Pioneers Vs. Progressives: We’re at a Crossroad
These days, the Little Teichs and I are beginning to read the Laura Ingalls Wilder tales. The reading really is a tribute to my recently passed grandmother. She often had me on the weekends intended for my father, and we’d spend the day washing our sheets, spraying them with Jean Nate, and cuddling up to read the highs and lows of the early American pioneering days.
Today, while these stories are exhilarating and fascinating to their young minds – and as I recall my own youthful excitement and curiosity anticipating the next adventure and attempting to grasp the hardships and triumphs of those pioneers – I now find myself looking at these books from a slightly different perspective, and asking myself very different questions.
What did these original entrepreneurs hope to gain? What made them live in near solitude? And what would these men and women have asked for from their government?
Oddly enough, in reading the series again, I found no mention of the government subsidy Pa would use when he went to town to purchase the seed. He labored, alone, or called upon his neighbors to assist, graciously giving help in return. A Coop, perhaps, but no lobbyists, no demands. Neither was there a whisper of Ma wondering how the midwife, coming to deliver Baby Carrie, would be compensated for her services. She would be paid, and that was that. There would be no government social worker to help distribute free care and guidance on nutrition; no taxpayer-subsidized program to teach the parents how to teach the children.
Enter Progressivism…
With the rise of the Progressive Movement near the beginning of the 20th Century, history’s delightful tales were brazenly and summarily placed upon a shelf with little regard for the good in them, only with sights on the next revolution, the next earth-shattering development which would help “move us forward.” Change. We would progress until there was no hurt, no want, no pain. We’d create utopia.
And to those hopes, we fall victim, again and again – forgetting all the while that we live in a time and a place that will not and cannot be perfect. We cannot erase all of our differences and we cannot wish away our woes – no matter how much we hope that we could.
Is that to say that man should not progress or build upon his successes? Certainly not. But should an understanding of good governmental policy be measured not by emotion, but rather by fact and reason? Wouldn’t it be sensible, from time to time, to reflect upon the virtuousness of the traditions that made this the greatest, most successful and most generous civilization to have ever graced God’s earth? I think so.
All throughout our history – the American history – tradition intersects the good intentions of progress. Typically, the pendulum swings back and forth, but at times, it never quite finds its way back to dead center – and our nation begins to teeter on the edge of something very dangerous. We become unbalanced.
Today, we’re at one such intersection. And I urge you to perk your ears and listen! This is fundamental to fully understanding and appreciating the great American experiment that began centuries ago.
Conservatives and Libertarians are watching the country change. Liberals and Progressives are on the march to institute significant changes that will impact you and future generations which will keep us so off-balance, we may never recover.
I’ve recently partnered with a group called MomThink. Since I started this journey of sharing my thoughts, ideas and concerns with moms (and others), I always dreamed that we would reach out and have discussions – left, right, and everyone in between. And that somewhere in that mix, we’d finally begin to hatch some plans that could help keep us in balance. It’s been three years now. It’s hard to find people who will stand up, step forward and start talking. But we must.
The intersection at which we presently find ourselves will impact our children and their children for generations to come. It’s playing itself out at every level of government, in the American judicial system, in our school districts, in our cities and towns, and in average citizens’ hearts and minds. It’s time to clearly reflect upon and analyze that which we have farmed out to D.C., and what it is that we’re really expecting in return.
The topics I’ll be discussing over the next several weeks will highlight a very important issue known as “constitutional overreach.” Plainly stated, “constitutional overreach” is when any of the three branches of government, at any level, oversteps its constitutional authority and infringes upon the rights, privileges or authority of another. This system of balance was put into place for very specific reasons… so that the demands of the governing authorities that drove our ancestors out of their respective homelands, across the seas and into hostile territories, would NEVER again be realized by their posterity.
YOUR ancestors left their homelands and did all of that for YOU. So, yes, I think you owe it to them to carve out a part of your day – every day – in order to protect this cherished system for the children who cannot yet do it for themselves… and to raise them to do the same in time. As Ronald Reagan once said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.”
Constitutional overreach, in my opinion, is the quickest path to freedom’s extinction.
