The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Unreasonable Men
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
THE DISCUSSION IS OPEN - WEEK ONE - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: UNREASONABLE MEN - April 11th - April 17th - Preface and Chapter One - The Bolt - (pages 1 - 30) - No Spoilers, please
message 152:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 05:59PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
In this day and age where we do not have an agrarian society - it is difficult for many to "root hog or die" or to grow their own food or sew their own clothes or be able to even afford their own transportation, etc. It is tough out there.
It is hard to understand why the Republicans would be against food safety inspections and some of these other proposals which safeguard the population. Look at what happened with the water supply in Flint, Michigan - now that is a situation which needs federal attention across the country.
It was easier when there were core extended families who all stood together and assisted one another.
Michael wrote: "Hana wrote: "Is anyone up to speed on the tariff issue? Wolraich sort of skims over it without explaining."Hana, the tariff is a complex issue that I felt I could not do justice to in Chapter 1. ..."
Michael, I am looking forward to Chapter 7. Like Hana, I don't know a lot about tariffs. I sort of break them into two groups one for protection and the other for revenue.
message 154:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 06:06PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
The author caught my attention in the first paragraph.
"At the dawn of the twentieth Century, America was in a Crisis. The gap between the rich and poor was growing...."
I couldn't help th..."
Very true Jim - Jim have you answered the preliminary discussion questions in message 5 or tried you hand at the Epigraph discussion questions in message 100.
The preliminary questions are a great way for all us to get to know each other and share some viewpoints. We are all coming from different perspectives so it is nice to share and then read back what you wrote at the end and see if you changed your mind on any of them.
Also I think there is great discontent across the country for a variety of reasons - jobs, jobs, jobs, salaries, benefits, the American dream, the cost of living, the cost of healthcare and transportation, broken infrastructure, eroding values, cost of education, etc.
Mod
Hello Glynn and welcome - I am sorry that it has taken this long for me to welcome you officially. There has been a lot for me to read through.
That is very interesting about your wife working at Sagamore Hill.
Please post your comments about any aspect of the Preface or Chapter One that you would like to discuss with others. I too believe that there will be a contested convention coming out of this primary season.
Hopefully you will learn something along the way about progressive politics. We always learn from each other and remember there is the author's thread where you can post any question that you might have about the book itself or about Theodore Roosevelt or progressive politics.
message 156:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 06:25PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Lacey I hear you - welcome to the conversation - all the way from the great state of Mississippi. It sounds like you are "feeling the Bern" and that is OK. Everybody is coming from different places.
This has been one of the most outlandish primary seasons that I have ever seen - I knew that this would be the case when we had so many candidates running who were trying to represent the Republican party. It started out as a "circus" and I am afraid that the convention might end up being the "big top".
Let us hope that the Republican party can hold it together for the sake of the country and not try to out maneuver whoever the top vote getter happens to be - even it is Trump.
As far as the Democratic side of the fence - I think the two candidates are vastly better behaved than the Republican side of the fence but things could heat up.
Sadly some of the conversations and important items being discussed in this book are still the same important topics being debated today.
Please discuss anything in Chapter One for example that you would like to discuss that you found interesting.
Mod
Sorry, I am a little late to the party. Somehow I missed the opening. (My fault.)
I will post my responses to the questions in another post.
I am very interested in this book and look forward..."
Jim I just read your responses and I wonder what frustrated you the most about the debates and what were you expecting that did not happen.
Why do you feel that Bernie Sanders is the only progressive candidate. Remember TR and LaFollette were on the Republican side of the fence. Have the parties changed their focus from your viewpoint or has the country changed and has the American spirit and generosity to their fellow man changed. Do you think it is because Americans do not feel that somebody or anybody is watching out for them including their government? Is that why a candidate like Bernie Sanders even has a chance?
If TR or LaFollette were running today - or a Taft or a Woodrow Wilson - do you think these kinds of men would have a shot at the presidency. Why or why not?
This is a question not only for Jim but for any of the group members.
Page 11Somehow in my reading about American History, I hadn't heard of McClure's Magazine until two or three years ago. The part of Chapter One about Lincoln Steffens and his work with McClure's Magazine was fascinating. The quote on Page 13 "You are getting off wrong. La Follette isn't dishonest. On the contrary, the man is dangerous precisely because he is so sincere." My mind could not see how anyone could see this trait and a fault.
