Читать книгу The Political Thought of Calvin Coolidge - Thomas J. Tacoma - Страница 20

The confluence of these philosophic streams was found in the unifying principles of the Progressive movement and its reforms. It is because of their consensus on matters of principle that “the Progressives” and “Progressivism” can be described as a coherent body of thought.^[53] In brief, they shared six widely held beliefs, which included (1) the historical contingency of truth, (2) faith in human progress, (3) a critique of older American political truths and institutions, (4) a redefined understanding of leadership, (5) confidence in direct democracy, and (6) belief in scientific government by expert administrators.^[54]

As the earlier sections have explained, at the philosophic level, the fundamental agreement of the Progressives was in their doctrine of historical contingency. Truth was a function of history. This means that an idea or principle is good only for its time, inasmuch as it works (pragmatism) or it represents the spirit of the age (Hegelian historicism) or it accords with the evolutionary development of the people (Darwinism). Recognizing the contingency of all truth involved rejecting earlier theories that argued for truth as valid for all times and in all places. For Progressives, the idea of something being “right by nature”—and thus there being rights by nature as opposed to those merely granted by society—had to be abandoned. Instead, the work of politicians was to discern the current conditions through empirical study and thereby to understand what truths were applicable—which policy measures promised the most preferable outcomes. As conditions moved, so too do solutions to political, economic, or cultural problems.^[55]

Second, Progressives coupled their historical thinking with a confidence in historical progress. Progress meant gradual improvement toward a better future. In some cases, such as with Hegelian Progressives, progress was toward a definite end-of-history. The rational state, which is the social community in which every individual recognized his full individuality and freedom within the state’s freedom—this was the target and ultimate end-goal.^[56] Progressives of a less idealistic stripe believed in a gradual but unending progress. As human nature evolved, as human society was continuously adjusted to its changing conditions, the race would progress. Still, Progressives did not believe Progress was simply and merely automatic. Progress required human striving, effort, and strenuous labor.^[57] Through such a recognition, Progressives energized their movement. A secularized (though sometimes very religious) faith in human progress animated their reforming spirit.

Third, the practical effect of embracing the doctrines of historical contingency and progress meant the wholesale rejection or redefinition of earlier American political truths and institutions. For Progressives, the great error of the “standpatters” was to cling to truths that were no longer relevant for modern times. The writings of such leading academic Progressives as Charles Beard, J. Allen Smith, or Carl Becker frequently reminded their readers that the Declaration and Constitution were written long ago to address old problems. They may have been good for their times, but now they were out of date.^[58] Old truths needed to be updated and adjusted to the current environment. Other ideas—for example, of people forming their governments through reflection and choice, according to social contract theories developed by philosophers like John Locke—must be rejected as complete errors in reasoning. Governments and societies grow and develop naturally. They are not created by the mind of man.^[59] The Constitution and its separation of powers must also be understood as relative to its own time. In the eighteenth century, constitutions were written to follow Montesquieu’s advice, but in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, men had evolved past the need for such a strict separation. Now it was clear that separation of powers between branches of government stood as an obstacle to good government and healthy reforms; constitutional formalism (strict adherence to the text of the Constitution) would need to be abandoned in order to make the federal government relevant to the problems of modern life.^[60]

Fourth, Progressives also found agreement in their reinterpretation of political leadership. In this more organic conception of government and society, some necessary leader was called upon to see more clearly the direction of history, the needs of the moment, and the true will of the people. The direction of historical change was not always clear. The people certainly could not discern for themselves where it was going. However, some great men destined by “providence” had deeper insight into their own times and the ability to translate their understanding of history’s currents to the people. These were the rightful leaders who should and must take the helm in order to guide political affairs correctly. This was still genuinely democratic, for the leaders did nothing against the true will of the people. All the same, leadership often included explaining to the people what their real, objective will was.^[61] In some cases, this explanation might take a great deal of time and effort before the people could recognize their true will.

