What book shall I buy ?

I fancy buying a book of a loosely progressive nature and for once I not only have the money to do so, but (hopefully) the time to actually read the thing.

I`ve got it down to a short list of sorts - Herbert aptheker on Race and Democracy by Eric Foner and Manning Marable(ed.s). There are books about Claudia Jones around by Marika sherwood and Carole Boyce Davies and books on Sylvia Pankhurst by Mary Davis and Shirley Harrison.

A short list of 5 is actually quite workable, but before I decide, what suggestions do others have ?

The Triumph of Conservatism, by Gabriel Kolko, sheds light on who truly pushed for and benefited from the "Progressive" era reforms of the early 20th century.

The meaning of "conservative" during the early 20th century was "to conserve" -- not to be confused with or substituted for the current meaning, which is far-right reactionary lunatic fringe "Libertarian" America-hating.*
_____

*I was recently "informed" by such an individual that for the first 125 years the US didn't have free public schools. I neglected to mention that for much of those 125 years it had slavery.

I did inform him of the fact that the first public schools were established in the 17th and 18th centuries, and continued to and through ratification of Constitution and Bill of Rights.

And, he said, one of the Founders/Framer's favorite authors was Frederik Bastiat.

In fact, the last Founders/Framers died on July 4, 1826, and Bastiat's first writing was published some 25 years after that date.
_____

The contrast is that stark: Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican -- and a progressive -- founded the National Parks system in part to protect publicly owned wilderness lands from the rapacity of private profiteers.

The triumph of the "conservatism" beginning with Goldwater is its own self-discrediting and -destruction -- not, alas, without extensive damaging fallout for the rest of us.

As for a book of a progressive nature? Any/all of these:

The Birth of the Bill of Rights: 1776-1791 (Numerous Editions), Robert Allen Rutland.

Demonstrates how the states' constitutions were made during 1776-1777 (and 1780).

Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins, 1991), Edited by Helen E. Veit, et al.

The debates in the first Congress under the newly-ratified Constitution of that which became the Bill of Rights. From those, the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment; note the import of the final clause:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." (Veit, et al., at 12.)

The Bill of Rights and the States: The Colonial and Revolutionary Origins of American Liberties (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1994), Edited by Patrick T. Conley and John P. Kaminski.

Demonstrates how the Bill of Rights was drawn from those existing states' constitutions/bills of rights.

The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources & Origins (NY: Oxford University Press, 1997), Edited by Neil H. Cogan.

Each of the Amendments presented as distinct chapters, including debates, legislative records, and newspaper reports.

I recommend those because the Constitution/Bill of Rights (as was the "Declaration of Independence") were the triumph of progressive values over the "conservative". And because, in particular, the First Amendment is the quintessential expression of Liberalism.

#3: I recommend those because the Constitution/Bill of Rights (as was the "Declaration of Independence") were the triumph of progressive values over the "conservative".

Your pointed overuse of the terms "triumph" and "conservatism" makes it sound like you're making an oblique response to my book recommendation. Maybe you think Kolko, the author, is some "fringe libertarian," but he's actually an avowed socialist. His book is about how the era of "progressivism" actually was pushed by and served the interests of corporate America since big business can afford the costs of complying with regulations that would make smaller businesses go under, and thus stifle competition. Kolko's reference in his title to "conservatism" is his label for corporatism.

And if you're going to throw labels and definitions around in order to make a point, it's worth noting that the era of the American founding documents can only be described as representing classical liberalism. This constant conflation of liberalism with progressivism is a big mistake considering that quintessential progressives like Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey were a bunch of corporatist warmongers who believed in spreading democracy by force of arms with whom Bush Co. would find much in common.

"Overuse" of the terms "triumph" and "conservatism"? How many times more than once did I use the first of those terms? And how many times did I use the term "conservatism"?

So Kolko is "an avowed socialist," and there is his bias. It must be the "corporatists," then, who were opposed to corporate monopolies, eh?

The fact remains that the Founders/Framers were Liberal, regardless which box you hope to put them into; as said, the First Amendment is quintessentially Liberal, in that it allows for ALL points of view, not only its own. There is no conflation in that view.

Nor is there conflation in my statement of the fact that the "Declaration" and Constitution/Bill of Rights were the triumph of progressive values over the "conservative". The "Declaration" was progressive in that it was the first declaration of a universal human equality -- and it, and independence, were opposed by the "conservatives". (It also placed the military in subordination to the civil power, as know those who've actually read beyond the first several hot-langauge paragraphs.)

And the Constitution -- underscored by the First Amendment -- dethroned "Divine Right" -- thus separating gov't from "religion" -- and in its place instituted election.

As for the conflation of "Liberal" and "Progressive": it is not a conflation, let alone an "incorrect" conflation, in all instances. The "Declaration" and Constitution/Bill of Rights were in fact Liberal projects, and the triumph of progressive values over the conservative. And the far-left "socialist" bashings of Woodrow Wilson as a warmonger rely upon a narrow and inflexible bias. Teddy Roosevelt was an imperialist -- a warmonger, if you wish; but he was also a conservationist and enemy of so-called "corporatism".

You want to be careful in bashing another for "throwing labels and definitions around" when you're even more biased than the other you bash. "Warmonger" isn't exactly objective, and isn't exactly other than ham-fisted bludgeon.

I won't priase the "Declaration" and Constitution/Bill of Rights as perfect -- that's for far-right lunatic fringe anti-gum'mint "Libertarian" loons. But I also won't insult them based upon an extreme, and extremely biased, presentism.

I stand by my original post -- which concerned law, not politics and ideology -- for what it says, not for what it doesn't say.

So Kolko is "an avowed socialist," and there is his bias. It must be the "corporatists," then, who were opposed to corporate monopolies, eh?

Ignore the premise of his book if you like. But if you want to be pro-corporate monopoly, then being a "progressive" is one way to accomplish that. The recently passed Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act is a good representation of how the corporate-progressive scam is played. In the name of saving the little children from the evil capitalists, all product models must be sent to an accredited testing lab at the businesses' expense. That means all the big corporate dinosaurs can easily foot the bill due to economies of scale while the small businesses, like independent toy manufactuerers, are now going to be in over their heads with test lab bills if they so much as want to try to sell an unpainted wooden train. Your good intentions don't mean squat. This is the game you're playing and this is what it's doing to the face of the business community here in the real world.

The fact remains that the Founders/Framers were Liberal, regardless which box you hope to put them into; as said, the First Amendment is quintessentially Liberal, in that it allows for ALL points of view, not only its own. There is no conflation in that view.

In that very narrow sense, maybe you could call it "liberal," but certainly not "progressive." Hell, in that narrow sense, even some strains of conservatism would be considered "liberal." Progressivism is inherently interventionist, which the First Amendment is most definitely not. As I've said before, all of this runs far closer to the classical liberalism neatly summed up by John Locke as expounding "life, liberty, and property." Your intent to paste on some divergent term two centuries removed from the founding documents can't be anything else but concerning the self-aggrandizement of a particular politics and ideology, not some objective observation about law. And all of it because the title of a book rubbed you the wrong way?

I don't know if you have any interest in any of these, but the next few books of a loosely progressive nature that I am hoping to read are A Power Governments Cannot Suppress by Howard Zinn; Wobblies and Zapatistas: Conversations on Anarchism, Marxism and Radical History by Staughton Lynd and Andrej Grubacic; and Rhetoric for Radicals: A Handbook for 21st Century Activists by Jason Del Gandio. (Touchy touchstones, as always).

Thanks all for your thoughts so far. Unsure about Kolko. I think there might be a problem for a non-American trying to get to grips with it, given that Americans and us Brits often use the same words with quitec different meanings (liberal, progressive, libertarian) - in fact even "social democrat", a term you might have thought was very specific, is often used by politicians and journalists (in the UK) - quite wrongly - to mean a position right of centre. There are various reasons for this, which I won`t bore you with as they`re very specific to the UK.

The Bill of Rights stuff might be quite interesting for future read. We don`t have a written constitution as such, our traditions in that respect arise from specific historical events - the Magna Carta, the English Civil War and afterwards. There is talk of a government-drafted written constitution which in my view would be meaningless.

Wobblies and Zapatistas might go on a future reading list, though probably not very high up the list.

There are a couple of other American authors I might be interested in - Howard Zinn and Gerald Horne - has anyone read them ?

Haven`t had chance to make buying decisions as yet - any other suggestions welcomed !

Just as an afterthought, all this talk of constitutions made me dig out two of my old books for re-reading - Magna Carta to the Constitution : Liberty Under the law by Caroline P Stoel and Ann B Clarke and Magna Carta : Icon of Liberty. Both interesting reads as I recall.

If anyone has any thoughts about Zinn and/or Horne, I`d still be interested to know what people think of them.

I'm fond of Zinn, myself -- and not just because he happens to be an emeritus professor at the university where I'm getting my Ph.D. in a completely unrelated subject. (A rather old review of mine is posted on this site for his Terrorism and War.)

Many of his works are collections of essays and articles, some of which you can probably find online to get an introduction. The glaring exception, A People's History of the United States, is a history textbook, albeit one that focuses on people, groups and movements often overlooked in more traditional textbooks. The history major in me is interested in checking out Voices of a People's History of the United States, an anthology of primary documents from such sources.

I know you`re all waiting with bated breath to know what I eventually bought.

As I recall, it was ;

The Professor and the Pupil by Murali Balaji

W E B Du Bois : Crusader for Peace by Kathryn T Cryan-Hicks

Red Roses for Isabel by May Hill.

On holiday in the Cotswolds the other week, I came across a book I`ve wanted for ages, Special Operations Europe : Scenes From the Anti-Nazi War by Basil Davidson. Am reading that at the moment.

#6 --

Long-winded name-calling.

#9 --

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were drawn from the existing state constitutions/bills of rights adopted during 1776-77, and in 1780, at the "suggestion" of the Continental Congress, not from British law.

A cause of the "Revolution" was a long-evolved divergence of colony law from the British.

#10 --

I did time at BU, in the 1970s. It took decades to overcome the negative consequences of that. And still from time to time they raise their ugly heads.

#12: Short-winded evasion of reality.

#12 --

You'll note that I didn't post a litany of largely-negative and rejecting name-callings as substitute for fact and thought.

I have an education in law. I don't mistake ideology for law, or for accurate definition. John Adams: "A system of laws, and not of men."

John Adams undertook the defense of the British involved in the so-called Boston Massacre, when no other lawyer would touch it. Not because he was sympathetic -- in fact he despised the British -- but because no one charged with an offense should lack for a competent defense. Nothing "progressive" about that, of course, in that it was a "revolutionary" application of democratizing principle. Any more than there is in the First Amendment, which only established in foundational law that which had not existed before then.

And for doing so he was subjected -- by the hypocritcally self-righteous ant-British "revolutionary" types, including his cousin Sam, who were all for freedom so long as it was only their own -- to threats of violence, and worse. His defense was that which you omit from your clichedly biased substitute of ideological assertion for analysis: justice and the rule of law are to be above politics.

Those who don't know to distinguish law from politics, law from ideology, are essentially the same in every particular except superficial political/ideological position and rhetoric. "Progressivism is . . . interventionist"? So is the self-righteous anti-progressive imperialist. Both are identicial in their projection of their presumptive, "I know what's best for you; and it is none other than that which is best for me." There is no less supremacist arrogance in the far-left's contemptuous use of the term "the masses," for whom they presume to "think," for whom substitute their "judgment," than there is in the far-right's elitist contempt for "elites".

"Evasion of reality"? That presumes you, unlike all with whom you disagree, and you presume to disparage, have a monopoly where no monopoly can be had. When you have as much expertise and accumulated information, and even wisdom, as the Founders/Framers, collectively, I'll believe your rejection of their handiwork to be its superior. When, that is, you can at very least, as first premise, distinguish between, on one hand, law, and on the other, the various self-serving factional gibberishes which are each the only and best solution.

Sell your bitter pie-in-the-sky to those who mistake pie-plates for flying saucers.

Fitting handle: "Lunar".

#4 --

Your pointed overuse of the terms "triumph" . . . .

Do the math for me: exactly how many times did I use the term "triumph"?

#16: You'll note that I didn't post a litany of largely-negative and rejecting name-callings as substitute for fact and thought.

Substitution and addition are two different things. All I had pointed out in the previous posts was that progressivism and corporatism historically and currently go hand-in-hand. In addition to that, I had pointed out that this suggestion made you throw a hissy-fit, which is apparently ongoing.

#17: As if chopping up that sentence could hide what I stated in full in #4. Note that you have not denied that you were in fact obliquely referencing my book suggestion. Instead you pore over grammar. Along with the accusations of "name-calling," but another evasion.

Well, if you want a story about how we got to where we're at, try The Prize

#18 --

No evasions. I simply wasn't born yesterday, so don't buy into the "standard" cliched left- -- or right-wing -- critiques. I've seen far too much rewriting of history in effort to preserve ideology. Establishing the national parks system was progressive -- and was certainly not hand-in-hand with "corporatism".

As for corporations being willing to "suffer" regulation in exchange for other gains? Not the reality. You are essentially insisting that that is a criminal class -- yet requiring that it be believed that it is willing to obey the law. An actual example is the baby bells: they lobbied for DEregulation in exchange for implementing fiber optics. They got the DEregulation, but didn't do the fiber optics.

I'm still waiting for you to do the math re. my alleged "pointed overuse" of the word "triumph," instead of avoiding doing so by instead jabbering about "chopping up that sentence".

#20: You are essentially insisting that that is a criminal class -- yet requiring that it be believed that it is willing to obey the law.

That's a semantic argument. And whether you're talking about "regulation" or "deregulation," both are about monied interests getting to decide what the rulebook is via legislation. Don't let the "de" prefix fool you into thinking they're not two sides of the same coin. If it would offend your sensibilities any less, you could instead take my meaning to be that most legislation in general, regardless of ideological origin, are subject to such forces, and that "progressivism" is no less immune to them than any other ideology. It's a matter of distinguishing between ends and means. Just because you intend to make the world a "better place" doesn't mean that your methods will achieve those ends without unintended consequences. That's how Progressivism got us into alcohol prohibition. Neither does it mean that your good intentions will not be subverted by those with better political connections. That's just the reality of the political process.

#21 --

No, it is not a "semantic argument"; it is the identification of one the myriad irrational contradictions of your "argument," and its foundation of cliches as substitute for thought.

Democracy, and democratic due process, cannot exist without regulation. REGULATION is a synonym for LAW.

Writing is thinking on paper. Learn to rewrite -- which means, to critically evaluate YOUR thought, and correct its errors, instead of spewing memorized irrationalities. I don't have time -- and it isn't my responsibility -- to make your unknowing self-contradictions "'progressivism' is no less immune" -- "less"? or MORE? literate and logical for you.

Learn the difference between LAW, on one hand, and on the other the only thing you utter: politics/political ideology. Until you learn the difference you'll continue to sound like the typical extremist fool with a mouth too handy and information transparently lacking in substance.

Yes, you're making a semantic argument. You're calling them a "criminal class," which is all fine and well, but then go on to claim it's a contradiction on my part if they're influencing legislation to make the law suit their own interests. It's an argument based entirely on a turn of phrase. It's like how you keep insisting that I count how many "triumphs" you've typed out. You're so stuck in your literalist mindset that you refuse to see the reality before you. You can't distinguish between Progressivism on paper and Progressivism in politics.