Why did the progressives begin hating America? by progressingamerica

As is always, the answer to the question is in their own words and writings. Some people will say "the progressives hate America", which is an accurate statement. But why do they hate it? When did that begin? What was the motivation for this ambivalence and rejection of the philosophical underpinnings of Americana?

In calling themselves "progressives", they do to a certain extent give the answer away. Progressives by their nature abhor revolution. That's why the first red scare was conducted by Woodrow Wilson - a horrible president; because making progress requires evolutionary change and not revolutionary change. We still want to get to Z from A, we just don't want to skip B, C, D, etc and kill everybody who stands in our way. We want that frog in the pot, and a slow boil. A large portion of the hatred of America particularly of its Founding is also embedded in the collectivist (anti-individualist) nature of progressive ideology. But that is secondary.

Ok, so where is this written? I just made a claim, how can I prove this claim? Are you going to trust me just because "I said so"? You shouldn't. You shouldn't trust anybody who says this. Ask them to prove it. And ask them to prove it beyond inferences of anecdotal claims. "Did you see how person x did x action?" "Did you see that bill they passed?" You're not in that person's heart, you don't actually know why they did what they did. This is not proof. No matter how devastating that bill would be, that person honestly believes that bill will improve the lives of whomever their target audience is. It's not proof.

Where is it written or in what speech does it appear, that progressives dislike the ideals of America? First, let's discuss the claim within the claim. Do progressives reject "revolution"? Yes, they do. In the book The Promise of American Life, Herbert Croly, Founder of The New Republic, wrote the following:

The great weakness of the most popular form of socialism consists, however, in its mixture of a revolutionary purpose with an international scope. It seeks the abolition of national distinctions by revolutionary revolts of the wage-earner against the capitalist; and in so far as it proposes to undermine the principle of national cohesion and to substitute for it an international organization of a single class, it is headed absolutely in the wrong direction. Revolutions may at times be necessary and on the whole helpful, but not in case there is any other practicable method of removing grave obstacles to human amelioration; and in any event their tendency is socially disintegrating.

Even the Founders conducted a revolution. To that extent I don't think anybody would say never. However, he is pointing specifically to the revolutionary nature as the GREAT weakness. Again, it was a progressive who conducted the first red scare against the communists. That's not a coincidence. The first red scare falls right in line with Croly's words.

Which brings us to the second point of this. The founders did in fact conduct a revolution - an individualist revolution against the British collective. Croly writes:

The temper of the local democracies, which, for the most part, controlled the state governments, was insubordinate, factious, and extremely independent. They disliked the idea of a centralized Federal government because a supreme power would be thereby constituted which could interfere with the freedom of local public opinion and thwart its will. No less than the Federalists, they believed in freedom; but the kind of freedom they wanted, was freedom from anything but local interference. The ordinary American democrat felt that the power of his personality and his point of view would be diminished by the efficient centralization of political authority. He had no definite intention of using the democratic state governments for anti-social or revolutionary purposes, but he was self-willed and unruly in temper; and his savage treatment of the Tories during and after the Revolution had given him a taste of the sweets of confiscation. The spirit of his democracy was self-reliant, undisciplined, suspicious of authority, equalitarian, and individualistic.

This whole thing is clearly culturally in line with Founding-era writings such as the Federalist Papers, Federal Farmer, and a whole plethora of other writings of the day. The Founders did not want a government centralized. That was the very thing they fought to escape from. And Croly can't stand it. Note how he talks about the "local public opinion" and "its will"? This is aghast of the "national will".

In this entire section, Croly makes it quite clear that he is not fond of this cultural aspect of the "ordinary American democrat" as he calls them.

Now, a little context here. Croly was a huge fan of Alexander Hamilton. In essence, Hamilton was a Nationalist in that he wanted to see all of the states obliterated. As a collectivist, Croly is quite fond of this notion as all progressives are that there's no need for the states to exist. We should just all come under the banner of the national government and let them run the show. In contrasting Jefferson and Hamilton, Croly writes:

Unfortunately Jefferson's conception of democracy was meager, narrow, and self-contradictory; and just because his ideas prevailed, while Hamilton toward the end of his life lost his influence, the consequences of Jefferson's imperfect conception of democracy have been much more serious than the consequences of Hamilton's inadequate conception of American nationality. In Jefferson's mind democracy was tantamount to extreme individualism.

Two paragraphs down:

On this, as on so many other points, Hamilton's political philosophy was much more clearly thought out than that of Jefferson.

Hamilton's policy was one of energetic and intelligent assertion of the national good. He knew that the only method whereby the good could prevail either in individual or social life was by persistently willing that it should prevail and by the adoption of intelligent means to that end. His vision of the national good was limited; but he was absolutely right about the way in which it was to be achieved.

