Article Review: The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science: Transforming
the American Regime
Article Review: The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science: Transforming the
American Regime
Abdul M.
PLCY 702: The Founding Era and Constitution
Professor: Dr. Troy Gibson
March 3, 2020
2
West, Thomas G. "Progressivism and the Transformation of." The Progressive Revolution in
Politics and Political Science: Transforming the American Regime (2005): 33 pages.
Introduction
The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science explores the range,
commitment, and effect of the Progressive revolution in the founding era and explores how the
theories, practices and beliefs of the founding fathers was challenged. The contributors of the
article looked beyond Progressivism by analyzing the moral and political ideologies of the
Founders and how those beliefs have helped shape modern political understanding. The legacy of
Progressivism is further explained through analyzing the political and intellectual traditions it
was created to replace.
The first part of the article focused on the differences between various Progressives and
their doctrines; comparing them to the American founding of political institutions such as the
presidency, political parties, and the courts. The article continues to analyze the differences
between several statesmen including Frederick Douglass, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson,
and John Marshall. Continuing on, the second part of the article addressed social science,
property rights, Darwinism, free speech, and political science as a liberal art. Thereafter, the
radical nature of Progressivism, as it relates to the American constitution, is expounded upon.
The article provides important academic commentary in the political science context by
highlighting key factors that led to our independence and ensured that our status in world politics
remains untarnished. It highlights the Progressives viewpoint which sought to find solutions to
the problems facing society at the time.
3
Dr. Thomas G. West is a professor of politics at the Hillsdale College in Michigan. Prior
to teaching at Hillsdale College, he taught at the University of Dallas from 1974-2011. Dr. West
served as the chair of the department between 2007-2011 and is a published author of three
books; The Political Theory of the American Founding: Natural Rights, Public Policy, and the
Moral Conditions of Freedom, Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the
Origins of America, and Plato’s “Apology of Socrates”: An Interpretation, with a New
Translation. In addition, he has edited and translated several academic works regarding the
founding era, government, etc. With a vast array of teaching experience in the government and
political science spectrum, Dr. West is well qualified to provide insight on the subject matter of
politics and government in America.
The article begins by exploring the notion of the shift, since the mid 1960’s, in the
American government to its current state known as the administrative state (liberalism). The
writer claims that liberalism was as radical as the American revolution in 1776. West asserts that,
“liberalism began with a new theory of justice and of government” (West 2005, 13). Natural law
and rights were essential in the early years of the nation’s founding. In the later stages of the
nineteenth century, the doctrines of relativism and historicism replaced the concept of natural
rights. The article explains that, relativism represented the view that “there is objective
knowledge only of facts, but not values” (West 2005, 14). Science under the relativist view
possess the truth about the world but cannot “tell how to live”.
Dr. West referenced John Dewey to explain the relationship between human beings and
nature as a means to illustrate the founding era. Thus, West explains, the individual becomes the
products of a historical context. Meaning, the laws and institutions are what create the
individuals. George Carey in the article America’s Founding and Limited Government focused on
4
Vernon L. Parrington who supported the claims of Charles A. Beard and James Allen Smith in
seeing the founding era in terms of good versus evil: English Liberalism versus Rousseau’s
French Romantic philosophy. Carey explained that, according to Parrington, the distinction
between both philosophies shared interests in a “profound individualism but the French
individualism was humanitarian, connected with reason and social justice whereas the English
was self-seeking, founding on the right of exploitation and looking towards capitalism” (Carey
2004, 15).
Surprisingly, West and Carey shared a common understanding on the role of the
government today. West endorsed the viewpoint of Dewey who believed that securing the right
to private property was central to the understanding of the purpose of the government held by the
Founders. For Dewey, “private property is the enemy of liberty”, which Dr. West explained as
that it has the same or similar effect on the community as “private unchecked control of political
power” (West 2005, 16). On the other hand, Carey’s explanation of democracy compares the
philosophies of Parrington and Herbert Croly whom differed in their opinions. Croly believed
that the Federalists and the Ant-Federalists were both individualistic and yearned for a
government that ensured them the freedom to have a direct stake in improving their conditions
(Carey 2004, 15). The Federalists, made up of wealthy and educated in the society, wanted a
government that will protect their property rights. On the contrary, the Anti-Federalists wanted
to enjoy their own autonomy instead of being protected by the government.
