Reich writes: "A progressive backlash against concentrated wealth and power occurred a century ago in America."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
America's First Progressive Revolution
03 February 13
xactly a century ago, on February 3, 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, authorizing a federal income tax. Congress turned it into a graduated tax, based on "capacity to pay."
It was among the signal victories of the progressive movement - the first constitutional amendment in 40 years (the first 10 had been included in the Bill of Rights, the 11th and 12th in 1789 and 1804, and three others in consequence of the Civil War), reflecting a great political transformation in America.
The 1880s and 1890s had been the Gilded Age, the time of robber barons, when a small number controlled almost all the nation's wealth as well as our democracy, when poverty had risen to record levels, and when it looked as though the country was destined to become a moneyed aristocracy.
But almost without warning, progressives reversed the tide. Teddy Roosevelt became president in 1901, pledging to break up the giant trusts and end the reign of the "malefactors of great wealth." Laws were enacted protecting the public from impure foods and drugs, and from corrupt legislators.
By 1909 Democrats and progressive Republicans had swept many state elections, subsequently establishing the 40-hour work week and other reforms that would later be the foundation stones for the New Deal. Woodrow Wilson won the 1912 presidential election.
A progressive backlash against concentrated wealth and power occurred a century ago in America. In the 1880s and 1890s such a movement seemed improbable if not impossible. Only idealists and dreamers thought the nation had the political will to reform itself, let alone enact a constitutional amendment of such importance - analogous, today, to an amendment reversing "Citizens United v. FEC" and limiting the flow of big money into politics.
But it did happen. And it will happen again.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 24 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
|
23 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
I sure hope so, Mr. Reich.
It may have led to war.
Just as Obama, on his own, will not push for a more progressive agenda, Teddy Roosevelt did not come to support breaking up the trusts initially out of the goodness of his heart. Like all substantive progressive change in this country the legislation that came out of the Progressive Era was due to mass movement organizing from below, something Reich fails to even mention.
For a wonderful recent book on the movement(s) that led to the Progressive Era legislation see: "The Rich Don't Always Win" by Sam Pizzigati.
The Gilded Age saw the same kind of concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few plutocrats as we see today but due to there being mass movements demanding change and putting fear into the hearts and minds of the advanced wing of capital they were forced to make concessions that made a significant difference and dramatically closed the income gap and led over time to much higher wages and standard of living for ordinary americans.
How true! Yes, we must fight to keep all government Dems. Here in Michigan, too many Dems were disappointed with Obama's progress during his first two years. So in the election for governor of Michigan, too many of us did not work hard to elect Dems. Now, we have Republican Governor Rick Snyder who tried to turn us into a "Right to Work" (and starve) state.
Really, what do you think I did when I borrowed money to create a business to make money and prosper and hire people? You are totally wrong, and you should try educating yourself by reading Reich's book, and maybe Stiglitz's last book and some others instead of relying on 1st grade economics.
All this can lead to is eternal growing debt slavery. (to the owners of the 'Federal'Reserv e?)
The problem comes when you cannot pay on the principle, and then need to borrow to pay interest. Soon after that no one will loan to you. What then?
Do you remember a decade or so ago when Brazil simply decided to default on all of its debt, period. I watched the press howl - largest economy in South America, never be able to borrow again, ruined, etc. Within 9 months the SAME banks that were lending to them before were lending to them again AT THE SAME INTEREST. Japan had trouble and got downgraded, people howled, end of Japan, etc. Japan can still borrow at a LOWER interest rate than they were paying then. When money is lent, it is printed in most cases - it doesn't exist before - the danger is inflation, but as scarcity becomes more and more limited, inflation as a danger is tamed. Right now only food and fuel are dangers on that front in my opinion.
It is a LOT more simple and conversely more complex than you are making it out to be. Money is a market like other things, and it is not real to start with -- because economics is simply a construct, not an enforced reality.
Reyn
A bit like your English you mean?
If banks restrict borrowing then businesses cannot get the money they need to buy materials and labor for the goods/services they sell. You do not sit around and save your paper route money to build that factory to make your hover boards in. You go to a bank and borrow it.
well said, indeed.
And remember to celebrate Abe Lincoln's birthday! Long ago, there were radicals among the Republicans. The movie "Lincoln" tells the story. (Can you imagine Republicans leading the fight to outlaw slavery? It happened in 1865. Amazing!)