Just now, hidden in the depths of the newly enacted federal healthcare law, commonly referred to as “ObamaCare,” there is an individual mandate. By the year 2014 (unless you’re offered one of the “exemptions” given to friends and cronies of the proponents of ObamaCare), you will be required to show proof of purchase of a private health insurance policy (approved by the government, of course) or face fines and other penalties delivered to you by that same government.
Remember the bully from The Christmas Story that made the boys “assume the position” or face the wrath?
MomThink has produced a thought-provoking video of the government’s new role in demanding your consumerism. Yes, they will choose the coverage you need, authorize its reach and then oversee your purchase and maintenance thereof. If you don’t want health insurance… well, that isn’t an option. Assume the position.
I need you to share this video. Why? Because many people who are not now engaged need a simple way to get their mind around this subject. MomThink has produced such a reminder. Moms, dads, aunts, uncles… whoever you are. If you’re talking about it, more moms will engage.
In the weeks ahead, I am going to continue to highlight this issue… the hypocritical nature of the demand, the amazing lack of insight for the needs of American citizens, and the policies that leave you standing at a crossroads.
Look for the next in the series:
I Blame You Not Them
Needs vs. Wants: Food, Water, Shelter and End of Life Counseling
Disclosure: Molly is a paid partner of MomThink, both of whom have displayed a commitment to the principles of free-market individualism. You can friend MomThink on Facebook, follow on Twitter and find numerous resources for this topic and others at their parent website, Intellectual Takeout.
Why should moms care about political issues? {Comment below}
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- I Am Blaming You. | Political Mommentary - [...] Pioneers Vs. Progressives: We’re at a Crossroad share ...
Leave a Reply
Official CPAC Blogger
I’ve actually been debating whether to read my little boy Cooper’s the Leatherstocking Tales (Last of the Mohicans, etc.) as is, or to try and find a way to paraphrase them. (Yes, there are proud papa-readers, too – and writers, no less! I’ve got a project underway for a multi-part series “Scalawag the Sea Dog” that explores the life of a pooch aboard a hip of folks who simply want to be left alone – but never can. No freedom messaging from my libertarian self, eh?)
Great piece!
Thanks for keeping the discussion going. I know we have to move forward and change in our lives is inevitable, but I can attest to the FACT that life was simpler, slower and BETTER 30 plus years ago. I love what technology offers but I deplore the threats to American life progressivism brings. Keep reading “Little House” books to the urchins so they understand idividualism and grow to cherish the freedom their grandparents were blessed by.
Yes, the “midwife” would be paid, but let’s keep in mind a few things. Back then, midwives weren’t licensed professionals. There was a wide range of skill and knowledge. Lots of infants and their mothers died in childbirth. Many women couldn’t afford to pay a midwife, so they had to make do with whatever woman in their social network had experience delivering children. Is that the kind of health care system you want? Right now, the U.S. already has one of the worst infant mortality rates of industrialized countries — check out the ranking on the CIA’s web site at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html. If private medicine is so much better than public, then how come the U.S. lags behind Canada, Britain, and other countries with public health care on just about every health indicator from infant mortality to life expectancy?
The answer is that America actually reports their data accurately and is in a list with those who do not. Do you really go through life losing little ones here, there and everywhere? This is more “Blame America” propaganda: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/04/13/financial-times-gets-wrong-infant-mortality-rates/
But aside from talking about the facts of my article, you’ve chosen to try to pick a part or minor tenant of the article. The beginning and end theme is that insurance itself hurts the cost of services for those who are paying and for those who rely on the government. Government intervention… especially that which does not reform the cause, is inadequate for relief, destructive in precedent and completely unconstitutional.
Oh, and we’re broke.
Your video there at the bottom of this post is a classic example of the slippery slope logical fallacy. If we make a mandate for health care, there is “no limit” to what we can be forced to buy next. That is an unfounded and illogical statement. There is a specific purpose to the mandate, and that is to lower cost of health care so that the poor can afford it. It would seem that you as a mom should care about health care. Kids, families depend on it. A huge majority of people in the US want it, and are not rich enough to just pay everything out of pocket. What we really need is to get business out of health care, and realize that it is a human right, not a privilege. Our health care system in America is broke, and as usual all the conservatives can do is tear down efforts to fix it, while offering nothing in the way of an alternative.
