In 1910, Roosevelt set out to define a more comprehensive progressive philosophy, and found it in Herbert Croly’s book. “The material progress and prosperity of a nation are desirable chiefly so far as they lead to the moral and material welfare of all good citizens,” Roosevelt observed in his Osawatomie speech, the initial draft of which was written by Croly. Progress and welfare require not only the centralization of government but also the nationalization of politics — a break from the American tradition of localism. The federal government should now play an interventionist role to advance progressive democracy, for “if we do not have the right kind of law and the right kind of administration of the law, we cannot go forward as a nation.”
In his own Osawatomie speech, President Obama donned TR’s progressive mantle. He alluded to “an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out.” But this “basic bargain” has become so eroded by the marketplace that the “defining issue of our time” is “to restore growth and prosperity, restore balance, restore fairness.”
The choice we face, as Obama frames it, is the same offered by progressives 100 years ago: between the harshness of market capitalism (defined in true straw-man fashion as “you’re-on-your-own economics” with “a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can”) and the fairness of progressive nationalism (the view that “we are greater together — when everyone engages in fair play, and everybody gets a fair shot, and everybody does their fair share”).
The word “fair” recurs in various forms throughout the speech, with reminders along the way that things have to be made
fair — and that means ever more government authority, programs, and regulation. “As a nation,” Obama said, “we’ve always come together, through our government.” And so Obama returned to his mantra of more federal education programs, more infrastructure spending, and more economic regulations. And, of course, raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for these “investments” would only be fair.
Obama denies the charge of class warfare, and, as class warfare is conventionally understood, he is correct. What he is actually doing is abandoning the average, middle-class voter and his middle-class values and cobbling together an alliance of state dependents, government hangers-on, and political elites who claim the capacity to run things. Obama’s program is fundamentally about the rise of a new governing class that insists on enforcing political and economic “fairness” rather than letting us govern ourselves. The managed quest for fairness inevitably leads to bureaucratic favoritism, inequalities based on special interests, and undue political influence.
At some point in every presidential campaign, there is a speech that defines the candidate and provides the rationale for his policies in light of the larger meaning of the country. By turning to TR’s New Nationalism model, Obama has revealed once and for all that the intellectual antecedent of his administration is the progressive theory of governance. He is calling his party back to its most radical roots. His objective as president is to complete the progressive transformation of America, and define its next phase as assuring not equal opportunity, but “fair” outcomes, by redistributing wealth and benefits through an ever more complicated and extensive government that regulates more and more of the economy and society.
As the national government becomes ever more centralized and bureaucratic, acting without constitutional limits, it also becomes more undemocratic, and more potentially despotic, than ever. The result is that a government designed to secure the right to the pursuit of happiness and to break down unjust barriers to opportunity now penalizes success, restricts opportunity, and has become the chief barrier to the achievement of the American Dream.
The 2012 election will be a referendum on the governing philosophy of this nation. Let us hope that voters understand the stakes. — Matthew Spalding is vice president for American studies at the Heritage Foundation. This article originally appeared in the December 31, 2011, issue of National Review.