirteen colonies there were thousands of slaves; most of the colonies imposed some property qualifications before granting the suffrage; in some colonies, profession of some religion was essential to holding office.² The quality of the democracy in the states is revealed fairly well by a glance at some of the early constitutions. That of Massachusetts, adopted in 1780, in its preamble, states that “the body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.” The same constitution provides that “every male inhabitant of twenty-one years of age and upwards, having a freehold estate within the commonwealth, of the annual income of three pounds, or any estate of the value of sixty pounds, shall have a right to give in his vote for the senators for the district of which he is an inhabitant.” ³ The same qualifications had to be met by voters for representatives and governor. In the constitution of North Carolina, the statement is made “that all political power is vested in and derived from the people only.” ¹ The people are somewhat narrowly defined, however, as those who are possessed of a freehold of fifty acres of land and those who have paid public taxes. In most of the early state constitutions, there are similar inconsistent provisions which declare that the state is governed by the people and that the people are those who own property or pay taxes.

When the United States, then, began its career as a nation, the federal constitution, the state constitutions, and even the people themselves were opposed to any extension of the powers of government over the individual. General sentiment favored a minimum of government. As to who should control that minimum, opinion differed. A few favored control by a select minority. These few accomplished their aim as far as the federal government was concerned by introducing into the constitution checks and balances which made popular control impossible. Most men, however, favored a rather broad popular control; and they made their influence felt in the state constitutions by providing for a fair measure of democracy.

Nothing indicates more clearly that the framers of the federal constitution did not believe that the functions of government were going to be extended to any great extent than their failure to provide for political parties. They feared factions and parties, but they thought that they had effectually guarded against them. Like the proverbial ostrich, they stuck their heads in the sand and refused to see the approaching danger. The parties soon came; men did not look upon the government with the same disinterestedness that the Fathers had hoped for. They meant to use the government. The plans for using the government were for a long time indefinite and unorganized. For the most part, men were interested in gaining a place of honor and profit with now and then a chance to “make a haul.”

The first party to come into power was the Federalist. Its leader was Hamilton and its ranks contained Washington, Adams, and Marshall. It is often said that the Federalists stood for an extension of the functions of government and a larger control of the individual. Such statements are only partly true. At that time there was little need for much governmental interference in private affairs. There was great need of strengthening the central government, and to that end the Federalists bent most of their efforts. The Federalists, however, firmly believed in the domination of government by the few rather than by the many. The decisions of John Marshall as chief justice of the Supreme Court did more to intrench property and vested interests behind the bulwarks of law than any other single factor. Two things, then, the Federalists particularly emphasized: that the central government should be strong and that it should be controlled in the interests of the few.

The Republican-Democrats, or Democrats, who came into power in 1801, and retained control of the government with slight interruptions ¹ until the Civil War, opposed the tendency to strengthen the national government and in fact opposed all government. To them government was a necessary evil, and the less there was of it the better. They therefore fought the central bank and the protective tariff and advocated non-interference in the question of slavery. Although the Democrats of this period believed in non-use of gove...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Introduction to the Transaction Edition
• Part I The Origin and Development of the Progressive Movement
• Part II The Progressive Movement in the Nation
• Part III The Progressive Movement in the State
• Part IV The Progressive Movement in the City
• Index