MerckWorks

Progressive policies, in the early 20th Century, were pursued by politicians from the Democratic and Republican Parties, Bull Moose Republicans, Lincoln Roosevelt League Republicans (in California), and the United States Progressive Party.

When Teddy Roosevelt left the Republican Party in 1912 to form the Bull Moose Party, he took with him many of the intellectual leaders of the Progressive movement (but very few of its political leaders). It was at this point that the Republican Party became more committed to business-oriented and efficiency-oriented Progressivism. This policy was typified by William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover.

Some forms of Progressivism were partially rooted in the  Populist movement of the 1890’s, lead by William Jennings Bryan. Populists had a distrust of the concentration of power in the hands the elite, whether they were politicianas, corporations, families, or special interest groups. However, Progressive leaders (with one exception) opposed Populism outwardly. The only Progressive leader to come from the Poplulist movement was Bryan, himself. He was the only Progressive leader to espouse the Populist and Progressive movements.

Cultural Progressivism was rooted in Pragmatism (primarily developed by John Dewey and William James) in the late 19th Century. For Pragmatists, an ideology or proposition is true if it is proved to work satisfactorily. It should be noted, I think, that  some things appear to work satisfactorily at the start, but have hidden negatives that do not appear until later. So has been the case with Progressivism.

Off and on, since the 1880’s, Progressivism has brought out the best and worst in us. It took rights from some and gave rights to others. Was that right? I don’t know. I do know that Progressivism (like the devil) generally appears as an angel of light. What I also know is that progressive activities (good and bad) frequently fell into that uneasy category of “unconstitutional”.

Since the Constitution is our safeguard against government tyrany, any weakening of it, even for a good cause, potentially leads to disaster. Long after Progressivism humanely took little kids out of factories and filth out of our foods, etc. we are left with a bitter aftermath as we watch an out-of-control Progressive administration spend us and generations to come into oblivion. Now it is nolonger kids in factories that need rescue, it is the entire nation. 

It is too bad that certain people with wealth and power did not choose to do the right thing at the right time some hundred or so years ago when we were still living in an entirely democratic republic so that the puppet masters of  Progressivism could never have gotten a toe-hold. Still, we must learn from past mistakes. The following is a very brief look at Progressivism in our history.

The first wave of Progressivism lasted from the 1880’s through World War II. It held the concept of a “Living Constitution” which should be altered to meet the demands of the times. It held that the founding fathers had framed the Constitution with very limited government in a desperate response to the tyrany of King George III, but that it had outlived its usefulnes by the late 19th Century as the “robber barons” of the Industrial Revolution become the new tyrants.

There was a feeling that the American people now wanted the government to take more control and rid them of this oppression. Therefore, they were not usurping power from the people, but giving power to them. In the 1902 Cold Strike, Teddy Roosevelt is said to have commented, “To hell with the Constitution when people want coal.”

Woodrow Wilson felt that the presidency was the only office that had the potential to speak directly for the people. Therefore, it was his intent to expand the powers of the presidency beyond the original balance of power between the 3 branches of government.

In his 1887 essay, “Socialism and Democracy”, he writes that socialism is the logical extension of democracy since it gives all power to the people in the collective capacity to carry out their will”. He continues that it is, “the absolute right of the community to determine itsown destiny”.  Note that there is no reference to the rights of the individual.

Teddy Roosevelt, in his “New Nationalism”, called for the state to take an active role in effecting economic equality by superintending the use of private property. He saw private property rights as subject to social usefulness.

Roosevelt  has no problem with an individual acquiring his fortune. However, he states that, “we should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community“. He continues, “this, I know, implies a policy of a far more active government interference with social and economic conditions…but…such…is now necessary”.

Outright Socialism, however, seemed to Progressives to be a movement of the lower classes and was attached in many people’s minds with violence and revolution. The Progressives were elitist and wanted gradual and peaceful change (perhaps a change so peaceful and grandual that it was barely perceptible as far as the dangerous underlying mechanics that enabled it. Only the surface “good” would be seen and applauded and no questions asked.

Indeed, Progressives were outwardly critical of the Socialists and both Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson ran against the Socialist candidate, Eugene Debs, in the 1912 presidential election.

Surprisingly, a five-year study of 300 women and 100 men in the Sudan found that “sexual desire, pleasure, and orgasm are experienced by nearly 90% of women who have had this mutilation done - in spite of their being culturally bound to hide these experiences”.  However, women so mutilated often have both psychological and physical problems.

If the vaginal opening is partially closed, there is difficulty with menstrual flow and infection results. Urine retention can occur, also causing infection. HIV infection appears to be more prominent in those having had this procedure as well. 

A reversal of infibulation can be performed to allow sexual intercourse and childbirth, but is still another trauma to body and mind. Stress, anxiety and aggression are often found in the victims of female circumcision. A number of books have been written by women who have undergone these horrors, detailing their agony.

When female circumcision is done under primitive conditions (such as Pieters observed in the Horn of African), there may be excessive tissue removed accompanied by severe bleeding leading to shock and death. This is in addition to infection and agonizing pain (if it is done without anesthesia). After the procedure, the girl’s labia majora are held together by thorns or stitching and her legs are often tied together so that she cannot move for 2 to 6 weeks until the 2 sides of the vulva are healed.

Amnesy International estimates that over 130 million women world wide have been affected by some form of female circumcision, with over 3 million girls at risk for underground female circumcision every year. Female circumcision has been most prevalent in Egypt, but a law banning it passed in 2007 following the death of a twelve-year-old girl during the procedure. (However there a ways around the law as I discussed in Part 1 of this series).

Both the United Nations and the World Health Organization have attempted to end female circumcision, but the fight continues. It goes on worldwide, but mostly in Africa and Asia. Still, it must be noted that even the Al Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research (the highest religious authority in Egypt) has said that there is no basis for female circumcision in core Islamic law or in any of its partial provisions, and that the procedure is harmful and should not be discontinued.

I think the only long-term answer is for adherents of female circumcision to come to an understanding that the woman is a human being, with an eternal soul, wonderful gifts and sensibilities and is created in the image of God (as is the man). She was created by God to be the man’s”help meet”, not his slave or sex toy. She has rights that are God-given and to rob her of them is wrong.

She has intrinsic worth (as does the man). If a man in a particular culture or religion refuses to marry a woman who has not undergone female circumcision, perhaps she should either marry outside that group or remain single. Perhaps her parents should value their daughter’s personhood enough to allow her those options rather than robbing  her of who she really is before she is yet able to defend herself or escape.

Books, lectures and sermons have their part in this and I champion them. However, I believe that example has a great place as well. A true and lasting integration of blacks and whites seemed nearly impossible some 50 years ago (even with laws and the National Guard proping it up). It took time to see black people naturally (not just legally and forcibly) in the places once held exclusively by whites. The same was so of women in western culture (and I hope will soon be so in African and Eastern culture).

How many girls and women will be mutilated, tortured, killed, and enslaved before that occurs, we can only guess. But we must all do out part, directly (when possible), by prayer (in all cases). Giving-up the fight by saying, “That it’s awful, but that’s the way it’s always been” is not an option. I heard that sort of thing said of blacks and women when I was a kid. – I didn’t believe it! I was right!