American Progressivism

I.  Who were the Progressives, and why are they important? 

II.  The Progressives and their Attack on America’s Founding

III.  How the Progressives Originated the Modern Presidency

IV. Progressivism and Socialism

V. Progressivism and the Current Crisis




I.  Who were the Progressives, and why are they important? 

R.J. Pestritto

Shipley Professor of the American Constitution at Hillsdale College 


 

American Progressivism

by Ronald J. Pestritto

Glenn has asked me to expand a bit on our discussion of America’s Progressives from Friday’s television show, which I’ll do in this and four subsequent pieces for the newsletter.  In today’s piece, I’ll explain who the Progressives were and why they were important.   

Many on the left today call themselves “progressive,” and they do so not just because it’s a nicer way of saying “liberal,” but also because they very much intend to revive the political principles of America’s original Progressives, from the Progressive Era of the 1880s through World War I.  Why would leftist politicians, like Mrs. Clinton, purposely identify themselves with this Progressive movement? 

The reason is that America’s original Progressives were also its original, big-government liberals.  Most people point to the New Deal era as the source of big government and the welfare state that we have today.  While this is perfectly accurate, it is important to understand that the principles of the New Deal did not originate in the New Deal; rather, they came from the Progressives, who had dominated American politics and intellectual cultural a generation prior to the New Deal. 

We have no less an authority on this connection than Franklin Roosevelt himself.  When FDR campaigned in 1932, he pointed to the Progressives – and in particular to Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – as the source of his ideas about government.   

In terms of the personalities who made up the Progressive movement, some are familiar to us and others are less so.  The movement was comprised of well known politicians like Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt; but it was also comprised of intellectuals and writers who are less well known but who have been very influential in America.  There were folks like John Dewey, who was America’s public philosopher for much of the early 20th century.  Even less well known was Herbert Croly, but Croly was highly influential, since he founded and was the first editor of The New Republic – which became the main organ of Progressive opinion in the United States, and is still one of the most important journals on the Left today.  I should add here that Woodrow Wilson actually fell into both of these categories – he was both a well known politician and president, but also was, for decades prior to his entry into politics, a prominent intellectual (a college professor and president of Princeton) who wrote many books and influential articles. 

As I’ll explain in my next piece, these Progressives wanted a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government, from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty to one whose ends and scope would change to take on any and all social and economic ills.  Here’s the order of the points we’ll consider in the pieces to follow: 

    1) What did Progressives think about the American founding, and why did they want to eradicate its principles? 

    2) How did we get today’s excessively powerful presidency from the Progressives? 

    3) What was the connection between Progressivism and Socialism?  Were the Progressives actually Socialists? 

    4) What are some of the critical connections between Progressivism and what’s going on in our country today? 

For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest: 

    1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.  This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

 




II.  The Progressives and their Attack on America’s Founding


 

As I mentioned in my last piece, America’s Progressives aimed for a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government.  While our founders understood that our national government must have the capacity to be strong and vigorous (this is why the Articles of Confederation were failing), they also were very clear that this strength must always be confined to very limited ends or areas of responsibility; government, in other words, while not weak or tiny, was to be strictly limited.   

The Progressive conception of government, on the other hand, was quite the opposite; Progressives had an “evolving” or a “living” notion of government (yes, we get the term “living constitution” from the Progressives), and thus wanted government to take on whatever role and scope the times demanded.  The Progressives reasoned that people of the founding era may have wanted a limited government, given their particular experience with George III, but they argued that people of their own time wanted a much more activist government, and that we should adjust accordingly. 

Quite simply, the Progressives detested the bedrock principles of American government.  They detested the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines the protection of individual natural rights (like property) as the unchangeable purpose of government; and they detested the Constitution, which places permanent limits on the scope of government and is structured in a way that makes the extension of national power beyond its original purpose very difficult.  “Progressivism” was, for them, all about progressing, or moving beyond, the principles of our founders.   

