The question in
the U.S. presidential campaign of 1912 was what to do about the increasing powerlessness
of ordinary people, and the concentration of power in the private and public
sector élites. Five primary responses
developed. There were seemingly endless variations on these responses, but we
think that the following is an adequate, if broad, summary:
The first
response (meaning the first we will look at, not the first to develop, or the
first in importance) was the Republican capitalist or reactionary approach. To
be as brief as possible, the capitalist position was that a well-run economy and
a stable political order were best achieved by having a few private citizens
own the bulk of capital. The State should leave well enough alone; the free
market would function automatically to bring about just results, but only if
meddling government bureaucrats would stop interfering in business and let the
market do its job.
The second
response was the Democratic capitalist approach. This did not differ
substantially from the Republican capitalist approach. Depending on the degree
of loyalty and party politics, this could mean little or much to individuals
and groups involved directly in politics, but virtually nothing to public at
large.
 |
| A square deal, not a New Deal. |
The third
response was that of the Progressives, originally linked with the Republicans. It
is important to note that the term “progressive” did not have the meaning we assign to it today. Instead of being a euphemism for a radical
leftist approach, the progressive position would probably be described today as
“right leaning, socially conscious conservative.”
As “insurgents”
against the “Old Guard” capitalist Republicans, Progressives were willing to
accept increased State regulation, even some measure of government control, in
order to establish and maintain a level playing field, and keep things together
until equality of opportunity could be reestablished.
The fourth
response was that of the Populists, linked, off and on, with the Democrats.
Populism had, by this time, become imbued with socialist assumptions and
ideology, largely as a result of focusing on the demand to impose desired
results instead of establishing equal opportunity so people could gain desired
results on their own. The degree of government control the Populists believed
necessary (as opposed to regulation) was, to all intents and purposes, the only
thing separating them from the socialists.
Progressivism
thereby achieved a sort of “third way” between the Democratic and Old Guard Republican
capitalists, and the Populists and Socialists. Accounting for the confusion in
many people’s minds, even at the time, Progressivism was, in a sense, a
reaction to the decay of populism as much as it was an insurgent movement
against the reactionary elements of the Republican Party.
The fifth
response was that of the Socialists. Socialism was split into many factions,
such as the georgists, the Fabians, and the Marxists, so it’s a little
misleading to lump them all together. In very broad terms, however, the program
was the same for all the Socialists: the abolition of private property in
capital, and government control of the economy to ensure desired results.
The fundamental
error of all forms of socialism, of course, is the idea that the abstraction of
the collective has rights that individual, flesh-and-blood human beings do not
have. As a result, instead of the idea
behind the founding of the United States that human beings have inherent,
inalienable natural rights and delegate some of them to the State, the State
has inherent rights that it delegates to human beings as it sees necessary or
expedient. The socialist concept flatly
contradicts the Preamble to the Constitution, in which “We, the People”
delegate legal sovereignty to the federal government, but retain political
sovereignty.
#30#
