Should America Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom

On March 31, 2010, Cong Paul Ryan (R-WI) delivered a speech to the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs in Oklahoma City. From accounts, Cong Ryan's speech was excellent.

Cong Paul Ryan has put forth "A Roadmap for America's Future" which we will be spotlighting in the days ahead on this website as well as on Voices from the Heartland, our companion site. Ryan's plan has already been scored by the CBO who confirms "this plan achieves the goal of paying off government debt in the long run - while securing the social safety net and starting up future economic growth."

Reading Cong Ryan's speech has brought many questions to mind about how did the word 'progressive' end up meaning socialist' today. Voting rights for all citizens were secured by those early day 'progressives' and now today's 'Progressives' consider voter fraud a way of life to win. Today's 'progressives' are the types that Teddy Roosevelt and others fought against.

There is an old saying "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana, Reason in Common Sense, Vol I That phrase is as true today as it has ever been.

This paragraph about progressives jumped out and with that realized we didn't didn't know a lot about the word 'progressive' from the early 1900's -- all we knew about was today's Progressives:

Early Progressives wanted to empower and engage the people. They fought for populist reforms like initiative and referendum, recalls, judicial elections, the breakup of monopoly corporations, and the elimination of vote buying and urban patronage. But Progressivism turned away from popular control toward central government planning. It lost most Americans and consumed itself in paternalism, arrogance, and snobbish condescension. "Fighting Bob" LaFollette, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson would have scorned the self-proclaimed "Progressives" of our day for handing out bailout checks to giant corporations, corrupting the Congress to purchase votes for government controlled health care, and funneling billions in Jobs Stimulus money to local politicians to pay for make-work patronage. That's not "Progressivism," that's what real Progressives fought against!

With our initial question in mind 'Where did the word "progressive" originate in the United States and what was its purpose?' we set out to learn some facts.

The desire to remove corruption and undue influence from government through the taming of bosses and political machines;

the effort to include more people more directly in the political process;

the conviction that government must play a role to solve social problems and establish fairness in economic matters.

The success of Progressivism owed much to publicity generated by the muckrakers, writers who detailed the horrors of poverty, urban slums, dangerous factory conditions, and child labor, among a host of other ills.

The successes were many, beginning with the Interstate Commerce Act (1887) and the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890). Progressives never spoke with one mind and differed sharply over the most effective means to deal with the ills generated by the trusts; some favored an activist approach to trust-busting, others preferred a regulatory approach.

A vocal minority supported socialism with government ownership of the means of production.

When you realize that Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive back in the early part of the 20th Century, it brings into question how a small group of Socialist from the start of Progressive Movement became so powerful in the Congress today. Teddy Roosevelt would not recognize that word today or LaFollette, or Wilson. They were fighting for the people to have a say in Government and take it away from the elitist. Now it is 180 degrees opposite as the 'Progressive' Elitist want to have full control of our lives and take control of Government away from us.

Progressive reforms were carried out not only on the national level, but in the states and municipalities of the country as well. Prominent governors devoted to change included Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin and Hiram Johnson of California.

Such reforms as the direct primary, secret ballot, and the initiative, referendum and recall were effected. Local governments were strengthened by the widespread use of trained professionals, particularly with the city manager system replacing the all-too-frequently corrupt mayoral system.

Other Progressive reforms followed in the form of a conservation movement, railroad legislation, and food and drug laws.

The Progressive spirit also was evident in new amendments added to the Constitution, which provided for a new means to elect senators, protect society through prohibition and extend suffrage to women.

Urban problems were addressed by professional social workers who operated settlement houses as a means to protect and improve the prospects of the poor. However, efforts to place limitations on child labor were routinely thwarted by the courts. The needs of blacks and Native Americans were poorly served or served not at all — a major shortcoming of the Progressive Movement.

Progressive reforms were carried out not only on the national level, but in the states and municipalities of the country as well. Prominent governors devoted to change included Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin and Hiram Johnson of California.

Such reforms as the direct primary, secret ballot, and the initiative, referendum and recall were effected. Local governments were strengthened by the widespread use of trained professionals, particularly with the city manager system replacing the all-too-frequently corrupt mayoral system.

Formal expression was given to progressive ideas in the form of political parties on three major occasions:

The Roosevelt Progressives (Bull Moose Party) of 1912

The La Follette Progressives of the 1920s

The Henry Wallace Progressives of the late 1940s and early 1950s

We had no idea until reading Cong Ryan's speech that 'Progressives' were anything other then Socialist. This is reminiscent of the slaves being freed by Republicans, Civil Rights Legislation being passed by Republicans, and Blacks voting in large numbers for Democrats.

What causes this phenomenon we keep seeing where Republicans have the foresight to see that 'shining city on the hill' as Reagan put it and Democrats want to take away freedoms and control our lives? Now we learn the original 'Progressives' were the ones who cared about everyone voting, child labor laws to protect children from the greedy manufacturing owners, and election of Senators by the people not the elitists to name a few.

The working conditions of the early 1900's led to rise in the unions which are now almost solidly democrat in management. People have lived for years in deplorable conditions not fit for rats but what have Democrats done to help them? As long as they vote Democrat, they prefer keep them down and give them poor schools so they don't want them to realize they can have a better life. Someday they can reach that 'shining city on the hill' with hard work and drive and getting a better education but that doesn't suit the Democrat mindset which puts getting votes over the welfare of people. LBJ turned 'poverty' into more and bigger handouts with his War on Poverty that managed to keep people even more down which in turn brought in generations of welfare people waiting for their monthly handout and more Democrat voters.