As the story continued, I couldn't believe that the Stalwarts thought that the article was going to favor their position over the La Follette.
From my reading I had the impression that McClure's Magazine was a liberal magazine and was used at times by T. Roosevelt to put issues in front of people.
I did find the article mentioned in this chapter.
McClure's Magazine:
Article
Mod
Not at all John and I love your quote about robbing Peter to pay Paul (humorous Shaw)
message 160:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 06:47PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
However, in an important way, Wolraich portrays TR as heist..."
Very true - I think the "iconic branding" of TR - the rough riders, the brash and bold figure - is what comes to people's minds versus a "reasoned man".
Bryan - you stated the following - "However, in an important way, Wolraich portrays TR as hesitant about reforms. You wonder if he is realized that he had to govern, so he did not want to alienate some major players or is it an evolution in his thinking, maybe, possibly both."
I think it is fair to say that some leaders grow into their position and change their stances and views over time and realize that once they are walking in the shoes of the decision maker and they are the person who has to make it right for all walks of life - they have to step back and look at things a bit differently. So I think your hypothesis is a very fair assessment.
Does anybody else have comments on TR and the changes that they saw in him over time or were you surprised at the type of man he was in Chapter One? Does that jive with the "packaged image" of him that you had or have?
Bentley wrote: "Jim wrote: "Hi, Sorry, I am a little late to the party. Somehow I missed the opening. (My fault.)
I will post my responses to the questions in another post.
I am very interested in this book and..."
message 162:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 06:53PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
4. What do you think of ..."
Thank you John for circling back -
Always look for a book cover for your book - you may have to look under other
by Polybius (no photo)John, you may want to take a look at the Mechanics of the board thread and the citations thread.
by
George Bernard Shaw
Mod
I disagree in terms of the executive orders as being laws but I understand where you are coming from.
Mod
Kacy- you are well informed and you gave many accurate examples. I can see why you are for the "Bernie" (smile). I like Hillary Clinton and I prefer her more moderate stance. On the Republican side I would have liked to see a moderate with a better chance - I think folks have been made to feel embarrassed if they are for Hillary or for Trump or for Cruz - I do think that Bernie Sanders has some "proud and indefatigable standard bearers for him" If nothing else he has moved certain age groups.
Welcome to the conversation.
message 165:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 07:16PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Hello Helga - the Republicans and the Democrats have very different ways of handling the various states and delegates. However all of those rules have been in place no matter who has been running - so Bernie has the same advantages and disadvantages as Hillary and is working under the same rules which he and she knew about from the beginning.
As far as Trump, Cruz and Kasich - let's face it the Republican establishment wanted Rubio and Kasich to stay in as long as possible to erode Trump getting to the magic number. Well that is their prerogative but I do hope they give the top primary vote getter their support otherwise if it is a brokered convention - things might backfire for the Republicans. It would be nice to have seen Kasich do better but it was not to be - and Cruz is not a friend to anybody in the Senate so it is interesting that he would get any of their support aside from the fact that they are under duress.
It is a very difficult primary and I am sure that things will not turn out the way everybody wants them to turn out. Even Trump's children cannot vote for him in the New York Primary. And Bernie did not get his organization on the ground fast enough to work within the rules established long before he was a contender. So it is nothing personal for any of these candidates.
I have to wonder how the Republican party has changed so much since the days of Theodore Roosevelt and why?
What surprised you the most in Chapter One about Theodore Roosevelt or about LaFollette or about our government?
Bentley wrote:Jim I just read your responses and I wonder what frustrated you the most about the debates and what were you expecting that did not happen.
What frustrated me most on the Republican side was the name calling and cutting people off as they were talking. I think part of the problem was the number of candidates who were participating. They only had a few minutes to talk and impress people. The candidates did not seem "presidential" in what that had to say and how they behaved.
Why do you feel that Bernie Sanders is the only progressive candidate. Remember TR and LaFollette were on the Republican side of the fence. Have the parties changed their focus from your viewpoint or has the country changed and has the American spirit and generosity to their fellow man changed. Do you think it is because Americans do not feel that somebody or anybody is watching out for them including their government? Is that why a candidate like Bernie Sanders even has a chance?