So we see that Jefferson = "individual" and Hamilton = "collective", in the terms of what Croly is writing. And he is making this quite clear. Whatever you want to do, you weaponize government and get it done. But you see you don't say the words "weaponize government" no no, that's not progressive. You say it's a "national good", because that will win you more supporters. That's the way to ensure proper progress. Government will force everybody to comply. In describing "Jeffersonianism", Croly writes:

Once these conditions were secured, the motto of a democratic government should simply be "Hands Off." There should be as little government as possible, because persistent governmental interference implied distrust in popular efficiency and good-will; and what government there was, should be so far as possible confided to local authorities.

So he has an accurate and firm grasp on the beliefs of the Founding and the Constitution. Above, the section of the "local will" is also for the most part accurately described. He's not like today's progressives who are drunk on their own propaganda and throw the race card out every fourth word. He knew the nature of the Founding specifically, and he specifically rejected it. Again:

In the foregoing type of political organization, which has been very much favored by the American democracy, the freedom of the official political leader is sacrificed for the benefit of the supposed freedom of that class of equalized individuals known as the "people," but by the "people" Jefferson and his followers have never meant all the people or the people as a whole.

Jefferson = "individual" and Hamilton = "collective". He puts together three concepts here. An individual, a group of individuals, and a collective. "the people as a whole" - one single unitary whole or a mass or collective. A collective is always counted as one and not the millions comprising it. In scolding the Abolitionists in some of their tactics, Croly writes:

The Abolitionists, no less than the Southerners, were tearing at the fabric of American nationality. They did it, no doubt, in the name of democracy; but of all perverted conceptions of democracy, one of the most perverted and dangerous is that which identifies it exclusively with a system of natural rights. Such a conception of democracy is in its effect inevitably revolutionary, and merely loosens the social and national bond.

And so again we see two things: Worship the Nation and Natural rights are perverted and dangerous because they are revolutionary. And to this extent he is also correct. For millennia upon millennia humanity was told by false dictators that the emperor was also a deity and you must belong to the government collective. Pharaoh wasn't really all that different than Caesar or Hirohito in that respect. Along comes Natural Rights and God sets us all free.

To a certain extent, the American revolution is the only revolution humanity has ever known. Reagan stated this:

In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world’s history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny.

This is the individual "Jefferson" that Croly despises. Should you worship God? No, You should worship the Nation! Croly writes:

In economic warfare, the fighting can never be fair for long, and it is the business of the state to see that its own friends are victorious. It holds, if you please, itself a hand in the game. The several players are playing, not merely with one another, but with the political and social bank. The security and perpetuity of the state and of the individual in so far an he is a social animal, depend upon the victory of the national interest—as represented both in the assurance of the national profit and in the domination of the nation's friends.

So if you are a friend of the nation, the nation will promote you and redistribute wealth your way. But if you are an enemy of the state and the "national profit", and you believe in these "perverted" conceptions such as "natural rights", you must be destroyed. This is the National interest. The word "nation" appears in this book over 1400 times. He makes it clear the entity he worships. Some might disagree with my use of the word "worship", but when the government is so prevalent and all powerful in one's viewpoint, what other word comes so close to accuracy? How about devotion? How close is the word "worship" to "devotion"? Croly even writes this:

Loyalty to the national interest implies devotion to a progressive principle.

See. The Nation must have its progress! The national interest! Bow down or be shadowbanned. And if the states get in the way? Abolish them. We are a Nation. Get rid of the 10th amendment, get rid of the electoral college. These things are undemocratic and anti-progressive anyways.

So we have proven that progressives are collectivist, dislike the Founding because it is revolutionary, and were intially obsessed with the "national interest". How can the people be converted into a national collective? Croly writes:

If a people, in becoming more of a nation, become for that very reason more of a democracy, the realization of the democratic purpose is not rendered any easier, but democracy is provided with a simplified, a consistent, and a practicable programme. An alliance is established thereby between the two dominant political and social forces in modern life. The suspicion with which aggressive advocates of the national principle have sometimes regarded democracy would be shown to have only a conditional justification; and the suspicion with which many ardent democrats have regarded aggressive nationalism would be similarly disarmed.

That's the goal. Nationalize the people so that they are less individualistic and more of "a nation". A complete rejection and hatred of the American founding.

Now this book was written in 1909, but as collectivists, progressives would have instinctively developed a disdain for the American founding as soon as they appeared a decade earlier and shed their uniquely American individualism.

That is why the progressives began hating America. Evolution vs revolution. The starting point is in the "progress". Making progress requires evolution: moving from A, to B, to C, D, E, etc until you have evolved to reach Z. Isn't progress wonderful? And nobody can explain why nor how it happened. So it's permanent. But the Founding principle that rights come from God and not Government is necessarily revolutionary and therefore it is irrelevant. The Founders wanted to move from A, the position of tyranny under the British National Collective to Z, Liberty under God's tutelage. In one single act they shook off the chains of bondage, a concept that is antithetical at every turn to the principles of progressive ideology.