About Me

My photo
Lift your lamp beside the golden door, Break not the golden rule, avoid well the golden calf, know; not all that glitters is gold, and laissez faire et laissez passer [let do and let pass] but as a shining sentinel, hesitate not to ring the bell, defend the gates, and man the wall

Tell Me What Democracy Looks Like!

Tell Me What Democracy Looks Like! THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!!!

Cycle of Democracies

overview of what various forms of Govt.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Woodrow Wilson

Thomas Woodrow Wilson (D) 1856-1924, 28th President of the USA, and the 1st so called "Intellectual" US President. Wilson was the first president to have a PHD in Political Science [from Johns Hopkins University, the flagship of Progressivism's introduction from Germany]. Wilson won election, because Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft [Teddy's selected heir to Progressivism] divided the Republican party.

In his first term,
Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass
the Federal Reserve Act,[3]
the Federal Trade Commission,
the Clayton Antitrust Act,
the Federal Farm Loan Act
and America's first-ever federal progressive income tax in the Revenue Act of 1913.

The Wilson Administration Re-Segregated Federal Agencies.


"Socialism and Democracy by Woodrow Wilson" [1887]
"The State by Woodrow Wilson" [1898]
"The New Freedom" [1912]
"History of the American People" [1902]
"Con­sti­tu­tion­al Gov­ern­ment in the Unit­ed States” [1908]

After being elected Democratic Governor of New Jersey in 1911, Wilson became a national figure due to his progressive views on reform. The following year he was elected as the twenty-eighth President of the United States. Over the next few years he concentrated on anti-trust measures and on reorganizing the federal banking system.

On the outbreak of the First World War President Woodrow Wilson declared a policy of strict neutrality. Although the USA had strong ties with Britain, Wilson was concerned about the large number of people in the country who had been born in Germany and Austria. Other influential political leaders argued strongly in favour of the USA maintaining its isolationist policy. This included the pacifist pressure group, the American Union Against Militarism.

Some people argued that the USA should expand the size of its armed forces in case of war. General Leonard Wood, the former US Army Chief of Staff, formed the National Security League in December, 1914. Wood and his organisation called for universal military training and the introduction of conscription as a means of increasing the size of the US Army.

The Anglophile Willies Find Us A War

The Anglophile Wilson administration’s decided lack of genuine neutrality toward the European war had produced a series of crises. By late February 1917, the President asked Congress for power to outfit American merchant ships with arms – a perfect way to insure an incident which would lead to war between the US and Germany. Senator Robert M. LaFollette of Wisconsin, Progressive Republican, led a filibuster – along with the few remaining antiwar Senators – against the bill. It was known during the debate that at least one Senator on the pro-war side had a loaded revolver on him. Tempers were strained, and Senator Lane of Oregon stood near LaFollette with a sharpened rat-tail file in his pocket, in case the latter needed defending from the ardent patriots in the world’s greatest deliberative body.

The bill failed, but Wilson asserted a new-found "presidential power" to arm the ships on his own motion. In April, he asked for, and received, a declaration of war. During the rather tense, even hysterical debate, pro-war speakers began handing out accusations of "treason" to their fellow members of the great deliberative body. LaFollette and a few others voted No. On his way out of the chamber, a "patriot" handed LaFollette a coil of rope, underscoring, one supposes, the refined good manners to which warmongers adhere, especially when they have gotten their way.

LaFollette later commented that "the espionage bills, the conscription bills, and other forcible military measures… being ground out by the war machine in this country" demonstrated the war party’s "fear that it has no popular support." Certainly, the administration acted as if it thought so. A sedition bill so insanely broad that it would have embarrassed the Federalist Party was quickly passed. It was now a federal crime entailing draconian penalties to question the war, its conduct, its costs, or anything. A great steel door shut down on the American mind, such as it was. 




Wilson posited that there was no difference between socialism and Progressivism's vision of "Democracy"; because he rejected the social contract theory, illegitamizing any limitation on government.
Wilson's vision for govt. was one of politicians and administrators, some to express what the people want and some to carry it out.

by Woodrow Wilson

The thesis of the states socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory.

