What is wilsonian progressivism?
339872
its a bunch of laws that he passes when he was president.. all of them were reform minded.. thats why its called the gilded age.. Its the age of progressivism.. \n\n\n\nall of this happened.. sparknotess :-\n\nWilsonian Progressivism: 1913–1916 \nEvents \n1913 -  Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments are ratified Congress passes Federal Reserve Act and Underwood Tariff\n1914 -  Panama Canal is completed Congress passes Clayton Anti-Trust Act, establishes Federal Trade Commission United States occupies Vera Cruz, Mexico\n1915 -  Congress passes La Follette Seaman’s Act United States invades Haiti\n1916 -  Congress passes Workingmen’s Compensation Act, Federal Farm Loan Act, Warehouse Act, Adamson Act, and Jones Act Pancho Villa attacks New Mexico United States invades Dominican Republic\n1917 -  United States buys Virgin Islands\nKey People\nWoodrow Wilson - 28th U.S. president; outlined New Freedom domestic policies to lower protective tariff and tame big business \nVenustiano Carranza -  General who took power in Mexico after 1914 coup ousted revolutionary leader Victoriano Huerta\nPancho Villa - Mexican rebel who tried to provoke war between the United States and Mexico in order to oust Venustiano Carranza from power\nJohn J. Pershing -  General sent by Wilson to pursue Villa’s band of Mexican rebels into Mexico in 1916\nThe New Freedom\nEven though Woodrow Wilson won the vast majority of electoral votes in the election of 1912, he received only 41 percent of the popular vote, ostensibly leaving him with little mandate. Despite this handicap, Wilson managed to accomplish every one of his major domestic goals on his progressive New Freedom agenda. In just four years, Wilson reduced the tariff, passed more anti-trust legislation, and reformed the banking system.\nWilson began in 1913 by pushing Congress to pass the Underwood Tariff, which drastically reduced duties on foreign goods from an average rate of 40 percent to an average rate of 25 percent. Congress compensated for the loss of revenue by creating a national income tax under the Sixteenth Amendment, another major progressive achievement of 1913. \nBanking Reform\nNext, Wilson took on the banking industry, which despite industrialization and the population boom had remained essentially unchanged since the Civil War. In 1913, Wilson and Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act to create a decentralized national bank comprising twelve regional branches. Collectively, all the private banks in each region owned and operated that respective region’s branch. However, the new Federal Reserve Board had the final say in decisions affecting all branches, including setting interest rates and issuing currency. This new banking system helped stabilize national finances and credit and helped the financial system survive two world wars and the Great Depression.\nOther Progressive Legislation\nWilson also continued to crack down on trusts, most notably by convincing Congress to pass the Clayton Anti-Trust Act in 1914. Unlike the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Clayton Anti-Trust Act actually gave lawmakers the power to punish monopolistic corporations. Furthermore, it legalized labor unions and their right to strike peacefully.\nCongress passed a wide variety of other progressive legislation during Wilson’s first term. The La Follette Seaman’s Act of 1915, for example, protected sailors’ rights and wages on merchant ships, while the Federal Farm Loan Act and the Warehouse Act of 1916 gave farmers access to easy credit. That same year, Congress also passed the Workingmen’s Compensation Act to help support temporarily disabled federal employees and the Adamson Act to establish an eight-hour workday for all employees on interstate railroads. With the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, Americans won the right to elect U.S. senators directly.\nWilson’s Foreign Policy\nIn foreign affairs, Wilson flatly rejected Roosevelt’s Big Stick Diplomacy and Taft’s Doll
805656
Secular Humanism.  That or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism *aka* Pastafarianism.
1117324
I think you mean utopian? \n\n"Utopian" in a negative meaning is used to discredit ideas as too advanced, too optimistic or unrealistic, impossible to realize. Hence, for example, the use by Marxists, of such expressions as "utopian socialism".
294476
I'm assuming you're refering to the Progressive Era of the early 1900s, right?\n\ncity: urban reforms, sanitation, settlement houses (Jane Addams)\n\nstate: progressive governors (Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, the "Wisconsin Idea"), primary elections, election reform (ballot initiatives, recalls, referendums)\n\nnational: the progressive Constitutional Amendments (16th, 17th, 18th, 19th), Theodore Roosevelt (trust-busting)\n\nLook up each of these terms/items/people for more info...
262095
Existentialism is a 20th-century philosophical movement that assumes that people are entirely free and thus responsible for what they make of themselves.\n\nExistentilist guilt would be feeling guily for failing to realize your own potential or live up to it.
