“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
“Rights do not belong to men simply as men, but because of the superior qualities, physical, intellectual, moral or political, which are characteristic of certain individuals or races.”
Which of the two statements above seems more enlightened? The first is based upon Christian principles that can be traced back to the writings of Paul. The second from an ideology of pagan totalitarianism. One is based upon the ability of the people, the other upon the ability of an elite class of experts. The first statement is obviously taken from the declaration of independence and is the basis for the founding of our country. The second statement is from Charles Merriam, a leader of the progressive movement in the early 1900′s. The goal of this movement was to replace the founding principles of our country, principles that these early progressives felt were deeply flawed.
The first of these principles that they thought were backwards was the insistence of the founders that we are created equal and have unalienable rights. To push the progressive ideology they first had to undermine this Christian principle and replace it with a pagan one.
As indicated by the statement of Merriam above, they replaced it with an idea very similar to those of Plato. In the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible, they describe it this way.
“In the Republic, the Greek philosopher Plato insisted that the gods create superior human beings who are fit to rule-he called them the Guardians- and inferior human beings who are to be ruled. The inferior classes have few if any rights, and much of the Republic is proto-fascist in its advocacy of strong men, eugenics, and absolute obedience to the State”
That sounds eerily similar to what Merriam proposed. An elite class of expert bureaucrats to govern those of unequal status…to help them because they cannot achieve this equality on their own (This bureaucracy would come to fruition under Hoover and FDR, whose administrations Merriam was a part of) Obviously this was an un-American way of thinking, which makes sense knowing that Merriam studied in Paris and Berlin as did many of the other progressive elites of this era. Merriam and others such as John Dewey knew it would be difficult to change our founding principles because they knew their ideas were not supported by the general population as revealed by Merriam himself.
“The present tendency, then, in American political theory is to disregard the once dominant ideas of natural rights and the social contract, although it must be admitted that the political scientists are more agreed upon this point than is the general public.”
But as any good elitist will do, they developed a plan to influence the people to agree with their ‘enlightened ways’. They accomplished it through our education system. (Did I mention Merriam was a professor at the University of Chicago) Once enough people were brainwashed into believing these un-American principles they began to infiltrate the ranks of both political parties and push them within the government. The results are pretty obvious.
Not everyone was fooled. I submit as evidence a speech by President Calvin Coolidge in 1926 as the progressive movement was gaining steam.
“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the revolutionary fathers.”
Coolidge was a man of few words, but I must say those were some good ones. He was certainly correct in asserting these new progressives and their ideals were a backwards way of thinking. Maybe without even realizing it, they promoted sending us back to ancient times. This is not progress. Whatever their good intentions, they opened a path that is very dangerous. The idea of legal positivism; the idea that there are no permanent principles that a government should be beholden to, paved the way for the liberal anti-Christian movement that is prevalent in our culture today. This political philosophy has led to the idea that slavery was ok (Dred Scott). That abortion is ok (Roe vs Wade). What will our relative values lead to in the future?
This self proclaimed elite thinking class of the progressive era duped a lot of people into believing some very un-American ideals. These are the same ideals that are currently being promoted by the Obama administration as well as others before him. Perhaps a little history lesson could change the minds of those among us who have not yet found something solid to stand on. And perhaps change the mind of some liberal voting Christians as well. I would argue; however, that we may never be able to change the mind of the truly ‘enlightened’.
Comments on this entry are closed.