"Applied in a democratic state, such doctrine sounds radical, but not revolutionary. It is only an acceptance of the extremest logical conclusions deducible from democratic principles long ago received as respectable. For it is very clear that 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. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none."

Elements of Historical and Practical Politics
by Woodrow Wilson

Modern research into the early history of mankind has made it possible to reconstruct, in outline, much of the thought and practice of primitive society, and has thus revealed facts which render it impossible for us to accept any of these views as adequately explaining what they pretend to explain. The defects of the social compact theory are too plain to need more than brief mention. That theory simply has no historical foundation. Status was the basis of primitive society: the individual counted for nothing; society-the family, the tribe-counted for everything. Government came, so to say, before the individual. There was, consequently, no place for contract, and yet this theory makes contract the first fact of social life. Such a contract as it imagines could not have stood unless supported by that reverence for law which is an altogether modern principle of action. The times in which government originated knew absolutely nothing of law as we conceive law. The only bond was kinship,-the common blood of the community; the only individuality was the individuality of the community as a whole. Man was merged in society. Without kinship there was no duty and no union. It was not by compounding rights, but by assuming kinship, that groups widened into states-not by contract, but by adoption. Not deliberate and reasoned respect for law, but habitual and instinctive respect for authority, held men together; and authority did not rest upon mutual agreement, but upon mutual subordination.

by Woodrow Wilson 
[as described in Ameritopia by Mark R. Levin Chapter 11]

“No doubt a great deal of non­sense has been talked about the in­alien­able rights of the in­di­vid­ual, and a great deal that was mere vague sen­ti­ment and pleas­ing spec­ula­tion has been put for­ward as fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ple.”

“Wil­son dis­missed not on­ly the Dec­la­ra­tion of In­de­pen­dence and the Founders’ an­nounced pur­pose for Amer­ican in­de­pen­dence, but the Lock­ean ex­po­si­tion on nat­ural law, the na­ture of man, the so­cial com­pact es­tab­lish­ing the civ­il so­ci­ety, and the es­sen­tial in­gre­di­ents of con­sti­tu­tion­al re­pub­li­can­ism… for Wil­son, rights are award­ed or de­nied the in­di­vid­ual as de­ter­mined by the gov­ern­ment.” -Mark R. Levin

“Gov­ern­ment is a part of life, and, with life, it must change, alike in its ob­jects and in its prac­tices; on­ly this prin­ci­ple must re­main un­al­tered,—this prin­ci­ple of lib­er­ty, that there must be the freest right and op­por­tu­ni­ty of ad­just­ment. Po­lit­ical lib­er­ty con­sists in the best prac­ti­ca­ble ad­just­ment be­tween the pow­er of the gov­ern­ment and the priv­ilege of the in­di­vid­ual; and the free­dom to al­ter the ad­just­ment is as im­por­tant as the ad­just­ment it­self for the ease and progress of af­fairs and the con­tent­ment of the cit­izen.”

“It is dif­fi­cult to de­scribe any sin­gle part of a great gov­ern­men­tal sys­tem with­out de­scrib­ing the whole of it. Gov­ern­ments are liv­ing things and op­er­ate as or­gan­ic wholes. More­over, gov­ern­ments have their nat­ural evo­lu­tion and are one thing in one age, an­oth­er in an­oth­er. The mak­ers of the Con­sti­tu­tion con­struct­ed the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment up­on a the­ory of checks and bal­ances which was meant to lim­it the op­er­ation of each part and al­low to no sin­gle part or or­gan of it a dom­inat­ing force; but no gov­ern­ment can be suc­cess­ful­ly con­duct­ed up­on so me­chan­ical a the­ory. Lead­er­ship and con­trol must be lodged some­where; the whole art of states­man­ship is the art of bring­ing the sev­er­al parts of gov­ern­ment in­to ef­fec­tive co­op­er­ation for the ac­com­plish­ment of par­tic­ular com­mon ob­jects, and par­ty ob­jects at that. Our study of each part of our fed­er­al sys­tem, if we are to dis­cov­er our re­al gov­ern­ment as it lives, must be made to dis­close to us its op­er­ative co­or­di­na­tion as a whole: its places of lead­er­ship, its method of ac­tion, how it op­er­ates, what checks it, what gives it en­er­gy and ef­fect. Gov­ern­ments are what politi­cians make them, and it is eas­ier to write of the Pres­ident than of the pres­iden­cy.”

