Julian zelizer: liberals were at the forefront of the push for a truly totalitarian state. Zelizer says more dissidents were arrested or jailed underWilson than undermussolini. He says Wilson arguably did as much violence to civil liberties asmussolini did.
Julian zelizer: liberals were at the forefront of the push for a truly totalitarian state. Zelizer says more dissidents were arrested or jailed underWilson than undermussolini. He says Wilson arguably did as much violence to civil liberties asmussolini did.
Julian zelizer: liberals were at the forefront of the push for a truly totalitarian state. Zelizer says more dissidents were arrested or jailed underWilson than undermussolini. He says Wilson arguably did as much violence to civil liberties asmussolini did.
Woodrow Wilson and the�Birth of Liberal Fascism�The liberty cabbage, the
statesanctioned bmtality, the stifling of dissent, the loyalty�oaths�and enemies
lists#all of these things not only happened in America but�happened at the hands of liberals. Self-described progressives#as�well as the majority of American socialists#were at the forefront of�the push for a truly totalitarian state. They applauded every crackdown and questioned�the patriotism, intelligence, and decency�of�every pacifist and classically liberal dissenter.�Fascism, at its core, is the view that every nook and cranny of society should work�together in spiritual union toward the same goals�overseen by the state. '�Mussolini coined the word "totalitarian" to describe not a tyrannical society but�a humane one in�which everyone is taken care of and contributes equally. It was an organic concept�where every class, every individual, was part of the�larger whole. The r�The militarization of society and politics was considered simply the best available�means toward this end. Call it what�you like#progressivism, fascism, communism, or totalitarianism#�the first tme enterprise of this kind was established not in Russia or�Italy or Germany but in the United States, and Woodrow Wilson was�the twentieth century's first fascist dictator.�More dissidents were arrested or jailed in a few years under�Wilson than under Mussolini during the entire 1920s. Wilson arguably did as much�if not more violence to civil liberties in his�last�three years in office than Mussolini did in his first twelve. Wilson�created a better and more effective propaganda ministry than�Mussolini ever had. In 1�n the 1920s Mussolini's critics harangued�him#rightly#for using his semiofficial Fascisti to bully the opposition and for his�harassment of the press. Just a few years earlier,�Wilson had unleashed literally hundreds of thousands of badgecarrying goons on the�American people and prosecuted a vicious�campaign against the press that would have made Mussolini envious.�/ilson didn't act alone. Like Mussolini and Hitler, he had an activist ideological�movement at his disposal. In Italy they were called�Fascists. In Germany they were called National Socialists. In�America we called them progressives.�The progressives were the real social Darwinists as we think of�the term today#though they reserved the term for their enemies (see�Fhe progressives viewed the traditional�system of constitutional checks and balances as an outdated impediment to progress�because such horse-and-buggy institutions were a�barrier to their own ambitions. Dogmatic attachment to constitutions, democratic�practices, and antiquated laws was the enemy�of�progress for tascists and progressives alike. Indeed, fascists and progressives shared�the same intellectual heroes and quoted the�same�philosophers.�Today, liberals remember the progressives as do-gooders who�cleaned up the food supply and agitated for a more generous social�welfare state and better working conditions. Fine, the progressives�did that. But so did the Nazis and the Italian Fascists. And they did�it for the same reasons and in loyalty to roughly the same principles.�Historically, fascism is the product of democracy gone mad. In�America we've chosen not to discuss the madness our Republic endured at Wilson's�hands#even though we live with the consequences of it to this day. Like a family�that pretends the father�never�The motivation for this selective amnesia is equal parts shame,�laziness, and ideology. In a society where Joe McCarthy must be the�greatest devil of American history, it would not be convenient to�mention that the George Washington of modem liberalism was the�far greater inquisitor and that the other founding fathers of American�liberalism were far cmeler jingoists and warmongers than modem�conservatives have ever been.�THE IDEALISM OF POWER WORSHIP�Wilson himself�is widely credited with having launched the academic study of public administration,�a fancy term for how to modemize and professionalize the state according to one's�own personal biases.