For the Progressives, it was the president of the United States who was best positioned to embody this new conception of leadership. The president alone among officers of the government was elected by the whole nation. By virtue of his unitary office, he was a most visible head of government, and in turn of his political party. Congress was fragmented and lacked a single figure to be the leader the people could look to for guidance. Only if Congress were transformed into a parliamentary system with a visible prime minister could the Progressive understanding of leadership be realized there. Meanwhile, meaningful leadership fell to the president. Theodore Roosevelt provided the example the Progressives were seeking. Roosevelt explained in his Autobiography that he embraced an enlarged conception of the president’s constitutional powers, the “stewardship” model:

My view was that every executive officer, and above all every executive officer in high position, was a steward of the people bound actively and affirmatively to do all he could for the people, and not to content himself with the negative merit of keeping his talents undamaged in a napkin. . . . My belief was that it was not only his right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the Nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the laws.^[62]

Consequently, Progressive theorists strove to expand the influence of the presidency.

Fifth, Progressives combined this new conception of political leadership with a confidence in the people to govern themselves more immediately and directly—direct democracy. They repeatedly proclaimed their faith in the people’s ability to govern themselves, as against the rule of party bosses and corrupted political institutions. State legislatures and the judiciary came in for special criticism for their willingness to “oppose” the will of the people through failing to pass reform measures or striking them down as unconstitutional. Progressives therefore lodged their hopes with the people, explaining that the masses were more fit for self-government precisely because they were free of the partisan interests and stale ideologies that had corrupted the elected branches. Some Progressives called for the total abolition of political parties on the basis that they were simply tools of big business. This was, for example, the approach called for by the Progressive Party Platform of 1912. Others, namely Woodrow Wilson, believed that the political parties could be reformed and improved better to reflect the people’s true will.^[63]

In order to bring the people into a more direct relationship with their government, Progressives proposed and instituted a number of far-reaching political reforms. One of the most successful was the direct primary. Rather than leaving candidate-selection to party bosses, Progressives proposed allowing the people to choose their party’s candidate through a primary election held before the real election. This reduced the power of the official party structure—no more would bosses, party kingpins, and financial titans decide from their smoke-filled rooms whose names would appear on the ballot. Now the people would choose. Likewise, Progressives sought to empower the people to make and repeal laws directly through initiatives and the referendum. The initiative would allow the people to pass laws immediately, rather than await action by their elected officers in state legislatures. Referenda would allow the people to approve or to veto laws passed by their legislatures. These reforms would put the people in a position of authority over the laws. Other political novelties, such as the recall, gave the people continuous power over their elected representatives. If a state legislator or governor proved unfaithful to campaign promises or incapable of governing according to the true will of the people, they would be able to recall him from office through a special election. More controversial proposals suggested the same for judges, or for judicial decisions.^[64]

Sixth, Progressives pushed especially for more technical and scientific expertise in government. They viewed this as the natural counterpart both to purifying the government of corrupt influences and to the reconceived understanding of leadership. The Progressive movement aimed to remove partisan appointees from government jobs—no more of the Jacksonian spoils system—and to replace them with specially trained, apolitical bureaucrats. Progressives therefore proposed and defended government by expert commissions and agencies.^[65] In the Progressive understanding of history and social change, the turn to administrative expertise makes perfect sense. The method of discerning the direction of history was through careful interpretation of detailed factual information. Scientific, empirical reports about social trends and policy outcomes provided the best picture of the nation’s current conditions. The president needed administrators to research and report such information to him so that he could interpret it and explain to the people where they were in history, and how they could get to where they were going.^[66] Confident that scientific training created politically neutral experts, the Progressives believed that the institution of a vast administrative bureaucracy served democracy.^[67]

Passing the day-to-day matters of running the government off to experts stripped republican execution of the laws away from the people—seemingly an undemocratic move. But according to the Progressives, this bureaucratic structure did not undermine democracy by taking the operations of government away from the people. Their faith in experts allowed the political leaders to articulate the broad vision of policy goals; administrators and bureaucrats merely brought those policies into practical effect on the people’s behalf. This was a fully grown, mature democracy. This was the modern regime of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, and the most advanced European states, especially Bismarck’s Germany, had already paved the way. The United States had only to imitate their administrative practices while applying them to republican circumstances.^[68] According to the Progressives, this would maintain the United States in its position at the fore of history.