"In the Re­pub­lic, Pla­to wrote that “a just man won’t dif­fer at all from a just city in re­spect to the form of jus­tice; rather he’ll be like the city” (435b). Thus man ought not fear gov­ern­ment but sur­ren­der to it, em­brace it, and be at one with it. The Framers’ ef­forts to re­strict fed­er­al pow­er with checks and bal­ances, etc., would, in Wil­son’s view, de­prive oxy­gen to the body of gov­ern­ment just as as­sured­ly as would re­strict­ing the var­ious or­gans of man.” -Mark R. Levin

“The mak­ers of our fed­er­al Con­sti­tu­tion fol­lowed the scheme as they found it ex­pound­ed in Mon­tesquieu, fol­lowed it with gen­uine sci­en­tif­ic en­thu­si­asm. The ad­mirable ex­po­si­tions of the Fed­er­al­ist read like thought­ful ap­pli­ca­tions of Mon­tesquieu to the po­lit­ical needs and cir­cum­stances of Amer­ica. They are full of the the­ory of checks and bal­ances. The Pres­ident is bal­anced off against Congress, Congress against the Pres­ident, and each against the courts. Our states­men of the ear­li­er gen­er­ations quot­ed no one so of­ten as Mon­tesquieu, and they quot­ed him al­ways as a sci­en­tif­ic stan­dard in the field of pol­itics. Pol­itics is turned in­to me­chan­ics un­der his touch.…”

“Wil­son took di­rect aim at Mon­tesquieu as the source of the Framers’ sin­gle-mind­ed and sup­pos­ed­ly mis­placed re­liance on di­vid­ed gov­ern­ment.” -Mark R. Levin

“The weight­iest im­port of the mat­ter is seen on­ly when it is re­mem­bered that the courts are the in­stru­ments of the na­tion’s growth, and that the way in which they serve that use will have much to do with the in­tegri­ty of ev­ery na­tion­al pro­cess. If they de­ter­mine what pow­ers are to be ex­er­cised un­der the Con­sti­tu­tion, they by the same to­ken de­ter­mine al­so the ad­equa­cy of the Con­sti­tu­tion in re­spect of the needs and in­ter­ests of the na­tion; our con­science in mat­ters of law and our op­por­tu­ni­ty in mat­ters of pol­itics are in their hands.”

“Wil­son ar­gued fur­ther, as he had to, that the fed­er­al courts are not bound to the Con­sti­tu­tion.” -Mark Levin

“the Pres­ident is at lib­er­ty, both in law and con­science, to be as big a man as he can. His ca­pac­ity will set the lim­it; and if Congress be over­borne by him, it will be no fault of the mak­ers of the Con­sti­tu­tion,—it will be from no lack of con­sti­tu­tion­al pow­ers on its part, but on­ly be­cause the Pres­ident has the na­tion be­hind him, and Congress has not.”

“For Wil­son, the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, and par­tic­ular­ly the pres­ident, takes on the qual­ities of Hobbes’s Sovereign.” -Mark R. Levin
“The trou­ble with the the­ory [of lim­it­ed, di­vided gov­ern­ment] is that gov­ern­ment is not a ma­chine, but a liv­ing thing.… It is mod­ified by its en­vi­ron­ment, ne­ces­si­tat­ed by its tasks, shaped to its func­tions by the sheer pres­sure of life. No liv­ing thing can have its or­gans off­set against each oth­er as checks, and live. On the con­trary, its life is de­pen­dent up­on their quick co­op­er­ation, their ready re­sponse to the com­mands of in­stinct or in­tel­li­gence, their am­ica­ble com­mu­ni­ty of pur­pose. Gov­ern­ment is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men, with high­ly dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed func­tions, no doubt, in our mod­ern day of spe­cial­iza­tion, but with a com­mon task and pur­pose. Their co­op­er­ation is in­dis­pens­able, their war­fare fa­tal. There can be no suc­cess­ful gov­ern­ment with­out lead­er­ship or with­out the in­ti­mate, al­most in­stinc­tive, co­or­di­na­tion of the or­gans of life and ac­tion. This is not the­ory, but fact, and dis­plays its force as fact, what­ev­er the­ories may be thrown across its track. Liv­ing po­lit­ical con­sti­tu­tions must be Dar­wini­an in struc­ture and in prac­tice.”

