What's In A Name? The New Progressives

It's funny how the manner in which something is named can be so important, yet misleading.

Take, for example, the early-twentieth century "Progressive" movement. In reality, as a recent Wall Street Journal book review noted, as has Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News, the movement was nothing less than anti-Constitutional.

Would many Americans have flocked to the "anti-Constitutionalists" banner? Probably nowhere near as many as backed the Progressive movement.

In fact, the term has become so twisted and misunderstood that Hillary Clinton labeled herself a "Progressive," and, in the same speech before Congress, went on to heap accolades on the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, as an earlier Progressive who was as important to our Republic as Thomas Jefferson. But a guest on a Fox News program discussed her recent book about Sanger, exposing the latter as a proponent of eugenics. The discussion revealed that Sanger's movement was primarily aimed at one group controlling another's reproductive rights. The author displayed photos from her book showing Sanger speaking at Klan rallies. Stripped to its essence, the birth control movement was- and still often is- all about limiting the propagation of the poor, or anyone else considered unfit by those who can exercise such control.

If Planned Parenthood were called, instead, "Birth Control for the Lower Classes," how many in this country would back government funding for its initiatives?

The fight over abortion is similar. Mainstream media always refer to those supporting the delivery of fetuses as "anti-abortion," rather than "pro-life." Using the 'anti' descriptor conveys a sense of negativism and nihilism.

For those of us with good educations who are well-read, these names are less misleading. But for many others who vote, the naming conventions matter. It sounds modern and sensible to be 'progressive,' until you learn more about some of the values and explicit intent of the founders of the movement, including Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

There's an unfortunate strain of rights-trampling populism in our country's history that seems to raise its ugly head in times of economic strains. The socialism of FDR occurred at such a time, as did Huey Long's companion campaign for the common man. In no time at all, the good of the masses is used as a reason to begin removing protections for individual rights to property and liberty which are enshrined in our Constitution.

Thus, it's troubling, yet not surprising, to hear Hillary Clinton declare herself a new Progressive. The values she's displayed since her husband's presidency certainly align her with those who would strip us all of our individual liberties for the benefit of the masses.