This is why the Progressives were the first generation of Americans to denounce openly our founding documents.  Woodrow Wilson, for example, once warned that “if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface” – i.e. that part of the Declaration which talks about securing individual natural rights as the only legitimate purpose of government.  And Theodore Roosevelt, when using the federal government to take over private businesses during the 1902 coal strike, is reported to have remarked, “To hell with the Constitution when people want coal!”  This remark may be apocryphal, but it is a fair representation of how TR viewed these matters.   

In the next piece, we’ll consider how the presidency was transformed under men like Wilson and TR. 

For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest: 

    1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

    2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.  This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

 




III.  How the Progressives Originated the Modern Presidency 

As I explained in my last piece, the Progressives wanted to disregard the Constitution in order to enlarge vastly the scope of government.  As a practical matter, how was this to be done?  It happened in a variety of ways, but principal among them was a fundamental change in the American presidency. 

Under the system of our founders, government was to have sufficient strength and energy to accomplish its ends, but those ends were strictly limited by the Constitution.  The principal way in which the Constitution keeps the government within its boundaries is through the separation of powers.  As readers of The Federalist and of Thomas Jefferson know, the point of separation of powers is to keep any one set of hands from wielding all of the power in national government. 

The Progressives, especially Woodrow Wilson, hated the separation of powers for precisely this reason: it made government inefficient, and made it difficult, if not impossible, to expand the power of government so that it could take on all of the new tasks that Progressives had in mind.  So they looked to the presidency as a way of getting around this obstacle. 

Under the original system, the president was merely leader of a single branch, or part, of the government, and thus could not provide leadership of the government as a whole.  In his book Constitutional Government, Wilson urged that “leadership and control must be lodged somewhere.” The president, Wilson pointed out, was the only politician who could claim to speak for the people as a whole, and thus he called upon the president to rise above the separation of powers – to consider himself not merely as chief of a single branch of government, but as the popular leader of the whole of national politics. Wilson even contrasted the “constitutional aspect” of the presidency – its constitutionally defined role as chief of one of the three co-equal branches of government – to the “political” function of the president, where he could use his connection to public opinion as a tool for moving all of the branches of government in the direction called for by the people.  

It was in this way that Wilson believed the original intention of the separation of powers system could be circumvented, and the enhanced presidency could be a means energizing the kind of active national government that the progressive agenda required.  

In the next piece, we’ll consider whether the principles of the Progressives made them socialists. 

For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest: 

    1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

    2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.  This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

 




IV.  Progressivism and Socialism 

Since the Progressives had such a limitless view of state power, and since they wanted to downplay the founders’ emphasis on individual rights, it is only natural to ask if they subscribed to socialism.  There are several things to consider in answering this question. 

First, when considering the relationship of progressivism to socialism, we must be clear that we are talking about the similarity in the philosophy of government; we are not suggesting that America’s progressives were the kind of moral monsters that we see in the history of some socialist or fascist regimes (although it is the case that their racial views – particularly those of Woodrow Wilson – were indeed morally reprehensible). 

Second, we must also bear in mind that there was an actual socialist movement during the Progressive Era, and prominent progressives such as Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were critics of it.  In fact, Wilson and Roosevelt both ran against a socialist candidate in the 1912 election (Eugene Debs).  The progressives were ambivalent about the socialist movement of their day not so much because they disagreed with it in principle, but because the American socialist movement was a movement of the lower classes.  The progressives were elitists; they looked down their noses at the socialists, considering them a kind of rabble. 

Keeping these points in mind, it is, nonetheless, the case that the progressive conception of government closely coincided with the socialist conception.  Both progressivism and socialism champion the prerogatives of the state over the prerogatives of the individual.  Wilson himself made this connection very plain in a revealing essay he wrote in 1887 called “Socialism and Democracy.”  Wilson’s begins this essay by defining socialism, explaining that it stands for unfettered state power, which trumps any notion of individual rights. It “proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view,” Wilson wrote, and “that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will.” After laying out this definition of socialism, Wilson explains that he finds nothing wrong with it in principle, since it was merely the logical extension of genuine democratic theory. It gives all power to the people, in their collective capacity, to carry out their will through the exercise of governmental power, unlimited by any undemocratic idea like individual rights. He elaborated:

    “In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none.”