�High among his regular themes was the advocacy of�progressive imperialism in order to subjugate, and thereby elevate,�lesser races. He applauded the annexation of Puerto Rico and the�Philippines#"they are children and we are men in these deep matters of govemment�and justice"#and regularly denounced what he�called "the anti- imperialist weepings and wailings that came out of�Boston"4 It's a sign of how carefully he cultivated his political profile that four�years before he "reluctantly" accepted the "unsolicited"�Indeed, from his earliest days as an undergraduate the meek,�homeschooled Wilson was infatuated with political power. And as is�so common to intellectuals, he let his power worship infect his�analysis.�Lord Acton's famous observation that "power tends to corrupt and�absolute power cormpts absolutely" has long been misunderstood.�Wilson was a champion debater, so it's telling that he believed the best debaters�should�have the�most power.�Wilson's view of politics could be summarized by the word "statolatry," or state�worship (the same sin with which the Vatican�charged Mussolini).�Govemmental "experimentation," the watchword of pragmatic liberals from Dewey and�Wilson to FDR, was the social analogue to evolutionary adaptation. Constitutional�democracy, as the�founders understood it, was a momentary phase in this progression.�Now it was time for the state to ascend to the next plateau.�"Govemment," Wilson wrote approvingly in The State, "does now�whatever exDerience permits or the times demand"8 Wilson was the i�first president to speak disparagingly of the Constitution.�America is today in the midst of an obscene moral panic over the�role of Christians in public life. There is a profound irony in the fact�that such protests issue most loudly from self-professed "progressives" when the�real progressives were dedicated in the most�fundamental way to the Christianization of American life. Progressivism,�as the title of Washington Gladden's book suggested, was "applied�Christianity." The Social Gospel held that the state was the right arm�of God and was the means by which the whole nation and world�would be redeemed. But while Christianity was being made into a�true state religion, its transcendent and theological elements became�cormpted.�These two visions#Darwinian organicism and Christian messianism#seem contradictory�today because they reside on�different�sides of the culture war. But in the Progressive Era, these visions�complemented each other perfectly. And Wilson embodied this synthesis. The toti�The totalitarian flavor of such a worldview should be obvious.�Unlike classical liberalism, which saw the govemment as a necessary evil, or simply�a benign but voluntary social contract for�free�men to enter into willingly, the belief that the entire society was one�organic whole left no room for those who didn't want to behave, let�alone "evolve." Your home, your private thoughts, everything was�part of the organic body politic, which the state was charged with redeeming.�Hence a phalanx of progressive reformers saw the home as the�front line in the war to transform men into compliant social organs.�Often the answer was to get children out of the home as quickly as�possible. An archipelago of agencies, commissions, and bureaus�sprang up ovemight to take the place of the anti-organic, contraevolutionary influences�of the family. The home could no longer be�John Dewey helped create kindergartens in America for precisely�this purpose#to shape the apples before they fell from the tree#�On the campaign trail in 1912, Wilson explained�that "living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure�and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws�of Life ... it must develop." Hence "all that progressives ask or desire is permission#in�an era when 'development,' 'evolution,'�is the�scientific word#to interpret the Constitution according to the�Darwinian principle."12 As we've seen, this hterpretation leads to a�system where the Constitution means whatever the reigning interpreters of "evolution"�say it means.�'b this end, the masses had to be subservient to�the will of the leader. In his unintentionally chilling 1890 essay,�Leaders of Men, Wilson explained that the "tme leader" uses the�masses like "tools." He must not traffic in subtleties and nuance, as�literary men do. Rather, he must speak to stir their passions, not their�intellects. In short, he must be a skillful demagogue.�"Only a very gross substance of concrete conception can make�any impression on the minds of the masses," Wilson wrote. "They�must get their ideas very absolutely put, and are much readier to receive a half�truth which they can promptly understand than a whole�tmth which has too many sides to be seen all at once. The competent�Indeed, it must be understood that imperialism was as central to Progressivism as�efforts to clean up the food supply or make factories�safe.17�"The New Nationalism," Roosevelt proclaimed,�"rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the�general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree�the public welfare may require it." This sort of rhetoric conjured�fears among classical liberals (again, increasingly called conservatives) that Teddy�would ride roughshod over American liberties.