First, I am not a Bernie supporter. However, I think he is the person that put forth the most issues. Also he made Clinton take a stand on his issues.
If TR or LaFollette were running today - or a Taft or a Woodrow Wilson - do you think these kinds of men would have a shot at the presidency. Why or why not?
That is a really tough question. I think TR and LaFollette might have a shot. TR did avoid taking a clear stand on some issues and might have fallen by the wayside. LaFollette in some ways is like Bernie. They both had a way of talking to people that makes people think they care. (Although, LaFollette may have come out sounding like Ross Perot. I bet you didn't think you would see his name come up in this conversation.)
That leaves me with Taft and Wilson. I don't think either of them would win. They are both to intellectual and sometimes did not relate to people well. I think Wilson would have a better chance than Taft. Taft may not have ever been president if he didn't have the support of TR. From what I have read Taft was pressured by his wife to run for president and she wanted to be in the White House more than her husband.
I look forward to hear what others have to say. I am sure they will have better responses than what I have put forth.
Bentley- sorry about the covers, I looked for a little bit, but gave up too soon. I'll look over the mechanics thread again. I am obviously more rusty than I thought. :) To your question about if we think any of these guys could get elected today? I don't think so, and it's primarily because of one thing: television. The question assumes we take the past candidates as they were and place them in today's election climate. TV changed politics, for good or ill, in the 1950s, and especially with Presidential elections in the 60s. Mudslinging would have been new to them, it has been around for a while. But I think all of them would be taken aback by the amount of it today, baffled by soundbites and being packaged for TV. Taft would be made to go on a diet, La Follette would be advised to get a makeover and asked to tone things down for one audience and pump it up for another and TR would have had to get caps for his teeth and shave off the moustache. Then when asked for their platform and views by a TV host, they would begin to explain, told to cut it short, and then asked about the Kardashians.
message 168:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 07:28PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Jim I just read your responses and I wonder what frustrated you the most about the debates and what were you expecting that did not happen.
What frustrated me most on the Republica..."
I have to agree with you Jim that the candidates did not look presidential - young Rubio had his moments at times. Very true Jim - he has pushed Hillary from her moderate stance much more to the left. You are making me laugh at Ross Perot but I was one of those who liked his charts (smile) - you know he changed the primary season too - it was interesting watching LaFollette speak and the dramatics of it all and his holding his papers which his speech was on (now we have the teleprompter). I have to agree with you about Taft - without TR - he would not have been president from my viewpoint but he did have a lot of "political instinct". Wilson was a brainiac - but he also had certain viewpoints which may not have made him that popular - of course he lived in different times.
TR I think would have been able to make it in today's world and in this political season.
Note - in the glossary we have posted some videos of LaFollette actually making one of his speeches. It is interesting to watch.
message 169:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 07:34PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
To your question about if ..."
No problem at all John - we are here to help (smile)
You are right about LaFollette - the hair would have had to go and be tamed. Taft - I do not think would have made it but I think TR might have. He was wealthy enough to get his teeth laminated and I think he had a manly appearance which would have appealed to people. I think he would have stood a chance - he was brash and bold enough and had charisma.
As far as the state of the so called television debates - they are really abominable and they are not a debate at all. Just some questions being volleyed back and forth from some journalists who believe they are more astute than they really are. If you get a chance to watch any of the older debates like between Kennedy and Nixon at one of the Presidential libraries - you are reminded of what a debate use to look like when the candidates were knowledgeable, articulate, and well prepared and took these things seriously. Not a free for all. So you are correct in that regard.
message 170:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 07:51PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Somehow in my reading about American History, I hadn't heard of McClure's Magazine until two or three years ago. The part of Chapter One about Lincoln Steffens and his work with McClure's..."
Jim that is a great article - can you place that also in the glossary - so it does not get lost. I think everybody should read it.
What is funny is that one of the things that they had against LaFollette was that "he kept his promises" - what a novel concept (smile).
This is a little write-up about McClure's magazine which began as more of a "muckraking" publication and ended up being revamped into a ladies magazine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McClure...
More:
Another interesting write-up from the Allegheny College site: (Ida Tarbell, McClure's, progressivism - all discussed)
http://sites.allegheny.edu/tarbell/mc...