Roosevelt, too, argued for a new conception of government, where individual natural rights would no longer serve as a principled boundary that the state was prohibited from crossing.  He called in his New Nationalism program for the state to take an active role in effecting economic equality by way of superintending the use of private property. Private property rights, which had been serving as a brake on the more aggressive progressive policy proposals, were to be respected, Roosevelt argued, only insofar as the government approved of the property’s social usefulness.  He wrote:

    “We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.”

In the next and final piece, we will consider the some of the most important connections between the original progressives and the resurgence of progressivism today. 

For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest: 

    1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

    2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.  This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

 




V.  Progressivism and the Current Crisis 

There are important connections between America’s original Progressive Era and the crisis we are facing today, and it is useful to consider these connections on two levels. 

The first connection is at a general level, and concerns our abandonment of the Constitution.  The present crisis did not appear out of nowhere, and didn’t simply begin with the election of Barack Obama.  Politicians of both parties spent the better part of the 20th century disregarding the Constitution, as they looked to have government step up to solve every conceivable human problem.  Thus it ought to be no surprise that the Constitution’s limits on government aren’t even part of the conversation today as our politicians debate the new interventions in our economy and society that seem to come daily.   

Such a state of things would have greatly pleased America’s original progressives.  As I’ve endeavored to explain in these pieces for the newsletter, progressives believed that the role of government should be determined not by our Constitution, but by whatever the needs of the day happened to be.  This is why they sought to eradicate talk of the Constitution from our political discourse; today, that goal seems to have been realized. 

The second connection between the original Progressive Era and our situation today has to do with policy.  The progressives knew that our original system of government was not capable of handling all of the new tasks that they had in mind for it.  So they envisioned creating a vast set of bureaucratic agencies.  They argued that Congress should enact very broad and vague laws for supervising more and more facets of the American economy and society, and then delegate to the bureaucratic agencies the power and discretion to enact specific policies.  Both Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt conceived of government in this way. 

The New Deal certainly went a long way toward implementing this progressive vision, and what we have seen in our own situation with TARP and the various other interventions is simply greater steps toward the progressive plan.  Our Congress has simply said to the Treasury agencies: here’s a trillion dollars, here’s all the legal authority you need, now go out, determine what is in the public interest, and spend and regulate accordingly.  That is the progressive vision of government, in a nutshell. 

For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest: 

    1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

    2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today.  This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

I want to talk to you about something that probably didn't make a lot of sense a long time ago. In fact, I can't tell you how many program directors and how many stations threatened to cancel. Or how many calls I got from the average listener saying; What the hell are you even talking about when I talked about, the leadership of Martin Luther King.

I have done everything I can — as much as I possibly can — to teach you about Martin Luther King and nonviolent protests. And I don't think there's anybody in the media who has talked about nonviolence longer and more in-depth on commercial airwaves than me. Preachers, certainly. But commercial airwaves — I don't think anybody has.

Now I think many are beginning to understand why I tried to lay that foundation. I have told you since September 11th that I have this feeling you are going to be the group of people that will, in the end, save the republic.

I've always believed that. I don't know how it's saved. It might just be preserved in our hearts, I don't know. But I believe it now.

I never wanted us to get to this point — everything I've done is to prevent us from getting here. But everybody is so politically tied to their side that no one will let their shields down and actually listen to one another.

And we're at that desperate point now.

You are equipped to save the republic because you at least hopefully have a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And you have at least a basic understanding of American history. More importantly, what makes this audience so phenomenal is that it is the most generous and service-minded audience of any show in America and perhaps the world.

That's part of what continues to be so frustrating about the Capitol invasion last week. Because you're being maligned.

You.

I know who you are. This is the most peaceful, generous, loving, God-fearing, authentic and patriotic audience in America. And you are frustrated and you are tired of being hit in the face and being called bigot and everything else no matter what you do.

I've been called an anti-Semite just in the last 24 hours by everybody, unjustly.

I get it.

You are now being tainted by the actions of complete imbeciles who do not represent you and me. It's not fair. But that's the hand that we're being dealt and God is in charge and He is not surprised.

We know the left's current tactics fail in the long run. Silencing. Canceling. Taking away rights.

