A View from the Middle
By Michael Pierson

(I teach High School English and Social Science in Anaheim. I have had several reviews, essays, and articles concerning American culture published, including Prelude to the Last Witch Hunt: Congress v. Clinton and, in a soon to be published but as yet untitled anthology, a chapter discussing the implications of the decisions made by the Rose Bird Court. I have a Master’s degree in American Studies from California State University, Fullerton.)
‘Radical’ is the wrong word to use in describing the current political climate in America. A radical is someone who wishes to change things even if it might mean the destruction of the thing itself. Thomas Jefferson was a radical- as were all of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence. The correct word to describe our current epoch is ‘Reactionary’- a response to radicalism made with the intent of returning things to their prior condition. Thus, neo-conservativism is a reaction among early 21st century politicians that attempts to push us back towards the early 20th century, before the Progressive and New Deal eras.

Somewhere between the radicals and the reactionaries is ‘Liberalism’ or, to some, ‘Progressivism.’ One need only look at what progressivism has accomplished over the last 100 years to appreciate the losses to be suffered at the hands of the reactionaries. Before the progressive movement began, women were disenfranchised. Before the progressives pushed their agenda, there was nothing to prevent businesses from doing what they do best: put money in their own coffers at the expense of the public welfare. Sinclair Lewis and Upton Sinclair chronicled these excesses in their classics The Jungle and The Octopus- quickly labeled ‘muckraking’ by their detractors. The response to these progressive voices was the creation of governmental agencies to establish safe food and drugs, and to break up the huge monopolistic trusts. While we think of The Great Depression as a period beginning in 1929 and ending with World War II, there had been several Great Depressions over our history leading up to that point- one about every 40 years. Since the creation of the SEC, NASD, FDIC, and other inter-related government and quasi-governmental regulatory agencies in the late 30’s and early 40’s, there has not been a classic depression in nearly 80 years. Because of the progressive movement, there are laws against the exploitation of children in the workplace, for the compensation of workers hurt at their place of employment, and the provision of at least some retirement benefit for virtually everyone who has ever worked in the United States. Some would call this Big Government; others would call it Responsive Government. From either perspective, none of this would have been necessary had not the excesses of corporate America made it so.

The progressive mantra did not end with Roosevelt; it continues in spirit even today. In spite of an incredible increase in the number of cars on the roads today, death tolls are proportionately lower. This is because of seat belt and passive restraint systems mandated by our federal government. It is very easy to understand why such systems would not be included in a voluntary program: they are expensive, and the automakers that chose not to include such systems would have a competitive price advantage in the market. The mandate essentially leveled the playing field for all competitors. The air is more breathable because of air pollution requirements, the waterways are cleaner because enforcement of federal and state regulations makes them so, and there are now pelicans because the government banned those chemicals that were destroying them.

The 18th Amendment was an attempt by an intolerant Women’s Christian Temperance Union, among others, to govern the morality of Americans; it failed miserably. The right and responsibility for the distribution of alcoholic beverages returned to the states with the passage of the 21st Amendment, and no group- until the current epoch- has attempted to govern morality at a federal level through a constitutional amendment. Cultural intolerance has returned, with a reactionary response by conservative Christians toward those who do not share that belief. Thus some in the Christian community would condemn a Hindu suffering from Parkinson’s disease, or a Muslim woman with an unwanted pregnancy, to their fate at the hands of quacks and charlatans because of their biblically-based misgivings.

Progressives do not like big government any more than do corporations, however the concept of what constitutes big government is relative. Not so relative, however, is the business of Corporate America. Their purpose has not changed since the first corporations were formed in the broad sweep of our own Revolution: profit. There is nothing wrong with profit- it is the lifeblood of every citizen. It pays our wages, makes our infrastructures work, and allows us all the safety and comforts of our way of life. But a corporation is not accountable to anyone but its shareholders; it cannot be voted out of office if it does something that might not be in the public interest. That is why progressives are wary of Corporate America; their support of responsive government is as a counterweight, accountable to the people. That is also why progressives are wary of the way America has moved toward the reactionary.

Excellent!

Winston, you're Michael? Impressive accomplishments!

Powerful use of reactionary and liberal/progressive! I think the reactionary description fits like a glove. And of course, nice examples you chose to sprinkle through the essay. Well done.