�Bismarck's motive was to forestall demands for more democracy�by giving the people the sort of thing they might ask for at the polls.�His top-down socialism was a Machiavellian masterstroke because it�made the middle class dependent upon the state. The middle class�took away from this the lesson that enlightened govemment was not�the product of democracy but an alternative to it. Such logic proved�As Wilson put it, the essence�of Progressivism was that the individual "marry his interests to the�state"28�When reading about Herbert Croly, one often finds phrases such�as "Croly was no fascist, but..." Yet few make the effort to explain�why he was not a fascist. Most seem to think it is simply self-evident�In reality, however, almost every single item on a�standard checklist of fascist characteristics can be found in The�Promise of American Life. The need to mobilize society like an� anny? Check! Call for spiritual rebirth? Check! Need for "great"�revolutionary leaders? Check! Reliance on manufactured, unifying,�national "myths"? Check! Contempt for parliamentary democracy?�Check! Non-Marxist Socialism? Check! Nationalism? Check! A�spiritual calling for military expansion? Check! The need to make�politics into a religion? Hostility to individualism? Check! Check!�Check! To paraphrase Whittaker Chambers: from almost any page of�a individual," Crolv�wrote, sounding very much like Wilson, "has no meaning apart from�the society in which his individuality has been formed." Echoing�both Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, Croly argued that "national�life" should be like a "school," and good schooling frequently demands "severe coercive�measures."33�Like Roosevelt, Croly and his colleagues looked forward tn many�more wars because war was the midwife of progress. Indeed, Croly�believed that the Spanish-American War's greatest significance lay�in the fact that it gave birth to Progressivism. In Europe wars would�Industrialization, economic upheaval, social�"disintegration," materialistic aecaucucc, ana worship of money�were tearing America apart, or so he#and the vast majority of projressives_believed.�The remedy for the "chaotic individualism of�our political and economic organization" was a "regeneration" led�by a hero- saint who could overthrow the tired doctrines of liberal�democracy in favor of a restored and heroic nation. The similarities�with conventional fascist theory should be obvious.35�There were of�course significant differences between fascism and Progressivism,�but these are mainly attributable to the cultural differences between�Europe and America, and between national cultures in general.�There was a religious awakening�afoot in the West as progressives of all stripes saw man snatching the�reins of history from God's hands. Science#or what they believed�to be science#was the new scripture, and one could only perform�science by "experimenting." And, just as important, only scientists�He noted that for a generation progressive liberals believed�that a "better future would derive from the beneficent activities of expert social�engineers who would bring to the service of social ideals�all the technical resources which research could discover and ingenuity could devise"�Five years earlier, Croly noted in the New�Republic that the practitioners of the "scientific method" would need�to join with the "ideologists" of Christ, in order to "plan and effect a�tOJOin Wlin Uic lucuiuglSlSi Ul ^iuioi, 111 uiuci lu piaii u�*^ ^^^, to join with the "ideologists" of Christ, in order to "plan and effect a�redeeming transformation" of society whereby men would look for�"deliverance from choice between unredeemed capitalism and revolutionary salvation."36�;. Many proBolshevik liberals simply refused to concede that the Red Terror�yolstieviK iioerais smipi^ ^iuo^ ^ ^unv^u^ ujiu. . Bolshevik liberals simply refused to concede that the Red Terror�erate lies and useful idiocy on the American left.�even transpired. This was the beginning of nearly a century of deliberate lies and�useful idiocy on the American left.�DuBois offers a good illustration of how fascism and communism�appealed to the same progressive impulses and aspirations. Like�The�heroic success of fascism, according to Steffens, made Westem�democracy#mn by "petty persons with petty purposes"#look patiietic by comparison.�For Steffens and countless other liberals,�Mussolini, Lenin, and Stalin were all doing the same thing: transfomiing cormpt,�outdated societies. Tugwell praised Lenin as a praginning an "experiment." The same�was tme�of Mussolini, he explained.�s. How, a correspondent asked,�could the magazine think Mussolini's bmtality was a "good thing"?�. But some�times a nation drifts into a predicament from which it can be rescue<� only by the adoption of a violent remedy."43�The key concept for rationalizing progressive utopianism was�ixperimentation," justified in the language of Nietzschean authenticity, Darwinian�evolution, and Hegelian historicism and explained�in the argot of William James's pragmatism. Sicientific knowledge�advanced by trial and error. 