We know the left's current tactics fail in the long run. Silencing. Canceling. Taking away rights. These are the hallmarks of regime, after regime, after Marxist regime on the ash heaps of history. Now China is still there because they've taken the so-called free market and took the capitalist system and they combined it with their Marxist utopia.

I don't know what's going to happen to the people over there. Especially seeing that our high-tech has joined them to weed out the dissidents. But it's not inevitable that we join them.

And it is going to require us to take a stand. Just not in the way that most people — especially if they're angry — think is most effective. Look at the ratings of BLM. 78 percent of Americans, at the beginning of the summer, thought that they were swell.

That number is in the low 20s now. Why? Because violence doesn't work.

I don't know if you saw the fellowship of the ring, but if you did, do you remember when Frodo said: "I don't want to do this!"

He's lamenting having to face down the evil and he's just one guy. I'll never forget it because it was right after 9/11, that the movie came out. I'll never forget Gandalf's reply. He said: "So do we all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what we're going to do with the time that is given us."

We can't decide what others are going to do. We can't control the dangerous Orwellian darkness that seems to be descending on America. All we can control is our response and strive to lead by example. If you know anyone in your sphere of influence who might be planning to attend one of these armed rallies in the coming days, beg them not to go. Do everything you can to stop them.

That's not a way to take a stand and it will not protect anything you hold dear and it will endanger the republic. It is what the other side wants.

So how do we take a stand?

The first thing I need you to do today is to help lower the temperature. It has been so hard for me not to respond to people on Twitter who have called me every name under the sun because I quoted the leading Holocaust historian last night on Tucker Carlson.

But see, that wasn't an attack on me, that was an attack on Tucker. If you can scare the guests from coming on to Tucker, you destroy Tucker. That's what they're doing.

Do not vent your anger on social media. At this point, it is probably just going to get your account shut down.

I want you to write this down and I want you to keep this in front of you.

Blessed are the peacemakers. For they will be called the children of God.

That means something today, much more than it did six months ago.

Blessed be the peacemakers.

Be a peacemaker.

And this is the hard part, you can't disconnect. Because things are moving too rapidly. You must stay plugged in.

But I want you to reach out to someone in kindness on social media. Encourage someone. Do not engage with the darkness. Be the light in the corner of your world.

You need to be a leader for what is to come.

And I know I'm asking you almost the impossible. I know you're angry and frustrated and it is gut-wrenching to feel that you're powerless to stop your nation from what you believe is sliding into the abyss.

You are not powerless. You are not voiceless.

I believe it too, with everything in me. I wish I was wrong. I hope that I am. I pray that I am. But know this: You are not powerless. You are not voiceless. You may be the only voice that anyone hears. Voices like mine will go away. I am trying to think of what I need to share with you before, God forbid, that ever happens. Because I cannot live with myself if I talked about something stupid politically and I find my voice silenced and then saying, I wish I would have said this or I wish I would have told them that.

You wield more power than you know. Not because of your voice or being able to call your congressman. You're more powerful than you know because you understand the real problem in America. The real problem in America is not political.

It is spiritual.

If you're like me when you get angry, you think that you are going to take on this challenge on your own — you are not being humble. You think you'll fix it. Everything that is happening to us is because we are an arrogant, out of control people.

We must humble ourselves. Please, you have the skill and the strength to endure the fiery darts that are going to come your way or already are. But this is a problem with our hearts.

You cannot reach someone's head without capturing their heart and no one is going to capture anyone's heart through violence.

Start in your own home and then reach out and if you're able, serve your neighbor. If you can, serve your local community. You must be a beacon of light in a very dark place. I'm going to ask you to do something you're really not going to like. And that's how I know things are from God. When I hear something or I think something and I'm like — oh crap, I don't want to do that — and you just know it it's right. You just know it's what God wants. And you're hoping that maybe you didn't hear it.

And it's so horrible. Because it's the last thing you want to do. But God is unlike many of our churches and preachers, He doesn't tell us what we want to hear. He doesn't have to pay for the church or get collection. Or be judged by how many people go.

Rise above the fray, with service and love, with malice toward none and charity toward all.