I'm not sure I clearly understand your definition of radical here though. I'm not implying in any way, it's incorrect, just asking for more clarification. "A radical is someone who wishes to change things even if it might mean the destruction of the thing itself. "

Do you think that the suffragettes were radicals? Or those that lead the children's rights movement that led to child labor laws?

What differentiates a radical from a progressive who is on the far end of promoting progress and change? The willingness to cause "he destruction of the thing itself? "

What does it really mean to say, "even it it might mean the destruction of the thing itself." Were the suffragettes willing to sacrifice the right to vote?

I'm missing something! I'm having a disconnect moment, if you will...

Thanks for your kind praise- I wish the LA Times thought as much of it.

I used the example of Jefferson because he was a radical. He was one of the fathers of our revolution; he was willing to destroy the existing government to createa new one. I was also going to use Lenin and Mao, but thought about my audience and thought the better of it... it would have been more distracting that enlightening. Jefferson, by the way, is the only person I named as a radical.

All of those other things, including women's sufferage, were progressive. They were a constant force moving against the status quo; they wanted rightful change, not revolution.

So no, I don't think you had a disconnect- maybe just a little nap?

PS: I'm not the Michael!

Very nice, indeed ! I like your point that the Progressive movement is a counter-balance. Also that progressives fall between radicals and reactionaries. Thanks for a very insightful post.

Good paper. I think it is very important to emphasize that it is possible
to be very very strong in pushing a progressive agenda and still not be a radical.

the Michael? is that like the Donald?

Not only do we have to emphasize that a progressive agenda is not radical, we have to make our message clear- all of the great social gains- GAINS, NOT GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS!- came from the progressive agenda. We also have to make a second point clear: the progressive movement spread across both major parties. There are dozens of Republican and Democratic progressives spanning the first 50 years of the last century. This polarity between the two parties is a relatively new phenomenon; I hope it soon passes like a bad case of the flu.

What I think my friend Ultraist was referring to was the "Michael" we are introduced to when we look at the CGCS forum rules.

...Or maybe St. Michael!?

The minimum functions of government are to provide for the common defense and to protect the law-abiding from lawbreakers.

Another function of government dear to progressive spirits is to protect the poor and weak from the rich and powerful.

The rich and powerful usually control the status quo, and they never want progressives to get the government to do things like
1) support the right of workers to organize
2) defend civil rights of minorities
3) regulate industries.

Everyone, including you and me, will always look out for our interests- and this is what astounds me! The poor and weak will do things against their own self interest because Big Business has done such an incredible job of indoctrinating the masses to believe the interest of Big Business is also the same interest as that of the common man. Our message has to get past that brainwashing... <_<

Frank Norris wrote The Octopus, not Sinclair Lewis or Upton Sinclair. Here's a blurb about it from the American Library Association:

The Octopus, Frank Norris
Reminiscent in tone of Emile Zola's Germinal, The Octopus is a turn of the century epic of wheat farmers in the San Joaquin Valley struggling against the rapacity of the all-powerful Pacific and Southwestern (i.e. Southern Pacific) Railroad. The company controls the local paper, the land, the legislature, and even the farmers' own representative on the state rate-fixing commission. An unremitting tale of greed and betrayal by an author who wrote an impressive series of realistic, socially exploratory novels, including McTeague and Vandover and the Brute.

http://www.ala.org/ala/ppo/currentprograms...iabroadcast.htm

Whose on third?

This is what I was referring to:
A View from the Middle
By Michael Pierson

I do like ya guy, but Saint status? Now that is asking a lot. <_<

BTW, I can accept your definition of radical although I'm having a hard time thinking that MLK Jr or the suffragettes were not radicals! I'll give it some more thought.

I do like very much how you differentiated progressives that work for change from radicals and I agree, we must not allow progressive ideas be labeled radical or fringe.

Check your facts! This is a very nice essay, but make sure you check your facts. Sinclair Lewis was an FDR-era novelist who wrote It Can't Happen Here among other socially important books. It Can't Happen Here deals with the theme of whether a Nazi-like totalitarian regime could arise from American roots.

Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle as well as other novels that exposed the exploitation of workers, especially immigrant laborers.

OOPS! You're right! I'll fix it in my original draft. Someone else noted Norris as the author of "The Octopus"; you can bet that'll be fixed real quick. Mmmm, wonder if that's why the Times thought the guy who wrote it might be an idiot?