Historical Question for Righties

I frequent this forum and a few others and it never fails that I find how many conservatives and libertarians decry the progressive movement of the 1890s to the 1920s as one of America's darkest hours, if not the darkest. And all of the developments that took place during this era, e.g. Roosevelt's trust-busting, the Pure Food and Drug Act, the Federal Reserve Act, the 16th and 17th Amendments, etc...are couched in terms that make them seem like they were all enacted by maniacally evil/satanic individuals whose actions consciously started paving the way for the destruction of the country. They seem determined to sound like Glenn Beck or Pat Buchanan in every denunciation of 'progressivism' they make and would wish to see America fail just to validate their conception of history.

My question for the righties here is simple: is that the standard narrative that you agree with? Or is it largely the reserve of fringe antisocials/asocials? If you agree with it, then why exactly do you agree with it?

 

Well, that progressive movement was one of our darkest eras of American history. Teddy Roosevelt (who was a RINO) was America's first progressive president. But the real destructive movement for progressive policy didn't take hold until Teddy's cousin FDR grew our government into the perfect nanny state that watched the American unemployment rate hover around 15% for a solid 8 or 9years straight. Yes, I do agree with Buchanan and Beck--progressivism is the death of the America we all know and love.

 

I'm also curious about the right-wing tendency to absolve private corporations at the time from any responsibility for the horrible conditions in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries.

 

It isn't 1900 anymore.

 

Could you point to some threads that deride the progressive movement of the 1890's to the 1920's? I'm not sure what the issue was without that context.

 

I don't know that they were consciously enacted to destroy the country, but it's difficult to argue that they haven't had a destructive impact on the world we live in today. They have created a large and growing pansy class that refuses to be potty trained.

 

Their intent was not evil though their means certainly were. Well, most of the time. The fact that they unarguably went around the Constitution to acheive their ends is what most modern conservatives decry. The progressive/post Civil War era was when we said good bye to Madison/Jefferson and begun to say hello to Marx.

 

You skip over all of the bad stuff that progressivsm swept in. The complete and utter rape of the west for resources would be a great place to start. How about the devasting impact of the dust bowl that was a result of progressivism.

This subject is a semester long topic depending how involved you want get with it.

 

Well, I don't know about the other stuff, but the Federal Reserve Act DEFINITELY is the single biggest contributing factor to our current financial crisis.

That, along with the FDIC. These institutions are what took the risk out of the banking system and shifted it to the government. Both systems were set up to bail out failures, and socialize their losses. End result: bankers did not have to face the consequences of their failures if they screwed up big enough. Therefore, when they realized they were getting into trouble with the housing market a few years back, the incentive was to make it an even bigger problem so that the government would HAVE to bail them out.

Just because the system took almost a century to completely blow up doesn't mean it is not directly responsible.

 

Placed into historical perspective, those horrible conditions you decry were better as a whole than any other time in history. Corporations are naturally not private by the way. They are open to anyone who wants to invest in them. So as long as they do not harm the natural rights of another, (and no, ..... healthcare, housing, and food are not rights) theyre fine by my book.

 

Before you get all nuts on me, by "any other time in history" I meant "any other time in history up to that point."

 

I disagree. The wealthy, though they do refuse to be potty-trained, are not a growing class, I don't think.

 

Reads like an unreferenced adhominim contradiction of envy rather than a valid claim.

 

Wasn't it TR who set up the first national park, and agricultural sciences weren't advance enough to stop the dust bowl.

 

Ha, I'm sorry, I find this post hilarious.

FDR saved our nation from a much worse fate. Either we got stuck with a divided Congress, or we got a dictator. We almost got both, but we preserved.

 

Translation: Tyranny is Ok when the guy I like is running the country. When he's not I want my democratically elected constitutional republic back.

 

What? He saved the US through the policies he did. They united America, and instead of France, our Congress worked with him. Unlike Japan, a dictator didn't rise.

 

UCLA released a study stating that the New Deal prolonged the depression by 7 years. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx War after provocation united the country as it always has when necessary. To say that FDR united the country before or after Pearl Harbor is a grandios overstatement.

 

He was also the second president to pretend that Congress and the Constitution did not exist to a exceptional extent.

 

I know that, but yet that's my argument. FDR did unite the country. But weirdly not through a complete economic recovery. The New Deals, restored confidence in their political system. This saved the US from the fate of France, which the Popular Front and conservatives would fight it out. Now, I'm hesitant to use this one, but the rise of Adolf Hitler was the result of a lack of faith in the Weimer Republic.

When it came to foreign policy, yeah.

 

What are you talking about? Talk to your grandparents/parents depending on how old they are. The New Deal was the ongoing object of jokes and ridicule of the whole nation. No one took the New Deal seriously despite whats written in your elementary school textbook. As shown by the study FDR delayed the recovery so, by your own reasoning, he hindered the unity of the nation by getting in the way of recovery.

TR, on the other hand, ignored the Constitution on all fronts. Not just the ones you disagree with.

 

This is from my AP history textbook. If you believe these to be a joke then you should be laughing as you refute my points. Now I want to hear some laughter.

Let's get some elaboration

 

I will put your AP history book against my BA in History (heavely focused on American History) any day of the week. I earned my degree in one of the most writing intensive and crazy liberal private colleges in NC where conservative clubs don't exist and praise for socialism can get you wide spread acceptance. If I can sucessfully hold my own against them I can certainly hold my water against you and your AP history book. Certainly your book tells you that TR advanced the power of the executive far beyond his predecessors without consent of Congress or the people, and if not, please tell me the isbn of your book. I'll wait here.

 

And like so many they disappear.

 

The America we grew up with and loved was progressive and was created by progressivism. I am sick to death of conservative revisionist history and outright lies. The greatest society in the history of the world (US 1950's-1990's) was the direct result of progressivism and keynsian government spending.