Slippery slope… OR, we could choose your example of outright distortion… There is no “huge majority of people” that want it… in fact, half or more people are concerned that the Individual Mandate sets a dangerous precedent — from many many polls done. And beside this fact, if a huge majority wanted to start a socialistic state, are the rest of us to sit by to live under it’s destructive ways? You are born free… free to choose designer sneakers and football tickets OR to purchase health care insurance. If you want coverage, we need to reduce cost so that your family can purchase it and the government can afford to cover those less fortunate. I’ve offered alternatives that work… Seattle has real examples of exchanges that lower cost. This is the first step to reform. For all families… and for government’s role in it, as limited as that should be.
Dear Tim… if you’ve never read this blog before you might want to read more posts before you throw me into the same boat as the “rest of the Republicans.” Or, you could go back to the blog that sent you here and live comfy in your “government provides while I whine” armchair.
Is there a foundation for the claim that “If we make a mandate for health care, there is ‘no limit’ to what we can be forced to buy next?” Two simple examples quickly come to mind. Beginning in 1959 when Congress passed the first set of safety standards, for automobiles, seat belts have become a fixture in our cars. Originally optional, the use of the “lap belt” morphed into a mandatory wearing of the 3 point system found in most cars today. If you choose not to wear your seat belt you can be stopped and issued a ticket requiring you to pay a fine. I’ll not debate the advisability of seat belt use here, I’m just pointing out the buildup of government force requiring their use. The second example is the history of cigarette smoking (again without judgment as to the obvious health issues). I’m old enough to remember when the anti-smokers began their campaign by having laws passed requiring restaurants and airplanes to separate smokers from the non-smokers. Next came the ban on smoking in government buildings. This was quickly followed by in the workplace bans. Attempts were made to charge parents caught smoking, with children in their cars, with child abuse. Recently some cities have placed bans on smoking in outdoor public parks. It is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to foresee the day when it will be deemed illegal to light a cigarette anywhere and the force of government will be used to police this ban. Slippery slopes of individual choice and freedom indeed! Both of these issues began with a specific purpose to the mandate but just like the camel’s nose once a small part of freedom is take away it is not long before bigger and bigger pieces are taken away until the whole body of freedom is gone. It is much easier not to start the slide down the slope then to climb up after hitting the bottom.
I loved those books as a child as well. But actually, Pa got that land on the shores of the Silver Lake free from the government. Don’t you remember that scene where he describes picking out the perfect piece of land, and waiting in line at the post office, and the two guys in front of him are trying to claim the same property?
It was called the Homestead Act, and it was a –yes– progressive government policy designed to urge citizens to settle the frontier. This is cool, here’s the actual land grant the the government signed to give the land to the Ingalls family: http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2003/winter/little-town-in-nara-1.html
Almanzo Wilder and his brother also benefited from the same program. Here’s a bit more information on the Homestead Act.
“Charles Ingalls and the Wilders all filed for homesteads near De Smet. Under the Homestead Act of 1862 (12 Stat. 392), citizens and those who had filed their intention to become citizens were given 160 acres of land in the public domain if they fulfilled certain conditions. In general, an applicant had to build a home on the land, cultivate the land, and reside there for five years.”
So don’t get me wrong, I totally agree that the Ingalls family were self-sufficient. In fact, I remember a scene where Pa tells Mary and Laura that the government isn’t giving free handouts, but rather, the government is asking them to prove that they can work hard and develop the land. But in general, please be careful about historical accuracy when you’re trying to prove a political point. Not all policy is bad policy. I do get frustrated sometimes by conservatives who seem to believe that it’s wrong to invest in their nation. It seems quite self-centered. Programs that developed our national parks system, our transit infrastructure, our safe water and wastewater supply, our scientific resources — and yes, the development of the western frontier — all of those came from the spirit of generations who believed in contributing to their nation.
Thanks for this interesting comment. I think it’s well-spoken and certainly some who believe there is no role for government are mistaken. You give great examples of socially-acceptable programs that benefit us all. I think we are certainly at a crossroad of debt that make our frustration well up into absolutes. We must deal with a healthy government, a less expensive system… then we can fix things like health care.
Thank you for the tone of your comment.