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG00/reka...
http://sites.allegheny.edu/tarbell/mc...
There is also an edition on the History of Standard Oil (Ida Tarbell) which I am adding here:
https://thepowerofthefrontcover.wordp...
by Steve Weinberg (no image)
McClure's Magazine cover (November 1902). At the top we can read: ‘History of the Standard Oil, by Ida Tarbell’. The mini headline had nothing in common with the illustration, although it is curious that they put angels to talk about the "mischiefs" of Rockefeller.
Mod
Hana, the tariff is a complex issue that I felt I could not do justice t..."
Chapter Seven should be interesting and remember at any time you can post any questions you have for Michael on the Q&A thread and that is a spoiler thread so he can answer anything on that thread.
message 172:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 07:57PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Welcome Robyn from New Mexico. You might want to circle back to message 5 and try to respond to the preliminary questions which are a lot of fun to answer so that we can share where everybody is coming from and you can circle back when you finish reading the book and see whether you have changed your mind or learned something new.
Mod
Message 5 Nita - I hope you will give them a whirl here.
message 174:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 08:10PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Ann D - I was reading your responses to the preliminary questions and I felt they could have been my responses - even though you are sitting in Nebraska and I am in NYC.
I extracted these segments because I think they are areas where we should have more discussion and ask our author about what he really meant or why he felt the way he did. We do have the Q&A thread where you can drill down and ask him the questions that you feel you would like answered.
Ann D posted - I am particularly interested in this book because of the parallels I see with our own time – corporate political corruption, a do-nothing Congress, and a liberal incrementalist in contrast with a “progressive” firebrand. (Clinton/Roosevelt vs. La Follett/ Sanders).
I only know about Roosevelt in general terms- questionable foreign policy, progressive domestic policy. However, Wolraich already seems to question the effectiveness of TR’s reform efforts. I am curious to learn more.
@Michael - is Ann D correct that already you seem to question the effectiveness of TR's reform efforts? Would you compare Roosevelt to Clinton and LaFollette to Bernie Sanders? Are they apt comparisons - why or why not?
message 175:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 14, 2016 08:25PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
a) How do you define progressivism, progressive politics, the progressive movement? When did it begin? Are there different phases of progressivism or progressive politics during different time frames in this country? Explain all of these chronologically if possible.
b) What leaders or presidents do you term as being progressives?
Were LaFollette and TR both progressives - Why or why not? Were they the first progressives? If not, who were the first?
c) Has the progressive movement or progressive politics always been resident in our parties or has it moved back and forth between them? When did progressive politics begin and is it something that we should consider positive for our country? How effective has it been historically? What reforms or legislation do you deem "progressive'? Is Obamacare considered to be progressive?
d) Which current candidates do you consider progressive and why and which ones do you not consider to be progressive. Are the Republicans today able to be considered progressive? If so, which Republicans? What about the Democrats? Are they considered to be "progressives"? If so, which Democrats?
e) Is progressive politics resident in both the Republican and Democratic platforms today? Or does it only belong currently to the Democratic view or policies? When did that change from the progressive politics of TR?
Mod
For the recipients of the book offer who have not posted - as part of the t's and c's you must get started and this is the weekly thread to do just that.
For others who have purchased the book and are reading with us, do not be shy - just post and you will be welcomed and just move along with the rest of us. Everybody is welcome.
Mod
EXCERPTS
The Progressive Era was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States, from the 1890s to 1920s.
The main objective of the Progressive movement was eliminating corruption in government.
The movement primarily targeted political machines and their bosses. By taking down these corrupt representatives in office a further means of direct democracy would be established. They also sought regulation of monopolies (Trust Busting) and corporations through antitrust laws. These antitrust laws were seen as a way to promote equal competition for the advantage of legitimate competitors.
Many progressives supported Prohibition in the United States in order to destroy the political power of local bosses based in saloons.
At the same time, women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena. A second theme was building an Efficiency Movement in every sector that could identify old ways that needed modernizing, and bring to bear scientific, medical and engineering solutions; a key part of the efficiency movement was scientific management, or "Taylorism".
Many activists joined efforts to reform local government, public education, medicine, finance, insurance, industry, railroads, churches, and many other areas. Progressives transformed, professionalized and made "scientific" the social sciences, especially history, economics, and political science. In academic fields the day of the amateur author gave way to the research professor who published in the new scholarly journals and presses.