Taft wasn't radical, but, in some moments, he leaned towards the liberals. Although Teddy Roosevelt thought that Taft was a political "wimp." The story of Taft and Roosevelt and the 1912 election is amazing.
Comparing the politics of 1912 to the politics of 2012 is, sometimes, a bit sad.
What member of the "monied class" doesn't have part of his wealth invested in government bonds? Are these people de-investing their money in these "securities"? Remember as well, that the investments that we are all making in Social Security is actually being used to purchase government bonds .
I am also reminded that those of us who own homes, have probably borrowed money to build our nest egg.
Put everyone back to work (with borrowed money or not) and watch the economy grow! Trickle down belongs in the toilet for ever more!
This is how capitalism works. In fact, the notion of "borrowing capital" - to move money from here to there - helps to define and explain capitalism in every economy since the Stone Age.
Only in the simplest situations do entrepreneurs expect to make major progress without outside investment. Sooner or later, the successful corporation has to borrow money.
Joe the Plumber may be able to function, at some level, without borrowing money. However, when Mr. Plumber decides to expand his operation, or buy a house, he'll probably ask for some kind of loan. (Afterwards, Joe may boast that he "did everything on his own.")
Government issues bonds. In America, it's a safe investment. Very popular with the rich, in most seasons. Even if the nation goes to hell, the rich will demand payment.
We borrowed to fight the Revolutionary War, and issued Treasury Bonds or increased taxes to repay it and have done the same thing for every war there after--that is until until Iraq I & II!
The Deficit/Debt issue is a red herring put out by the Republicans in 1992 and every year thereafter. It's misdirection and prevarication for political gain and is the only seasoned talking point they have left to hang their very small hat on. It disheartens me to hear the Democrats taking the bait, reacting and by doing so, giving credence to the "fishy smell" of herring.
Seems Dick (Deficits don't matter!)Cheney thought so as he and Bush ran up massive debt featuring 2 wars, while they used the tax code to funnel unprecedented amounts of cash to the wealthiest Americans.
Yeah, it's MADNESS to believe that - in some way - the Progressive revolution was against "the principles on which this nation is founded." So, at this point - your final point - we actually agree.
Here's the truth: When the Constitution was first established, the Founding Fathers anticipated the need for future changes in the Constitution. So they developed the means for amendment, and, very quickly, the first ten amendments appeared. ("The Bill of Rights.")
Americans recognize the need for the Supreme Court to review laws, regulations, etc., to determine if they're acceptable under the Constitution. (Advocates for all sorts of causes - including gun ownership, abortion rights, limited taxation, opposition to the draft, etc. - have gone before the Supreme Court to plead their cases.)
This is how our American government works. If it didn't work in this way, we would still be stuck with slavery and women would be unable to vote. (Slavery and patriarchy were acceptable when the Constitution was first assembled. At a later date, they were rejected by lawful means.)
Key points: The Constitution makes provisions for political change in accordance with the principles established by the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in effect, helps to supervise the process.
It's MADNESS to believe that Americans are unable to change the Constitution.
We are spending money we don't have and borrowing money we can't pay back. Not for mush longer I think.
The Piper will be paid.
The country was founded on debt. If we didn't borrow money to finance the revolution there would be no USA. The purpose of borrowing is not to "borrow your way out of debt." This represents a fundamental misunderstandin g of the nature and purpose of gov't debt. Perhaps you should go back a bit further in US history including reading Alexander Hamilton.
And, is not refinancing debt at a lower interest rate "borrowing your way out of debt"? this alone should tell you that debt, in and of itself, is not a problem. It depends on the nature of the debt, what the borrowed funds will be used for (as in Brux's example below of borrowing money to start a business and make money) and what the repayment terms are. But, most important, gov't debt does not in any way shape or form equate to the debt of individuals or households.
Sign the petition to play a part in this historic effort to overturn Citizens United.
https://movetoamend.org/
Today people don't pay any attention to endless war, torture, the Wall Street rapists, etc. ad infinitum. So how's it going to happen?
Today people don't pay any attention to endless war, torture, the Wall Street rapists, etc. ad infinitum. So how's it going to happen?"
I don't have any easy answers to your questions... However, I do know that there have moments in the past when the situation was difficult. People were busy with all sorts of things. Yet, despite the problems with communication, etc., the progressives were able to organize and to win some victories.
Think about the political scene in 1912-1913.... Guys like Hearst were promoting "yellow journalism." Thugs were breaking up strikes. The Ku Klu Klan was sponsoring lynchings. Women couldn't vote. The imperialists were grabbing Puerto Rico and the Phillipines. Torture was reported.