Without Cong Ryan's speech, we would have never looked into what the Democrats have done over the years to secure voting blocks of votes based on economics, race, and perceived wrongs -- all basic lies.

In 2010, Republicans need to show the American people they can lead and with leading return the sense of personal responsibility to the individual to make their life, their local area, their state, and their Country better instead of waiting for the Government to take care of their every need. Yankee ingenuity needs a restart in America in 2010!

It has been a long time since we have read a speech like the one Cong Ryan gave that made us think and go do the research. Tomorrow we will cover blacks and how they became Democrat which this speech made us ask why they vote so heavily for Democrats. Today it was 'progressives' and how a very small group of them took the word and became full blown socialists who want to control our every day lives, tomorrow it is blacks, and the next day unions.

This speech by Cong Paul Ryan whose wife is from Oklahoma is what this Country needs. Read the speech and ask yourself who is this Republican Congressman from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan who wants to split his time between Oklahoma and Wisconsin when he retires? This speech goes a long way in telling us about the man and how he believes this Country should be governed. We will be sharing with you in the days ahead his "A Roadmap for America's Future" as we learn more about this Congressman and his vision for America.

April 2, 2010
Should America Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom?
By Rep. Paul Ryan

Last week, on March 21st, Congress enacted a new Intolerable Act. Congress passed the Health Care bill - or I should say, one political party passed it - over a swelling revolt by the American people. The reform is an atrocity. It mandates that every American must buy health insurance, under IRS scrutiny. It sets up an army of federal bureaucrats who ultimately decide for you how you should receive Health Care, what kind, and how much...or whether you don't qualify at all. Never has our government claimed the power to decide when each of us has lived well enough or long enough to be refused life-saving medical assistance.

This presumptuous reform has put this nation ... once dedicated to the life and freedom of every person ... on a long decline toward the same mediocrity that the social welfare states of Europe have become.

(snip)

Americans are preparing to fight another American Revolution, this time, a peaceful one with election ballots...but the "causes" of both are the same:

Should unchecked centralized government be allowed to grow and grow in power ... or should its powers be limited and returned to the people?

Should irresponsible leaders in a distant capital be encouraged to run up scandalous debts without limit that crush jobs and stall prosperity ... or should the reckless be turned out of office and a new government elected to live within its means?

Should America bid farewell to exceptional freedom and follow the retreat to European social welfare paternalism ... or should we make a new start, in the faith that boundless opportunities belong to the workers, the builders, the industrious, and the free?

We are at the beginning of an election campaign like you've never seen before!

We are challenged to answer again the momentous questions our Founders raised when they launched mankind's noblest experiment in human freedom. They made a fundamental choice and changed history for the better. Now it's our high calling to make that choice: between managed scarcity, or solid growth ... between living in dependency on government handouts, or taking responsibility for our lives ... between confiscating the earnings of some and spreading them around, or securing everyone's right to the rewards of their work ... between bureaucratic central government, or self-government ... between the European social welfare state or the American idea of free market democracy.

What kind of nation do we wish to be? What kind of society will we hand down to our children and future generations? In the coming watershed election, the nature of this unique and exceptional land is at stake. We will choose one of two different paths. And once we make that choice, there's no going back.

This is not the kind of election I would prefer. But it was forced on us by the leaders of our government.

These leaders are walking America down a new path ... creating entitlements and promising benefits that model the United States after the European Union: a welfare state society where most people pay little or no taxes but become dependent on government benefits ... where tax reduction is impossible because more people have a stake in the welfare state than in free enterprise ... where high unemployment is accepted as a way of life, and the spirit of risk-taking is smothered by a tangle of red tape from an all-providing centralized government.

True, the United States has been moving slowly toward this path a long time. And Democrats and Republicans share the blame. Now we are approaching a "tipping point." Once we pass it, we will become a different people. Before the "tipping point," Americans remain independent and take responsibility for their own well-being. Once we have gone beyond the "tipping point," that self-sufficient outlook will be gradually transformed into a soft despotism a lot like Europe's social welfare states. Soft despotism isn't cruel or mean, it's kindly and sympathetic. It doesn't help anyone take charge of life, but it does keep everyone in a happy state of childhood. A growing centralized bureaucracy will provide for everyone's needs, care for everyone's heath, direct everyone's career, arrange everyone's important private affairs, and work for everyone's pleasure.

The only hitch is, government must be the sole supplier of everyone's happiness ... the shepherd over this flock of sheep.

Am I exaggerating? Are we really reaching this "tipping point"? Exact and precise measures cannot be made, but an eye-opening study by the Tax Foundation, a reliable and non-partisan research group, tells us that in 2004, 20 percent of US households were getting about 75 percent of their income from the federal government. In other words, one out of five families in America is already government dependent. Another 20 percent were receiving almost 40 percent of their income from federal programs, so another one in five has become government reliant for their livelihood

Excerpt: Read more at Real Clear Politics

Paul Ryan represents Wisconsin's First Congressional District. He serves as ranking member of the House Budget Committee and senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee.