Recently I was finishing a discussion thread with one of my online classes where we were investigating the Progressive era. In something of a summary statement, one of my students said that the changes of that time were wonderful and amazing, a time when so many good things happened to make life better for people. Another student commented that the Progressives were so important because they were working for the betterment of others.
That idea, in a nutshell, is why so many people believe that voting for the Democratic Party is a vote for caring, a vote with heart, or a vote for “the least of these.” In other words, if you don’t vote with the Democratic Party, you are obviously a mean person or at least selfish, only concerned with keeping your riches and in the meanwhile, harming others.
Over the past 20 years when I speak with people who vote “on the left,” this is the underpinning of almost every part of their passion. There are other reasons, of course, and some of those have validity, but in general terms…that’s it. My students nailed the passion—they make changes that help people.
The only problem is that the idea is incorrect.
Not only is it incorrect today, but it is incorrect on the whole about the Progressive Era. Or, to say it with more deft, whether those changes made in the 1890-1920 period are good or bad depends on how you define success. Certainly, that is a concept that can’t easily be distilled into a short blog posting, but at least take away the reality that there is real debate to the validity of those changes.
But is it incorrect today? I believe it is and can easily be proven. In the second Presidential debate, the last question to both men was about how they have been misrepresented and how could they change that opinion (in less than two minutes). What Mitt Romney SHOULD have said is something like this:
During this campaign, I have been consistently accused of being only supportive of wealthy people and companies, that because I am wealthy then my choices and decisions are always going to harm everyone less fortunate than myself. It is true that I am rich. Guess what—everyone else in America wants to have the same wealth as I do, and if I am elected President, I will lead us back to the vision of the Founders where it is possible that anyone can do exactly what I have done—worked hard, played my cards right, had a few lucky breaks with who I met and jobs I have taken, and then found myself at a place where I was incredibly blessed.
But, that I am wealthy has nothing to do with my vision for helping others, which I have demonstrated time and time again in my personal life as well in how I governed Massachusetts. Moreover, the suggestion that my wealth makes me want to harm the poor or only govern for the wealthy is an effort by the Democrats to create some sort of class warfare; it is an effort to demonize the rich. Everyone who lives in our country, under our Constitution, deserves the same rights, freedoms and protections in terms of free speech, protection of their property and the ability to be dealt fairly by the government. This is the vision that our Founders had and it remains my vision today.
Romney’s point would have been raising the first, most easy point of attack on the Democrats’ view that only they help the poor, or that Progressives are the people with heart. Regardless of whether you like rich people or not, or if you feel as if they owe something to you, our country has always attempted to protect everyone, including the wealthy. No, we haven’t done it perfectly, as the track record with African-Americans demonstrates, but the concept has been consistently put forth. It doesn’t matter if you are poor OR RICH…you have rights.
What we learn from history is that on the whole, Progressive policies (both in the past and now) are built on the concept of taking rights, taking property from the rich and using that abuse of power to supposedly help those less fortunate. Rich people have rights and it is about time that fact is stated openly.
But, the second, deeper point of attack on the belief that only Democrats care for others is by actually looking at the policies suggested or put into motion since the time of the Progressives. The claim is that the poor are helped, yet again and again, on almost every level, the end result is that through Democrat progressive laws, the poor have remained poor. Under their policies, the only one who really benefits is the government itself, growing more and more powerful.
Giving the government more power has never actually helped the poor. OK, sure….some government policies have given money to poor people or put food into some bellies. But, in the deeper sense of changing society so that poor people are helped out of their condition, the track record is dismal. It’s so bad, in fact, one could build an argument that these policies of the Democrats have actually helped KEEP PEOPLE POOR and thus dependent on the government.
One would imagine that the real hope of someone coming to help another would not be to merely alleviate immediate suffering, but help the less fortunate one get on a path to a situation where they don’t suffer again. Tragically, most of the Progressive policies of the Democrats KEEP people in poverty.
So, the real question that should be asked by someone who wishes to really help—historically, what kinds of actions help someone get out of poverty? Does more government really help people? The simple and clear answer is that “no, more government does not help people” and what really helps is to construct a society where anyone can get ahead if they put in the hard work, sweat and effort necessary.
There’s more to say on this point, but with the election just a few days away, I’ll stop there and leave you with this point to think about: it has been demonstrated by various surveys that more money is given to charity and non-profits by those who typically vote conservative than those who are on the left, the progressive vote. In the question of heart or passion to help others, more people on the right in the country actually put their money with their mouth is, or where their heart is. The progressives, on the other hand, seem more interested in putting SOMEONE ELSE’S MONEY into the equation.
Voting Democrat is NOT voting with heart NOR is voting Republican merely a vote for the rich. The real question is which party is going to limit the power of government enough so that the economy increases, and by doing so allow a society that values hard work to really prosper…which will then open the door for anyone poor to increase their situation? History shows us that voting “progressive” is NOT the answer.