In some way, the progressives got their act together. Learn from their experience.
FOOTNOTE: "Diversity" isn't new. There were more immigrants in America - measured as a percentage of the population - in 1910 than there were in 2010.
Lets hope we still can do it by peaceful means!
Even if this were not so, the Ruling Class will never allow another progressive era. The Ruling Class is hoarding the world's wealth to protect its self against the looming triple apocalypse -- terminal climate change inflicted by fossil fuels, the exhaustion of those same fuels and, as a result, the extinction-clas s disaster of total technological collapse. And this time, unlike any other epoch in human history, the Ruling Class has the technological superiority to impose zero-tolerance enforcement of its will.
The combination of all these factors means our powerlessness and ever-worsening poverty is forever – that is, until our species is extinct. Thus the damning validity of Chris Hedges' claim our only sane alternative is to embrace the opiates of spirituality and religion, never mind they too are mostly delusional.
That's why, two months away from my 73rd birthday, I am economically no more than a common bum – damned to the slave-pen powerlessness of dependence on welfare for the remainder of my life, condemned to die if not literally in the street then surely and inescapably in the proverbial gutter of shame and degradation that is the welfare-recipie nt's lot.
In today's United States activism is not just pointless; it is often also socioeconomic suicide.
It is rendered so by the obscene reality of Moron Nation. The U.S. population has been dumbed down to a nadir of prideful ignorance and moral imbecility that has no peer in human history – a collective idiocy so grave, Ayn Rand with her variants on the “Mein Kampf” theme now elevates it to perverse heroism – infinite greed as ultimate virtue.
As Occupy proved, the resultant combination of anti-intellectu ality and selfishness forever prohibits solidarity. It reduces activism to egotistical shouting. Hence – beyond the likelihood of wrecking one's economic prospects – activism changes nothing.
Nevertheless I persist in small acts of defiance. Why? So I feel less useless as I sink into the pre-extinction darkness.
Here in Moron Nation, it is idiotic to expect anything better – a bitter truth no deluge of negative numbers can refute.
Can we prevent this? Yes, if we start the corrections NOW, governments and groups and individuals--ea ch and all. Will we? That's the 64 trillion dollar question.
COMMENT: Uh, well, actually you got some of the facts right and the conclusion wrong.... The world's natural resources are decreasing. Some folks are becoming wealthy - in part, because they can manipulate the crisis to serve their corporate agenda - but lots of Americans and Europeans are slipping into new financial difficulties.
Economics drives politics. In the midst of shortages, expect bread riots and a lot more. Revolution will arrive. The Arab Spring and the European resistance to austerity budgets provide an early glimpse of the future. (It's possible that there's still some strength left in the Occupy movement.)
"Thus the damning validity of Chris Hedges' claim our only sane alternative is to embrace the opiates of spirituality and religion, never mind they too are mostly delusional."
COMMENT: I'm not sure what Hedges has in mind. He's not very progressive in his political thinking. If he wants "opiates," he may prefer booze and dope. They're very popular.
During the days of Marx and Freud, atheists were often identified with progressive causes. Nowadays, atheists like Hedges often sound like cynics and hustlers. Have another Budweiser and some nachos, Chris. Might make you happy.
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/1114-the-progressive-era
"The Progressive Era," by Charles A. Burris
http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/otherbel.pdf
"American Economic Reform in the Progressive Era: Its Foundational Beliefs and Their Relation to Eugenics," by Thomas C. Leonard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard156.html
"World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals," by Murray N. Rothbard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard28.html
"The Progressive Era and the Family", by Murray N. Rothbard
http://www.mises.org/daily/2225
"Origins of the Welfare State in America, by Murray N. Rothbard
http://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/gospel4.pdf
"Religion and Evolution in Progressive Era Political Economy: Adversaries or Allies? by Thomas C. Leonard
http://lewrockwell.com/burris/burris21.1.html
"Who Rules America: Power Elite Analysis and American History," by Charles A. Burris
"American Economic Reform in the Progressive Era: Its Foundational Beliefs and Their Relation to Eugenics," by Thomas C. Leonard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard156.html
"World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals," by Murray N. Rothbard
Hmmmmm.... It's sort of like saying, "People voted for Obama in 2012 because they wanted more abortions, more drone attacks, and more torture conducted by CIA operatives in Cuba and Iraq."