He'll say the same thing and he'll lose whole flocks. And they'll eventually start to go — oh wait, where is the Shepherd again?

But I have to tell you now some things that I want you to do. And they're not new. But I need you to hear me. I am asking you if you want to stand for the republic, I need you first to pray.

Pray like you've never prayed before. Pray for humility. Pray for guidance. Pray for peace. Pray for those people who you think you hate. Because you don't. Because hatred does not come from any good place.

Then I want you go out and serve someone in any way possible. On inauguration day especially, get your family and your children involved. Volunteer somewhere, take someone a meal. Do something to lift the spirits of hospital workers or your local police department.

Help a stranger mow a lawn, fix someone's car, pick up trash on the side of the highway. Do what you can do. But the most important thing is to do it with a sincere heart. And if someone asks you, why are you doing this? Just say, because I love my country.

Rise above the fray with service and love, with malice toward none and charity toward all.

Watch how the conversation went on radio HERE:

A pre-Inauguration Day plea: You wield MUCH more power than you know youtu.be


Early Monday morning, Amazon Web Services removed social networking platform Parler from its cloud servers. This comes just after Apple and Google removed the Parler app from their app stores over the weekend.

"You can't find them on the internet anymore. They're gone," Glenn Beck said on his radio program Monday.

"This is something I warned you of four years ago ... because a profound technological change is coming," he continued. "I told you, at the time, high tech will need the government, and the government will need high tech. And they will work together to preserve their power and their position. This is what's happening, today."

Glenn said he believes the "far left" has been talking about breaking up companies like Parler for years, and that the Capitol riots provided the opportunity they needed.

"This is not the end of this. This is where the Left is starting," he warned. "Those who persist in standing for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to assemble, freedom to keep and bear arms, those people will be targeted for deletion. You will be hounded, boycotted, fired, ostracized, and de-platformed. And the louder and the more significant and effective your voice is, the bigger the target is on your back.

"But, let me say this: I will never stop standing for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to assemble, freedom to keep and bear arms, and all of the rest of the Bill of Rights. That is the American thing to do."

Watch the video below for more from Glenn:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Glenn Beck: This is the REAL Raphael Warnock and our new 'national religion'

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Multiple news outlets have called one of Georgia's Senate runoff elections for the Rev. Raphael Warnock, the Democrat who defeated Republican incumbent Sen. Kelly Loeffler.

So, on the radio show Wednesday, Glenn Beck looked into what this "radical preacher" has been saying in the past — and what he'll likely bring to the U.S. Senate in the future.

"Warnock is in one of the most influential and powerful stages of the country. And I use the word 'stage' intentionally," Glenn said. "It's the pulpit. He's the guy who says, if you voted for Donald Trump, well, you're a sinner."

Glenn introduced a video clip in which Warnock asserts:

If it is true that a man who has dominated the news and poisoned the discussion for months needs to repent, then it is doubly true that a nation that can produce such a man and make his vitriol go viral, needs to repent. I know, no matter what happens next month, more than a third of the nation that would go along with this, has reason to be afraid. America needs to repent for its worship of whiteness!

"So, (according to Warnock) you should be afraid," Glenn said. "Oh, and whiteness is evil. And, somehow or another, America has been worshiping whiteness ... see, critical race theory is now our new national religion."

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Nancy Pelosi and her growing ensemble of radical leftists are making sure that 2021 will be just as terrible as 2020 — terrible, and forcefully gender-neutral. The 117th Congress convened on Sunday, and on Monday, they shifted the goalposts by approving a 45-pages rules package, "H. Res 7," in a 217 to 206 vote. The Rules Package is the brainchild of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern (D-MA).

Yesterday, in a speech to the House, Republican Rep. Tom Cole described the proposals as "some of the harshest and most cynical that I've experienced during my time in Congress." Congressman Steve Scalise accurately called it a "Soviet-Style rules package. ... designed to take away the voice of 48% of this chamber."

Some of the many wild rule changes include a continuation of proxy voting during the coronavirus pandemic, a ban on lawmakers convicted of certain crimes from visiting the House floor, and of course what would Democrats be without their hatred for Donald Trump? With the rule changes, they've found a way to attack Trump even after he's left office. They've added provisions that allow them to send subpoenas to former Presidents, former VPs, and former White House staff long after their administration has left the White House.