1-luman evoiution advanced by trial and�error. History, according to Hegel, progressed tnrough the interplay�The outbreak of war in Europe in 1914 distracted Wilson and the�country from domestic concems. It also proved a boon to the�erican economy, cutting off the flow of cheap immigrant labor� and increasing the demand for American exports#something to�keep in mind the next time someone tells you that the Wilson era�proves progressive policies and prosperity go hand in hand.�Even for ostensibly secular progressives the war served as a divine�call to arms. They were desperate to get their hands on the levers of�power and use the war to reshape society. The capital was so thick�WILSON'S FASCIST POLICE STATE�Today we unreflectively associate fascism with militarism. But it '�should be remembered that fascism was militaristic because mili"essive" at the beginning�of the twentieth century.� Across the intellectual landscape, technocrats and poets alike saw�for organizing and mobilizing society.� ' One group that did recognize the social possi bilities of war were the early feminists who, in the words of Harriot�Stanton Blatch, looked forward to new economic opportunities for�women as "the usual, and happy, accompaniment of war" Richard�' Hitler couldn't have agreed more. As�he told Joseph Goebbels, "The war ... made possible for us the solution of a whole�series of problems that could never have�been�solved in normal times."50�We should not forget how the demands of war fed the arguments�for socialism. Dewey was giddy that the war might force Americans�"to give up much of our economic freedom ... We shall have to lay�by our good-natured individualism and march in step." If the war�went well, it would constrain "the individualistic tradition" and convince Americans�of "the supremacy of public need over private possessions." Another progressive put�it more succinctly: "Laissez-faire�is dead. Long live social control"51�To fight for an ideal, perhaps, must be coupled with thoughts�of self-preservation."5�The schools, of course, were drenched in nationalist propaganda.�Secondary schools and colleges quickly added "war studies courses"�e curriculum. And always and everywhere the progressives�i the patriotism of anybody who didn't act "100 percent�American."�Arthur�Bullardd. In 1917 he published�Mobilising America, in which he argued that the state must "electrify�'ublic opinion" because "the effectiveness of our warfare will de�1 the ardour we throw into it" Any citizen who did not put the�needs of the state ahead of his own was merely "dead weight."�Bullard's ideas were eerily similar to the Sorelian doctrines of the�"vital lie." "Truth and falsehood are arbitrary terms ... there are lifeless truths�and vital lies ... The force of an idea lies in its inspirational value. It matters�very little if it's tme or false."59�The radical lawyer and supposed civil libertarian Clarence�Darrow#today a hero to the left for his defense of evolution in the�Scopes "Monkey" trial#both stumped for the CPI and defended the�govemment's censorship efforts. "When I hear a man advising�). Once the bullets fly, citizens lose the right even to discuss the�issue, publicly or privately; "acquiescence on the part of the citizen�becomes a duty."60 (It's ironic that the ACLU made its name supporting Darrow at�the Scopes trial.)�Even as the govemment was chuming out propaganda, it was silencing dissent. Wilson's�Sedition Act banned "uttering, printing,�writing, or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive�language about the United States govemment or the military." The�Tt#?n there was the inevitable progressive crackdown on individual civil liberties.�Today's liberals tend to complain about the�McCarthy period as if it were the darkest moment in American history after slavery.�It's tme: under McCarthyism a few Hollywood�writers who'd supported Stalin and then lied about it lost their jot�in the 1950s. Others were unfairly intimidated. But nothing that happened under the�mad reign ofJoe McCarthy remotely compares with�what Wilson and his fellow progressives foisted on America. Under�American Legion�. Although it is today a fine organization with a proud history,�lot ignore the fact that it was founded as an essentially fascist organization. In�1923 the national commander of the legion declared, "If ever needed, the American�Legion stands ready to protect�our country's institutions and ideals as the fascisti dealt with the�ists who menaced Italy."67 FDR would later try to use the�legion as a newfangled American Protective League to spy on domestic dissidents and�harass potential foreign agents.