“Wil­son’s ref­er­ence to Dar­win­ism high­lights his no­tion of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment in a con­stant state of mo­tion and evo­lu­tion, where the Con­sti­tu­tion and the gov­ern­ment it es­tab­lish­es are no longer fixed or pre­dictable. The in­di­vid­ual and so­ci­ety gen­er­al­ly are to serve the nu­tri­tion­al de­mands for eter­nal gov­ern­men­tal growth, in the form of pow­er, de­mand­ed by Wil­son’s utopi­an dog­ma.” -Mark R. Levin

It is therefore becoming more and more true, as the business of the government becomes more and more complex and extended, that the President is becoming more and more a political and less and less an executive officer. His executive powers are in commission, while his political powers more and more center and accumulate upon him and are in their very nature personal and inalienable.


"We used to think in the old-fashioned days when life was very simple that all that government had to do was to put on a policeman's uniform, and say, "Now don't anybody hurt anybody else." We used to say that the ideal of government was for every man to be left alone and not interfered with, except when he interfered with somebody else; and that the best government was the government that did as little governing as possible. That was the idea that obtained in Jefferson's time. But we are coming now to realize that life is so complicated that we are not dealing with the old conditions, and that the law has to step in and create new conditions under which we may live, the conditions which will make it tolerable for us to live."

Woodrow Wilson
Essential Writings and Speeches of the Scholar-President

 What, then? Am I a political pessimist? Do I distrust the foundations, question the most essential conceptions, of the government under which we live? Do I suspect the people of blindness and all their leaders of charlatanry, and hold up popular government to be laughed at as a farce? By no means. I simply take the liberty of believing in democratic institutions as I understand them. I believe in them as my governors. I believe in the people: in their honesty and sincerity and sagacity; but I do not believe in them as my governors. I believe in them, rather as the wholesome stuff out of which the fabric of government, wherever and whenever constructed, is woven, in homely, but also in most useful and beneficent wise. Let me give you at once an example that will illuminate my meaning. I believe, as I feel sure you also believe, that the reform of the civil service for which we have so long been struggling, with varying degrees of success, is imperatively necessary, and that it embodies eminently wise principles o government. But it is not democratic in idea: by which I mean that it is not consistent with those modern assumptions touching the nature of democratic government which we have just been discussing. It rejects the average man and the average training: it rejects the idea of constantly renewing the official personnel of the government from out the generally body of the people. It seeks to substitute for the person whom we call "the man of the people," so far as possible, the man of the schools, the trained, instructed, fitted men: the men who will study their duties and master the principles of the business of their Departments. The ordinary politician is right when he says that this is not democratic. It is not democratic in the sense in which we have taught our politicians wrongly to understand democracy. It is nevertheless, eminently democratic, if we understand democracy as history has given it to us."

Page 300 of the Google Book Preview of "Woodrow Wilson: Essential Writings and Speeches of the Scholar-President" cut of the full ending of the quote which I retrieved from the Google Book Preview of "Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism" pg72


Socialism and Democracy by Woodrow Wilson [1887]


The State by Woodrow Wilson [1898]

“Con­sti­tu­tion­al Gov­ern­ment in the Unit­ed States” by Woodrow Wilson  [1908]


The New Freedom by Woodrow Wilson [1912]


LewRockwell.com: Remembering With Astonishment Woodrow Wilson’s Reign of Terror in Defense of "Freedom"


Spartacus Educational 


Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism by Ronald J. Pestritto

Quotes: Woodrow Wilson vs. Thomas Jefferson

Wikipedia: Woodrow Wilson


Wiki-Source: Woodrow Wilson's Writings


No comments:

Post a Comment