The national political leaders included Theodore Roosevelt, Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and Charles Evans Hughes on the Republican side, and William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson and Al Smith on the Democratic side.
Initially the movement operated chiefly at local levels; later, it expanded to state and national levels.
Progressives drew support from the middle class, and supporters included many lawyers, teachers, physicians, ministers and business people.
The Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family.
They closely followed advances underway at the time in Western Europe and adopted numerous policies, such as a major transformation of the banking system by creating the Federal Reserve System in 1913.
Reformers felt that old-fashioned ways meant waste and inefficiency, and eagerly sought out the "one best system".
War
Although the Progressive Era was characterized by public support for World War I under Woodrow Wilson, there was also a substantial opposition to World War I.
Decline of the Progressive Era - THIS GIVES US A TIMELINE
In the 1940s typically historians saw the Progressive Era as a prelude to the New Deal and dated it from 1901 (when Roosevelt became president) to the start of World War I in 1914 or 1917. Historians have moved back in time emphasizing the Progressive reformers at the municipal and state levels in the 1890s.
Source: Wikipedia - link to remainder of article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progres...
Who were the Progressive Presidents?
Theodore Roosevelt
William Howard Taft
Woodrow Wilson
Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-09 (top), William Howard Taft, 1909-13 (middle), and Woodrow Wilson, 1913-21 (bottom) are often referred to as the "Progressive Presidents"; their administrations saw intense social and political change in American society.
Bentley wrote: "@Michael - is Ann D correct that already you seem to question the effectiveness of TR's reform efforts?"This is a terrific question, Bentley, but hard to answer without spoilers. TR's effectiveness in driving legislative reform is central to the book. I can say in this thread that he didn't achieve much reform in his first term. He pushed the Panama Canal treaty through Congress, but that wasn't domestic. He mediated a major coal strike and broke up the Northern Securities railroad trust, but these were not legislative reforms. His most significant legislative achievement during his first term was probably the creation of the Department of Commerce and Labor, but the new department had little authority.
Earlier, Bryan wrote, "Wolraich portrays TR as hesitant about reforms. You wonder if he is realized that he had to govern, so he did not want to alienated some major players or it is an evolution in his thinking, maybe, possibly both."
I think this is a great question, and I'd be interested to see readers takes on it.
Bentley wrote: "Would you compare Roosevelt to Clinton and LaFollette to Bernie Sanders? Are they apt comparisons - why or why not? "I do see parallels, TR's description of himself as a "practical man" is similar Clinton's comment about being "a progressive who likes to get things done." La Follette's dismissal of "half a loaf" legislation and his denunciations of corporate influence are reminiscent of Sanders.
But more fundamentally, I see parallels in their strategies for achieving political change. TR and Clinton seek incremental change through negotiation with their opponents. LF and Sanders seek revolutionary change by building a movement to defeat their opponents.
Bentley wrote: "Simonetta - the problem is that with the different branches of government there are specific roles and responsibilities - the Executive Branch (the President), the Judiciary Branch (the Supreme Cou..."I understand the checks and balance system. I am not sure if a president's executive action allows for checks and balances, but I will understand more, since TR adopted it enough to trouble his own party (and I am sure we'll read more about it in this book).
You say it's hard to understand why Republicans were against some measures. According to Michael Wolrach, it seems that they feared "proposals that would have expanded the size and power of the federal government." Since this fear is still present today, I would like to understand more how it developed. I have never heard historical reasons for it. Also, Michael Wolrach said it's different than the fears of the Tea Party, and I am hoping to understand the distinction.
Bentley wrote: "Michael I think you are the best person to begin leading a discussion on progressivism. You might want to begin digging in to the questions below..."Great questions, Bentley. I won't have time to answer them all, but I'm happy to get the ball rolling.
In a well-regarded article, "In Search of Progressivism," historian Daniel Rodgers wrote:
A historical sketch of the term “progressivism” has yet to be written. The label “progressive," which Woodrow Wilson was still explaining as a "new term” in January 1911, came into vogue during the 1910 electoral campaigns. The phrase "progressive movement" was a product of 1912.