�Vigilantism was often encouraged and rarely dissuaded under�Wilson's 100 percent Americanism. How could it be otherwise�' In 1915, in�his third annual message to Congress, he declared, "The grav<�threats against our national peace and safety have been uttered�within our own borders. There are citizens of the United States�blush to admit, bom under other flags ... who have poured the pi�son of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; who ha�sought to bring the authority and good name of our Govemment into�contempt, to destroy our industries wherever they thought it effecti�for their vindictive purposes to strike at them, and to debase our politics to the�uses of foreign intrigue." Four years later the president�was still convinced that perhaps America's greatest threat came from�Tie Republican antiwar progressive Robert La Follette spent a year fighting an effort�to�have him expelled from the Senate for disloyalty because ne'd given�a speech opposing the war to the Non-Partisan League. The�German authors were purged from libraries, families of German�extraction were harassed and taunted, sauerkraut became "liberty�cabbage," and#as Sinclair Lewis halt-jokingly recalled#there was�talk of renaming German measles "liberty measles." Socialists and�Hai-d numbers are difficult to come by, but it has been estimated�that some 175,000 Americans were arrested for failing to demon�strate their patriotism in one way or another. All were punished,�many went to jail.�For the most part, the progressives looked upon what they had created and said, "This�is good" The "great European war ... is stri]�ing down individualism and building up collectivism," rejoiced the�Progressive financier and J. P. Morgan partner George Perkins.�In America the socialists and progressives voted in favor of the war. This didn't�make them rightwingers; it made them shockingly bloodthirsty and jingoistic�left-wingers.�In the liberal telling ofAmerica's story, there are only two perpetrators of official�misdeeds: conservatives and "America" writ large.�progressives, or modem liberals, are never bigots or tyrants, but conservatives often�are. For example, one will virtually never hear that�!. For example, one will virtually never hear that�the Palmer Raids, Prohibition, or American eugenics were thoroughly progressive phenomena.�These are sins America itself must�atone for. Meanwhile, real or alleged "conservative" misdeeds#say,�McCarthyism#are always the exclusive fault of conservatives and a�sign of the policies they would repeat if given power. The only culpable mistake�that liberals make is failing 10 nght "hard�enough" for�their principles. Liberals are never responsible for historic misdeeds,�because they feel no compulsion to defend the inherent goodness of�America. Conservatives, meanwhile, not only take the blame for�events not of their own making that they often worked the most assiduously against,�but find themselves defending liberal misdeeds�in�order to defend America herself.�War socialism under Wilson was an entirely progressive project,�and long after the war it remained the liberal ideal. To this day liberals instinctively�and automatically see war as an excuse to expand�govemmental control of vast swaths of the economy. If we are to believe that "classic"�fascism is first and foremost the elevation of�martial values and the militarization of govemment and society under the banner of�nationalism, it is very difficult to understand why�the Progressive Era was not also the Fascist Era.�Indeed, it is very difficult not to notice how the progressives fit the�objective criteria for a fascist movement set forth by so many students of the field.�Progressivism was largely a middle-class movement equally opposed to mnaway capitalism�above and Marxist�radicalism below. Progressives hoped to find a middle course between the two, what�the fascists called the "Third Way" or what�Richard Ely, mentor to both Wilson and Roosevelt, called the�"golden mean" between laissez-faire individualism and Marxist socialism. Their chief�desire was to impose a unifying, totalitarian�moral order that regulated the individual inside his home and out�The progressives also shared with the fascists and Nazis a buming�desire to transcend class differences within the national communit^�and create a new order. George Creel declared this aim succinctly:�"No dividing line between the rich and poor, and no class distinctions to breed mean�envies."73�This was precisely the social mission and appeal of fascism and�Nazism. In speech after speech, Hitler made it clear that his goal was�to have no dividing lines between rich and poor. "What a difference�. "The [Nazi] party�was intending to change the whole concept of labour relations, based�on the principle of co-determination and shared responsibility 1:�tween management and workers. I knew it was Utopian but I believed in it with all�my heart ... Hitler's promises of a caring but disciplined socialism fell on very�receptive ears."74�Of course, such utopian dreams would have to come at the price�of personal liberty. But progressives and fascists alike were glad to�pay it. "Individualism," proclaimed Lyman Abbott, the editor of the�Outlook, "is the characteristic of simple barbarism, not ofrepublican�civilization."75 The Wilsonian-Crolyite progressive conception of