Uh, well, it's true that Obama supports abortion rights and its true that he supports drone attacks and some nasty CIA operations. However, these things don't explain and define "progressive politics" in today's America.
America during the late 1800s and into the early 1900s had a variety of progressive movements, alliances, networks, causes, etc. Lots and lots of disagreement about leadership and tactics and goals. (It's surprising, for example, to discover that Mother Jones was NOT very interested in "votes for women." John Muir, the conservationist , made some racist comments about Indians. etc., etc.)
Don't let people define "progressive politics" in ways that you reject. Think for yourself.
Voltaire
"idealists and dreamers"? Count me in.
BUT...the government's only jobs program is constant conflict throughout the world and the resulting treasure spent on men and materiel to beat the drums of war.
BUT..."the malefactors of great wealth" are the actual government itself.
BUT...the vast majority of amerikans enjoy a standard of living undreamt of by their forebears. and our lassez faire attitude to governance has come to this.
BUT...the public education system of the country is under constant attack and even denounced by the people most benefitted by it.
BUT...progressives are disparate and confined to only one political party and have the ear of only a few in our "shadow" government in washington.
BUT...well, I could on and on. I just don't see it happening in my lifetime...unle ss the empire finally falls under its own odorous weight.
that could happen; it has happened and it think buy the logical progression of things, it is beginning to happen. there are cracks in the manufactured complacency and agreement. As Churchill once said 'Not the beginning of the end but the end of the beginning'
Beverly Smith
Wake up America!
That's not true you know. It's a myth. Courts have WITHOUT EXCEPTION found that the 16th amendment is both real and binding and levied the required taxes, together with fees and in some cases jail time from tax protesters.
http://tax.findlaw.com/federal-taxes/top-tax-myths-debunked.html
Now, breathe deeply and LIVE. This is a better world to be in if you don't waste your life and time with crap like the dribble you just tried to pass off as real.
Kind thoughts,
Reyn
It was the leftists and radicals that brought about the hint of a revolution, of course there never was one here in the US, not some imagined group of "progressives."
These revolutionaries understood that politics is driven less by ideas than by interests and that those interests are based on economic class. Radical republicans (Civil War variety), revolutionary democrats, social democrats (including even a sizable chunk of the British Labor Party and the German SDs of today), socialists, utopian socialists, agrarian socialists, communists, anarchists, anarco-syndical ists, and nihilists all agreed on the centrality of social classes even before they divide on what to do about them.
The "Progressives" that Reich obliquely refers to explicitly rejected the centrality of social classes. In fact they were united with "Conservatives" in their agreement on the fundamental norms of society and on their long-term objectives- most importantly in the defense of private property and the projection of "national interest."
The lesson is that Progressives' current obligation is to create a new agenda, based on current realities, then pray for another World-wide Bankruptcy, so that Elizabeth Warren can step in and make the changes Reich and Krugman and Hedges and others are proposing,. Without an economic disaster, we have no chance of dislodging the economic elite who are now in charge.
I wish I had the ability to convey such deep insight with so few words. I wish this comment by habormon generated more insight
Seriously, he defines the original socialistic ideals, far removed from what the former CCCP (Soviet Union), present day Cuba, Vietnam, and what China are going through. Interesting that during the eighties, many self expoused 'republicans' were practising MARXIST ideals (by starting collectives where everyone in effect would be the boss and NO greedy selfish callous disconcerting CEOs to contend with! (...And no, I don't work for Mr. Wolff, only heard some of his speeches)!
I suddenly figured out why 3rd party's didn't do well in 2012. I thought the problem was Libertarian stubbornness in refusing to join the 3rd party extended debate.
I now realize it is because the Justice Party was part of that debate and the Libertarians didn't want to give them any publicity, even to the extent of publicly refusing to debate them.
The Greens could have been aware but weren't. The fizzling of the Vietnam teach-in movement put the 1% in charge of the knowledge war.
Not really off the subject, the creditors slipped expunging one's record, in 7 years, that made people start off buying a few stupid things on credit then paying them off to establish credit, then getting hooked of borrowing.
What a timely and auspicious article!
If they could do it back then, why can't we do it now? Have we become too lethargic, thinking; someone will fix it.
Well, I don't think "someone" will fly in like Superman and make evreything right again. I hope we get to it soon, before it becomes even more urgent.
-How did the progressives come together back then and how did the "backlash" begin? How did they mobilize people? Did they mobilize a lot of citizens, not just politicians? I'd better start reading...
RSS feed for comments to this post