This is incorrect. Bob La Follette referred to "the progressive movement" as early as 1906, the first use of the phrase that I could find. Before 1912, progressivism was particularly associated with Republican insurgents like LF, in contrast with Democratic "populists" like William Jennings Bryan. Woodrow Wilson coopted the term "progressive" when he ran for president in 1912.
Progressive ideology was fairly indistinct at first, just a loose collection of reform ideas. If I were forced to name a couple defining principles from this era, they would be:
1) Reform political corruption
2) Regulate corporations
Notably, the early progressives did not demand racial equality, and many were openly racist. LF was ahead of his time in opposing racial discrimination, but it was not a high priority for him.
Progressivism has obviously evolved since those days, but I find it interesting that the two principles I mentioned have recently returned to the forefront of progressive politics.
Mod
1. So with the above timeline in mind (message 180) - are we correct in thinking that we have progressive candidates today? Why or Why not?
2. Should we have more progressive elements in our parties' platforms and in our candidates goals and campaign promises? Should we be looking for candidates who seek these kinds of goals or aspirations for our country? Why or why not?
3. Did you think that progressivism and progressive politics was something that continued through today? Do you think that progressivism was good or bad? Good for our country or not? Do you wish for the days of candidates who bring back these goals and ideals? Or are you a "root hog or die" kind of individual (smile).
4. How many of you view Obamacare as progressivism? Do you think that as a country we should be insisting that our candidates and leaders become more progressive and insist on infrastructure upgrades and the need to eliminate waste and inefficiency while at the same time looking at the best ways of doing things for the country and at the federal and state level?
5. What are the positives of progressivism and progressive politics? What do you think are the negatives or potential pitfalls? How come something as progressive as the New Deal seemed to be the ending of the Progressive Movement and era. Was it because FDR was also a progressive? If so, why isn't he identified as one? Did World War II and the somber events and realities of that war ruin the "good feeling" and positive attitudes that folks had in terms of helping their fellow man? Did World War II and the atrocities of that war and Hitler change the psyche of the world in general? Was the fact that FDR was in office as long as he was and then died in office before the end of World War II finish off "progressive politics" as we knew it? Harry Truman was a very different sort of man and president - did he contribute to its demise?
6. Is it fair to say that the Progressive Era and movement is over and was over by the time FDR came into office? Or not? Are we just seeing elements of the old progressive era in some candidates today and applying labels that are not necessarily applicable?
7. Do you consider Obama to be a progressive president? Why or Why not?
Please consider all of the questions above and feel free to post your thoughts and ideas about any of them or all of them? If you have other questions post those and we can also discuss the elements of those queries.
Mod
This is a terrific question, Bentley, but hard to answer without spoilers. ..."
Thank you Michael for jumping in and I want you to take a bit more of a lead in this area which is the foundational idea of the book itself and one where I think you would have a lot of "accurate" information. So please dive right in on these areas and direct and ask some questions yourself which will make our readers and group members think. Thinking and analyzing is all good (smile).
Mod
I do see parallels, TR's description of himself as a "practice..."
Wow that is a really interesting analogy and comparison. That statement could turn into a thread of posts in and of itself (smile) - love it. I think I see myself then more of a TR kind of person - don't want us going up in flames or throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Do you see any progressive "elements" in any of the Republican candidates? Or is that where the "root hog or die" philosophy is alive and well (smile). You did not mention them.
Thank you so much Bentley and Michael for elaborating on the goals of the Progressive Movement. It filled in a lot of gaps in my knowledge.Simonetta questioned the rationale of many in opposing the reforms which would lead to an increased role for the federal government.
In discussing the very powerful House Speaker, Joe Cannon, Wolraich said the following, which really resonated with me because Cannon's attitude is still so widespread today:
Cannon's personal success had made him an inveterate optimist. Having raised himself from the dirt floor of a log cabin to the pinnacle of power, he saw no reason why any hard-working American who put his mind to it should not do the same".
p. 7
The idea is that if you are not successful, it is your own fault. Do something about it. This attitude also magnifies the personal achievements of those who hold the view -even though they may have received great help from their own families.
As a Nebraskan, I am thinking particularly of our very conservative governor Pete Ricketts and certain members of his own family who are spending great sums to influence the political process.
message 186:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 15, 2016 08:30AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Great questions, Bentley. I wo..."
