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term for their enemies (see�Fhe progressives viewed the traditional�system of constitutional checks and balances as an outdated impediment to progress�because such horse-and-buggy institutions were a�barrier to their own ambitions.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