I loved those books as a kid! We lived in South Dakota for a couple years & a few of our field trips were to Laura Ingalls Wilder’s home.
I have been tracing our roots from the landing in America through today. Many of our ancestors would spend a few years in one place and then move on. Most ended up in Missouri. I asked my dad why would they go to Missouri when they were already in TN or wherever. He said that as the land would get settled and more people around, then they would move on. Those early pioneers (1820s) were self-reliant. They didn’t depend on the government for help. I found even a great-great-great-grandfather’s land deed in the Public Records. He paid cash for his acres. Then a few years later bought more for cash. Very different from today where we need FHA to by our first home.
You say you “always dreamed that we would reach out and have discussions – left, right, and everyone in between.” And you invite people to do so on MomThink.
But MomThink is a right-leaning organization, and so not one that would make “left, right, and everyone in between” feel equally at home “hatching some plans that could help keep us in balance.”
And you issue this invitation immediately after saying this:
“Conservatives and Libertarians are watching the country change. Liberals and Progressives are on the march to institute significant changes that will impact you and future generations which will keep us so off-balance, we may never recover.”
So, thanks for the invitation, but no thanks.
My opinion is allowed despite the idea that the organization allows you to have yours and defend it too. Just as I’ve approved this comment… so is your comment valuable to Momthink.
While I believe the age old debate about the role of government in the People’s lives is of great value, I think we should not impose contemporary ideology on to the past nor should we have a misguided nostalgia that the past was always inherently simpler and by extension better. Many of the things that the author notices that where absent from the pioneer’s lives were at the time completely unknown even as abstract concepts, not to mention impossible to implement. This should not be confused for some sort of conscious decision by them that they believe this or that; most pioneers did not care about the workings of the federal government in so much as it did not effect them. This is not to say the great statesmen of the time did not debate the topic, Andrew Jackson was particularly passionate about it, but the small/large government debate was largely irrelevant to the common individual. Simply put: They lived the way they lived because that was how life was. Perhaps they would of loved a public health care option in place of mostly non-existent and/or folk care. We will never know.
Furthermore, one often hears how often life was better and simpler in the “good ole days” and while that may seem to be true to some individuals I would argue that as a whole the quality is about the same. While developments in society often bring further complications and/or problems to the table, they often bring benefits as well. To some, the negatives outweigh the positives, to others the opposite is true but in the end I wouldn’t be surprised if the pioneers felt just as much nostalgia for certain aspects of the past as we do today. There are indeed a great many problems today and that it may seem like the world is going to Hell in a hand-basket, but it sure as hell also felt that way during the Vietnam era, Great Depression, and Civil War as well. This is just another in a series of down times that break-up the otherwise positive history of the U.S.
Also, while it might be easy to divide the political spectrum into “Conservatives”, “Liberals”, and a myriad of other political belief systems, it would seem that in this age of globalization most party affiliations are aesthetic and have little substantive difference. Look at what happened to McCain in 2008. He ran on a platform of moderation during the primary but once nominated he suddenly became a hard-line neocon over night. Why? Well, beyond the campaign trail rhetoric Democrat and Republican presidents are usually practically the same. If you were to judge Obama solely on what he has done in office, most would have trouble affiliating him with a party. Yes, that even includes “ObamaCare”. Just re-watch all the old c-span coverage of the Clinton presidency trying to pass healthcare reform. What did it fail then? Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House and fellow Republicans argued that the public option was (justifiably) socialistic and the only constitutional form of health reform would involve and individual mandate. Romney recently called Gingrich out on this during one of the Republican debates (the one before last I believe). The only reason they oppose it now is because it provides good political fodder against the Democrats. Conversely, if you were to judge Bush junior’s presidency solely by its actions you would have a similar problem. Especially with NCLB (No Child Left Behind) which is, more or less, the epitome of a “socialistic” program. Why no outrage by the media or public at large? Democrats are notoriously incompetent at mounting effective political offensives.
In closing, while I believe these dialogues to be constructive and a net positive for all involved, the problems being discussed often are far more complicated and run much deeper than most really care to grapple with. If you want to get involved in politics, don’t bother with the media and just study history instead; there is a reason why it is the sister discipline of political science.