I do too Michael - I do not really see Sanders as being a true progressive (JMHO) - I see him "channeling and embedding elements" of progressivism into his campaign stumping and speeches and what he states are his campaign promises.
I see more of a socialistic bent and of course I am not talking about socialism as many Americans have been brainwashed. There are many misunderstandings that are still prevalent today since McCarthyism - there are differences between communism and European style socialism which is alive and well in the UK for example.
I think many other folks here would disagree with me and would mark Sanders as a progressive - because the 24x7 entertainment newscasters have labeled Sanders as such - as being a Progressive Candidate. And have labeled Clinton as the moderate.
Thank you for posting the article and also for expressing the differences you have with it. This helps the group members.
Ann wrote: "Thank you so much Bentley and Michael for elaborating on the goals of the Progressive Movement. It filled in a lot of gaps in my knowledge.Simonetta questioned the rationale of many in opposing t..."
Great quote, Ann! It really depicts the mentality of many who see the world through the lens of their own experience. I think it's a natural instinct and it's comfortable and easy.
message 188:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 15, 2016 08:38AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
You posted:
Progressivism has obviously evolved since those days, but I find it interesting that the two principles I mentioned have recently returned to the forefront of progressive politics.
In other words am I correct in stating that even though the Progressive Era ended with FDR's New Deal (and I am trying to understand why) - that Progressive Politics is still a set of ideas that is still alive depending upon when a candidate or president wants to incorporate them in whatever program they are trying to roll out to the country which they feel is innovative, will help the average man and is a "best idea" to eliminate waste or inefficiency. Or to eliminate political corruption or regulate corporations?
Or are you saying that some candidates are just "channeling" these philosophic ideas but that Progressive Politics ended with FDR.
Your statement seems to indicate otherwise.
Bentley wrote: "Do you see any progressive "elements" in any of the Republican candidates? Or is that where the "root hog or die" philosophy is alive and well (smile). You did not mention them."I do see suspicion of corporate interests creeping into today's right-wing, particularly the accusations of "crony capitalism." But I'll save this discussion for later chapters where there are better parallels.
Bentley wrote: "Or are you saying that some candidates are just "channeling" these philosophic ideas but that Progressive Politics ended with FDR."I think it depends how broadly you define progressivism--as a specific historical movement or as an evolving ideology. The first ended with FDR; the second is ongoing.
Generally, when I speak of the Progressive Movement, I refer to the former, but when I speak of progressivism and progressives, I refer to the latter, which could have caused some confusion.
I don't quite follow what you mean by channeling. I believe that Sanders is serious about breaking up banks and banning corporate contributions, both of which are classically progressive ideas that LF would likely have endorsed. Is that channeling?
message 191:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 15, 2016 08:55AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Simonetta questioned the rationale of many in opposing t..."
Very interesting post Ann D. Our country is vastly different now - and not a primarily agrarian one nowadays.
Although in your parts - you are more in the thick of farming areas than in most of the industrialized parts of the country - but then again I am not an authority on Nebraska (smile).
How anyone believes that inner city folks can survive without being able to grow their own food, make their own clothing or pay for their rent or transportation is beyond me. Industrialized areas do not have those natural fallbacks.
But nonetheless there are folks who are still embracing those philosophies for maybe a number of reasons:
a) it is easier to preach rather than to give - cheaper too and makes them appear righteous;
b) it is easier to say that this self sufficient work ethic is closest to godliness and that those who are not able to subscribe are a worthless lot who do not deserve any help - "root hog or die";
c) if it costs money out of my own or their own pocket book - then they are not for charity - that is for other people - not for the good Americans who are trying to put food on their own table never mind the corporations who are taking their jobs elsewhere or not paying adequate wages;
d) they are against any other federal programs and want everything to be paid for in advance aside from wars which they are very willing to fight and get the country in debt. And the list of reasons can go on and on.
Very sad but very self evident.
I would like to ask you a question Ann D since I am not familiar with Nebraska like you are - could you explain your statement - although it sounds like it is going to sound more like the "root hog or die" theory - but I wanted to understand more and not jump to any conclusions. You stated the following.
Ann stated - "I am thinking particularly of our very conservative governor Pete Ricketts and certain members of his own family who are spending great sums to influence the political process.