The article goes on to explore Dewey’s opposing theory on the relationship between the
people and the government. Dewey opined that people do not delegate power to the government
but rather the government empowers the people. He describes people as handicapped or disabled,
unable to function without the government aid (West 2005, 16). When compared to Carey’s
5
opinion regarding the desires of the Anti-Federalists, Dewey believed that people are at the
highest level of their shortcomings or disability when the government leaves them alone. In his
eyes, virtues, rights, talents, and intelligence are all produced by the presence of social order
contradicting the idea held by the Founders, that they are innate by the Founders (West 2005,
16).
West believed that the modern denial of natural rights and human nature undermined the
idea of constitutionalism envisioned by the Founders. The constitution provided the opportunity
to direct and limit the operations of the government and to ensure equality of natural rights. He
continues further to explain that, even though, amendments were allowed, the basic purpose and
duties of the government remained constant. “A written constitution that is hard to change
becomes an impediment when the government seeks to assert a new vision of social justice, one
that requires increased control over what was once regarded as the private sphere” (West 2005,
19).
West further asserts that, Progressives were critical of politicians since they categorized
most of them as “corrupt”, “backward” and “narrow”. Essentially, the Progressive program “took
power out of the hands of the elected officials (bad politicians) and handed it over to neutral, and
good administrators (West 2005, 19). West references Woodrow Wilson’s “The Study of
Administration” (1888) where he states that America struggles with “the error of trying to do too
much by vote”. In addition, he discusses James Landis’ opinion of seeing the separation of
powers as an “obstacle to efficient, and scientific government”. Landis believed that government
should dispose of the separation of powers in order to control the economic forces in the
community. He asserted that, the government should do more than just protect the life, liberty,
and property of the people; the government should be involved in the details of the everyday
6
activities of the people, rather than being left to the local government and private sources such as
family, church, and businesses, who historically could not be trusted to fulfill those
responsibilities (West 2005, 21).Louis Hartz agreed that Progressives’ view of the American
society as individualistic, acquisitive, and dominated by the spirit of capitalism; but, rejected the
Progressive focus on economic or class factors as the reasons for the conflict mainly because
these approaches were not capable of “providing a satisfactory understanding of the origins and
nature of democratic capitalism” (Carey 2003, 16).
The article discussed the changes introduced by the administrative state by exploring the
roles of the three traditional branches of government; Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary.
The original role of Congress, the legislative branch, was to make laws but under the
administrative state, Congress spent more time on casework, interventions in the bureaucracy for
their citizens, and protective the ideology and interest of the major donors. The executive also
changed from the President being solely in charge of the entire executive branch. Under the
administrative state, there are multiple executives represented in the heads of these agencies.
Additionally, other people, outside of the official department heads, played a large role in the
policy process. In addition, West explained that the President himself had considerable say in the
administrative process, but he was one player among many and was no longer the sole or even
the principal boss of the executive branch. In fact, many of these agencies restrict the activities of
the President, by law or by court order, to direct agency activity (West 2009, 27).
The role of the judiciary in the administrative era morphed from just interpreting the laws, as was
the norm in the Framers’ constitution, to actively contributing in the formation of public policy in
effect, “giving themselves a legislative and executive role along with the traditional judicial role
assigned to them by the Constitution” (West 2005, 27).
7
The article concludes by addressing the transformation of federalism. West explains that,
during the early years of our independence, the role of the government was limited to areas of
national concern. He explained that Congress prior to 1965 debated on whether matters brought
before them were within the powers of Congress as enacted by the Constitution. He stated that,
“under today's "living constitution," hardly anything is out of bounds to the national government.
roads, bridges, and schools are paid for in part by federal money and subject to extensive federal
regulation” (West 2005, 28). Continuing, he states that due to the increased roles and
responsibilities of the federal government, the authority of local and state governments was
tremendously reduced.
The articles by West and by Carey represent the evolution of viewpoints and illustrate the
changes in the political traditions from the early days of the Framers to what we have today. Both
writers, through different references of political theorists, arrive at the same conclusion; that the
role of the government as presented by the Framers has changed and will possibly continue to
change over time. As people may argue, this doesn’t sway from the ideology of the Framers, they
obviously left behind what thought was the best way forward for our nation. A rigid constitution
would have been a hindrance for the citizens of this wonderful nation to achieve the unalienable
rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
8
References
Barth, Jonathan. "The Republican Paradox: Liberty, Prosperity, Virtue, and Vice in the American
Founding." Journal of Policy History 29, no. 2 (2017): 238-266.
Carey, George W. "America's Founding and Limited Government." Intercollegiate Review 39,
no. 1 (Fall, 2004): 14-22.
West, Thomas G. "Progressivism and the Transformation of." The Progressive Revolution in
Politics and Political Science: Transforming the American Regime (2005): 13.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