They've added provisions that allow them to send subpoenas to former Presidents, former VPs, and former White House...

Pelosi called the plan a "visionary rules package" which "reflects the values of her diverse Democratic majority," framing the proposal as a departure from ignorance, with that elitist under-handed way of condescending to non-woke Americans. She called them "future-focused proposals," as if conservatives and Republicans aren't worried about the future. Democrats honestly believe this. Believe that we pray to God for the destruction of the future, whatever it means. Although, Democrats are certainly not the authority on prayer: They can't even say one without jamming it full of woke inanity. And "inanity" is the word for it. Because the Democrats have devolved into utter nonsense.

In the news cycle, stories get buried. It feels like we're all constantly putting out fires. Politicians love this: Just about every controversy vanishes quickly. Shady legislation goes unnoticed. The mainstream media isn't going to report on this, not with any semblance of honesty or critical thought. As always, they're more interested in attacking Donald Trump. So it's up to us to ask, "Wait a minute, you're doing what now?"

You may be thinking, "How do the rules for the House of Representatives affect me?" Because you can tell a lot about a person by the way they run their house, or in this case their workplace. If this is how they want to conduct their workplace, I'm terrified to see how they'll run the country. Because, even though it will require ethical breaches and severe overreach, that's exactly what they're about to do, including a rule that keeps the House Minority from amending legislation on the floor.

In true leftist fashion, Democrats have projected their own injustices on Republicans. Like how the bill refers to the new rules as "sweeping ethics reforms," the implication being that there were ethical violations that demanded reforming.

Yesterday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said it best, delivered a scathing rebuke of House Democrats. I recommend watching the whole thing. In particular, he took umbrage with the way the rules violate our freedom of speech, the most important right that we have as Americans.

He's right: This hatred for free speech began in academia. Specifically, from the Marxist radicals who promote and adhere to Critical Theory. We conservatives have spent so much time on Critical Race Theory, but we're missing the bigger picture. Critical Race Theory is just a wart on the looming monster known as Critical Theory. If you think the riots were bad, if you thought sports had become overrun by woke politics, if you thought colleges were bad already — you better get ready for the ideological tidal wave, because it's so about to be much worse. The whole thing is Critical Theory gone wild. I'll tell you why in a moment. First, let's look through the details.

Gender

The resolution aims to "make this House of Representatives the most inclusive in history," and opens by formally establishing the Office of Diversity and Inclusion. An entire department within the lower house of Congress devoted to bringing Critical Theory to life."Inclusion and diversity," two concepts entrenched in Critical Theory inanity. The left would call them "dog whistles," seemingly innocuous words that signal something evil. Apparently, inclusion and diversity are the reason House Democrats felt the need to change the name of the Office of the Whistleblower Ombudsman, "to the gender-neutral Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds."

Then they really lose it in subsection e: "Gender-Inclusive Language." This section "modernizes the use of pronouns, familial relationship terminology, and other references to gender in order to be inclusive of all members, delegates, resident commissioners, employees of the House, and their families."

In other words, the standing rules will now be gender-inclusive. ''Seamen'' will now be ''seafarers." ''Chairman'' is ''Chair." And one clause of House rules removed the terms father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother" — you get the idea.

The new rules also require "standing committees to include in their oversight plans a discussion of how committee work over the forthcoming Congress will address issues of inequities on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, age, or national origin; honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender-neutral."

Free Speech

One of the most egregious parts of the rules changes is the way they'll compromise free speech. Democrats want to protect free speech only if it's something they agree with. They've taken this to villainous extremes.

Deep Fake Media

●The Democrat rules package also made it an ethics violation for members to knowingly distribute "deep fake" media.

●The wording is vague, and could easily encompass conservative media. What do they mean by fake media? Memes? Articles? Jokes? Op-eds? "regulations addressing the dissemination by electronic means of any image, video, or audio file that has been distorted or manipulated with the intent to mislead the public.