Question for the group. Do you see connections between La Follette's campaign for direct primaries and Donald Trump's accusation that the Republican primary is "rigged?"
Mod
I think it depends how broadly you define progress..."
I think that Sanders is short on "execution details" but that is (JMHO).
I don't see Sanders as a "true progressive" in the TR sense or Wilson or Taft for that matter. Maybe some similarities to LaFollette but I will withhold judgement on that for now.
And I am sure that there are a host of folks who will disagree with me and that is OK too - all good.
Mod
I..."
That will be a very interesting discussion.
message 195:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 15, 2016 09:25AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I think it depends how broadly you define progress..."
Got it - you are making a distinction between the historical movement and that timeframe which we have discussed above and the ideology which you are more focused on in the book (progressivism and progressives) - what you define as an evolving ideology in the book. Thx for making that distinction.
message 196:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 15, 2016 09:30AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Simonetta - I think that some have been against those things since the founding fathers and formulating the constitution and The Federalist Papers - (opposite point of view - The Anti-Federalist Papers).
message 197:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 15, 2016 09:39AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
message 195: by Michael 41 minutes ago
Michael Wolraich (wolraich) |
Question for the group.
Do you see connections between La Follette's campaign for direct primaries and Donald Trump's accusation that the Republican primary is "rigged?"
Re: question about direct primaries and Trump's accusation that primaries are rigged:I don't know if " rigged" is the word I would use or not, but historically presidential candidates have been chosen by the party bosses than by direct primary votes. "Smoke-filled rooms" and all that...There has always been maneuvering in the conventions to choos a candidate.
Michael wrote: "Question for the group. Do you see connections between La Follette's campaign for direct primaries and Donald Trump's accusation that the Republican primary is "rigged?""I definitely do see some connections between the two political figures and their belief that the political system was stacked against them, but sometimes that may not be a bad thing.
I've been thinking about this a lot, but political parties were not meant to be democratic, but rather to organize people around a shared set of identity markers, either cultural or ideological, choose candidates with the best chances of winning a general election, and promote their candidates on the campaign trail. In political science terms, political parties were created to overcome the collective action problems that inherent to elections in a large democratic nation-state like the United States. Primaries were a way of putting a check on the political bosses from corrupting the electoral system. However, with the breakdown of party loyalty in the center and the rise of more ideological candidates in both parties, one of the consequences you have of primaries where few but the most diehard conservative and liberal voters go to the polls, its hard not think that party elites can be a valuable check on too much democracy in the present age.
Fareed Zakaria, author of The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, has a great opinion piece in the Washington Post this week that I think better explains this. Here is the link to his op-ed piece: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...
by
Fareed Zakaria
Bentley wrote: "Folks don't miss any of the Progressive discussion questions in 180 or 185 and don't miss Michael Wolraich's question: - (I would love to jump in and answer that and I am chafing at the bit (smile)..."The only conection I see between the two of them is that both were making an argument against the way elections were currently held. LaFolette's campaign was to try and make elections more open and responsive to the people rather than special interests ("the bosses").
Mr. Trump, on the other hand, is basically showing his ignorance of how the primaries work today or ,at least, his irritation with it. The rules have been in place since the last convention, I believe, and were known beforehand. Republicans make the rules for primaries based on the way they want to do it in each state. The first order of business for the convention is to develop a set of operating rules, which can in fact, and often do, favor a particular candidate's chances of nomination. Mr Trump has had the same chance as all the others and if his organization knows what they're doing should now be doing everything possible to see that delegates favorable to him are actually the ones given convention credentials. That's what Senator Cruz is busy doing now.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Belle La Follette: Progressive Era Reformer (other topics)Unreasonable Men: Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican Rebels Who Created Progressive Politics (other topics)
John Adams (other topics)
His Excellency: George Washington (other topics)
The Octopus: A Story of California (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Nancy C. Unger (other topics)Joseph J. Ellis (other topics)
David McCullough (other topics)
Frank Norris (other topics)
Fareed Zakaria (other topics)
More...
The author caught my attention in the first paragraph.
"At the dawn of the twentieth Century, America was in a Crisis. The gap between the rich and poor was growing...."
I couldn't help thinking that you could describe much of the discontent expressed in the political races this year. The 1% has became a slogan of the Democrats and some Republicans.