You Want a More 'Progressive' America? Voters Should Remember What Happened Under Woodrow Wilson.

Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action. Progressivism is often viewed by some conservatives, constitutionalists, and libertarians to be in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies.

The Progressive Movement began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women.

The term progressivism emerged in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and, despite being associated with left-wing politics, to the various more radical streams of communism or anarchism.

Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

According to Wilson, "If America is not to have free enterprise, he can have freedom of no sort whatever." In presenting his policy, Wilson warned that New Nationalism represented collectivism, while New Freedom stood for political and economic liberty from such things as trusts (powerful monopolies).

Although Wilson and Roosevelt agreed that economic power was being abused by trusts, Wilson ideas split with Roosevelt on how the government should handle the restraint of private power as in dismantling corporations that had too much economic power in a large society.

Wilson reduced tariffs and signed the Federal Reserve Act creating the Federal Reserve System. The revenue lost by a lower tariff was replaced by a new federal income tax.

New Nationalism was Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive political philosophy during the 1912 election. The central issue he argued was government protection of human welfare and property rights, but he also argued that human welfare was more important than property rights. He insisted that only a powerful federal government could regulate the economy and guarantee social justice, and that a President can only succeed in making his economic agenda successful if he makes the protection of human welfare his highest priority. Roosevelt believed that the concentration in industry was a natural part of the economy. He wanted executive agencies (not the courts) to regulate business. The federal government should be used to protect the laboring men, women and children from exploitation. In terms of policy, Roosevelt's platform included a broad range of social and political reforms advocated by progressives.

In the social sphere the platform called for:
A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled.
Limited injunctions in strikes.
A minimum wage law for women.
An eight hour workday.
A federal securities commission.
Farm relief.
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries.
An inheritance tax.
A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax.

The political reforms proposed included:
Women's suffrage.
Direct election of Senators.
Primary elections for state and federal nominations.
However, the main theme of the platform was an attack on the domination of politics by business interests, which allegedly controlled both established parties.

The platform asserted that:
To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.

To that end, the platform called for:
Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions.
Registration of lobbyists.
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings.

TR was a true Progressive. Many of the reforms he called for 100 years ago are exactly what Progressives are calling for today. Progressive = people. Liberalism was a conservative movement to liberalize business from government regulations.

I am a Progressive. Go Bull Moose!

Here's the name of a real Progressive -Henry A. Wallace

Sounds like the GOP of today are neowilsonians...what Wilson did is not the ideology I embrace. Especially the part about creating the Federal Reserve....that was the most terrible of his accomplishments.

The GOP must have read his book and adopted his thinking, interesting.

A very good article contrasting the liberals of the day, who thought as Wilson did, to the Progressives, the disciples of Teddy Roosevelt, and his school of thought. Quite different aren't they.

The traits mentioned in this article as progressive were also demonstrated by Nixon, Reagan, and George W... This is also around the same time of the turnaround in political parties. The fact that this labels someone as progressive, then flies into a rant on how the man had anti progressive stances undermines any point trying to be made. I could call Stalin a Communist but that does not make him anything remotely similar to one.

Imho, a progressive might be defined is someone who advocates the
decentralization of power of all types. An end to Monopoilies. Equal
opportunity in education, employment. housing, voting. That seems
to me to infer a progressive would seek to promote as many political
parties as possible so that whatever may be the status quo for future
generations of Americans will exist to serve them equaly as it does
the essentials of our Heritage: eg plurality, accountable Government etc.
I favor Theodore Roosevelt's ideas over Wilson's because Roosevelt
was a New Yorker who lived in the West to toughen up and find out
what the other side of the coin was like before he returned to New York
to become police commissioner of NYC, Governor, then President.
Unless I'm mistaken, I've heard FDR was his cousin. If that's true to
fact, they both had the common denominater of being uncorrupted.
One called himself a Republican, the other a Democrat, but beyond
the designer labels they were both great Presidents, genuine executive
material. So, again imho, they were humanitarianly oriented compared
to those who believe we're all property which others with more property
have superior rights of ownership/use to. My grandfather was a con
temporary of T.R. and had faith in him as a leader. My mom told me
FRD was very controversial, but also a strong leader. Both my mom
and her father lived thru the Great Depression, were of modest means,
and very charitable citizens w/o criminal records. These 2 presidents
were considered progressive in their approach to Government. I get
the idea that Wilson was in practice anything but a person of principle.

*YAWN*

Liberals and Progressives actually believe in the free market, and capitalism. However, we're smart enough to realize that there's only so much money to go around.
There is no such thing as growth in wealth. It's an illusion made-up so that people think their wealth is increasing from nothing. It's what made the Stock market such a success. However, take into account of what money really is. It's an idea that something is valuable. Paper money, was once substitution for Gold held by the government on behalf of it's owners (the American people). It is no longer based on that. Care to guess what it represents now?

If more Gold is discovered it decreases the VALUE of GOLD. Those who currently own gold will have less money, magically. Just as when more Dollars are printed, the dollar is valued less, because they're more common.
Money is an idea.

With that being said, the is, and will always be the same amount of wealth on the earth. If more Gold, Oil, or Diamonds are discovered, it doesn't increase the value of it, it does the opposite...it also decreases the value of money, as now there is more money in the system. In short..there is only 100% of the pie. There always will be, and there will never be more than 100%.

Now, if you trick people into thinking money grows, and you hide it's actual value, then you can trick people into gambling with it so that you can gain from their loss. You transfer their money to you...or rather their percent of the pie. -That is the only way to increase one's wealth, is to transfer one's percentage to you.
Done enough times, you become rich...but you do so, at another's loss.

What happens when the percentage you acquire is at a rate beyond what you can spend? -Well, then you have a hole in the economy. You have something which takes, but does not give back at a sustainable rate.

Done enough times, then the left over percentage held by the majority is no longer sufficient to sustain their needs for life.

The free market cannot be left unchecked, without some sort of balance.
If so, then we will have a plutocracy and a two-class nation where there are those who are extremely rich, and those who are extremely poor.
Those who are rich, and in power, will do everything they can to KEEP it that way.
This is not a healthy system of economy. It is how slaves are made.

The fact that the poster and author of this piece show bigoted bias of what they view as the "progressive boogie man", leads me to believe that these people do not have sufficient skills to think for themselves, and cannot be trusted to lead a group of people out of a wet paper sack.

Wilson was an asshole, but that's really not what people are talking about when they mean "Progressive."

Seriously, how many times does someone have to mention FDR or JFK or LBJ before you understand what they believe?

You're either really clueless or purposefully trying to pretend "Progressives" believe something they don't.