●It applies not only to Representatives' official accounts but also to their personal accounts, a clear violation of free speech. "They would penalize any member who shares news or views that liberals and their allies in the media deem 'fake.' They actually make it an ethics violation, which is usually reserved for such unbecoming conduct as bribery and corruption."

Pay As You Go (PayGo) Exemptions

●The new rules also weaken PayGo, a budgetary-control measure that limits "Tax and Spend" policies and requires Congress to offset spending on bills that would increase the deficit.

●They are the payment rules on legislation related to the virus and climate change that previously required lawmakers to identify new revenue sources or spending cuts to fund their priorities.

●Democrats will now be able to force through any legislation regardless of the cost, and for legislation like the Green New Deal. Yet AOC actually had a problem with this caveat, but of course, her reason for opposing it is as asinine as you'd expect.

The Motion to Recommit (MTR)

Congress is a majoritarian institution. They govern themselves, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. Since Democrats regained the majority two years ago, they have treaded that line and I would say that they've been downright unconstitutional. For those entire two years, they boasted that in 2020 they'd sweep Congress, all of it, but especially The House of Representatives. They were wrong, and now they have the slimmest majority in years. And I'm positive that their hubris is largely responsible.

They were wrong, and now they have the slimmest majority in years.

Since the creation of the modern party system shortly before the Civil War, there have been 18 House majority changes, with Democrats in power the most.

●The motion to recommit provides one final opportunity for the House to debate and amend a measure, typically after the engrossment and third reading of the bill, before the Speaker orders the vote on final passage. ... The motion does not delay or kill the bill. MTR gives the Minority, and by extension their constituents, a voice by denying them the chance to debate a bill on the floor.

●It's been around since the House was founded, and in its present form since 1909. In 1919, Rep. Abraham Garrett said that "The Motion to Recommit is regarded as so sacred, it's one of the few rules protected against the Committee on Rules by the General Rules of the House."

●When Pelosi was in the Minority, she described the MTR as grounded in the Free Speech guaranteed by our constitution. Anytime the Republicans had the majority, they never even considered cutting off MTR.

Democrats shifted the goalposts by redefining words, by degrading the current meanings, and by trying to convince us that we are fundamentally immoral. It's textbook Critical Theory: attack our sense of reality, our understanding of knowledge, our guiding beliefs, and, now, our most fundamental rights.

We've entered the era of Critical Theory. Wokeness is the new law.

Literally.

The time for metaphors is over; the House of Representatives just instituted wokeness into policy. They're still not saying the quiet part aloud. Critical Theory allows for this. Saddle up to the new normal. The new authoritarianism. Just like how nobody took 20 seconds to hop on Wikipedia and check the etymology of "amen", none of the Democrats have really thought out their plan.

Article I, Section 8 of The Constitution delineates the powers granted to the Congress, one of which is "to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions."

Well, lately, America has been overrun by insurrections and invasions and Congress can't do much about it because they're in on the insurrection. Significant factions within the legislative branch have encouraged these insurrections, they have validated the invasive radicals who threaten to destroy our country. And they've done it under the auspices of furtherance. Of being progressive. Of not being racist, or transphobic, or whatever insult is trendy on woke Twitter.

The time for metaphors is over; the House of Representatives just instituted wokeness into policy.

They're saying, "surrender some of your rights, some of your luxuries, some of your privileges — you have so many, you don't deserve them — and you'll make the world a smidge better." It's the kind of ideology that shreds through people like they're nothing and it is swallowing America whole. Once they change the rules and they change the words, you're living a real-life version of Orwell's 1984. What we need in a moment like this are strong people willing to face the wrath of a Leftist establishment that is all too happy to watch the world burn.

McCarthy talked about how people were feeling this indignation. Well, Kevin, I want you to know, it's not just you. I feel it. I think more than 70 million Americans feel it.


WATCH HIS FULL SPEECH HERE:

Leader McCarthy Slams Democrats' House Rules Package youtu.be


It's not going away any time soon.

And today, I ask that you just prepare mentally, for a rough road ahead. But one that we win in, in the end. And I can say it with confidence because I know the truth, will always set people free.

The truth will always prevail.