533123
The problem with utopian ideals is that they ignore human nature.\n\nWhen people are perfect, let's talk about it.
290691
Its an old Australianism:\n\n"Western Oriental Gentlemen"
323092
A definition of Utopia.
48786
The Progressive Era is a label applied to rather broad and sometime disparate attempts in the period from the 1900 through the end of World War I in 1918 to address economic and social reform.\n\nIn several states, particularly in the West, progressive reformers advocated forms of direct democracy, such as authorizing citizen groups through "Initiative and Referendum" to propose new laws or to review the actions of legislatures by obtaining sufficient citizen signatures on petitions to allow voter referenda on specific issues.\n\nProgressives also successfully lobbied for the direct election of U.S. senators by the voters enacted through the 17th Amendment to the Constitution ratified in 1913, replacing the former system by which members of the Senate were elected by each state legislature. Reformers in many states also pushed through systems to allow for the recall of elected officials.
661787
First to the "RIGHT":  To stabilize the mighty power \nof potentates - with potency, force and violence.\n\nThen to the "LEFT":  Human dignity and reciprocalness \nin economic concerns is their first postulate.\n\nNote: Marx was NO "LEFT" at all, Marx and his followers \nare the most extreme "RIGHT". He desired the most \nextensive capitalism of all, the capitalism of the \nauthoritarian state.
727587
Positivism died in the 1940s and was burried by the 1960s.  You should know this, since positivism is part of Enlightenment thinking. (See Thomas Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions; also "underdetermination of theory" or Quine-Duhem Thesis).  \n\nReligion will play the role it has always played since the beginning of mankind.  It will also have to pick up the slack of predicating metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics in a world left empty after logical positivism's demise.  As usual.  It always did.
1003758
Here`s what I found:\n\nAnthropological Theory is an international academic journal that aims to explore theoretical issues into social theory from an anthropological point-of-view. The journal is published quarterly by Sage and is edited at the University of Connecticut, USA. The journal's main emphasis is on the analysis of complex social concepts, covering areas such as " ... nationalism, language and representation, material culture, transnationalism, globalisation, sexuality, race and difference, gender, violence, migration, religion and political economy". The Web site provides publication details, information for authors, editorial details, and table of contents. Access to full text articles requires a subscription.
483926
Religious Pluralism\nSeena Fazel\nPhilosophically, religious pluralism is the theory that the great world religions constitute varying conceptions of, and responses to, the one ultimate, mysterious divine reality. We can approach this theory by comparing it to its two main rivals, exclusivism and inclusivism. \n\n\nAlthough we may find instances in Baha'i scripture capable of exclusivist development, exclusivism - the view that one particular tradition alone teaches the truth and constitutes the way to salvation or liberation - is not supported by a reading of the Baha'i writings in context. A fundamental tenet of Baha'i belief is the common foundation of all the world's revealed religions: "Unequivocally and without the least reservation it proclaims all established religions to be divine in origin" (WOB, p. 58). With this perspective, the superiority of one religious tradition over another is denied: "One cannot call one World Faith superior to another, as they all come from God." (Shoghi Effendi, Letter 19.11.45)\n\n\nInclusivist theologies and religious philosophies state that one particular tradition presents the final truth while other traditions, instead of being regarded as wrong, are seen to reflect aspects of, or to constitute approaches to, that final truth. The Baha'i writings do not portray an inclusivist outlook as the Baha'i Faith does not claim to represent the final truth. As Shoghi Effendi explains, Baha'is "claim no finality for the Revelation with which they stand identified" (WOB, p. 59). Inclusivist trends do exist in the Baha'i writings in that the Revelation of Baha'u'llah marks "the last and highest stage in the stupendous evolution of man's collective life on this planet" (WOB, p. 163). Man's individual life will "continue indefinitely to progress and develop" but his planetary life has reached "the furthermost limits in the organization of human society" (ibid). This should be attributed not to "any inherent superiority" (WOB, p. 166) or "superior merit" (WOB, p. 60) of the Baha'i Faith but rather to the fact that the present age is one which is "infinitely more advanced, more receptive, and more insistent to receive an ampler measure of Divine Guidance than has hitherto been vouchsafed to mankind" (ibid). It is the present age, not the religion of the age, that is superior.\n\n\nExplicit pluralism accepts the more radical position implied by inclusivism: the view that the great world faiths embody different perceptions and conceptions of, and correspondingly different responses to, the Real of the Ultimate, and that within each salvation is occuring. Thus Baha'u'llah writes: "There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God." (Gleanings, p. 217)\n\n\nNevertheless there are Baha'i writings which seemingly do not support pluralist thinking, by implying that the different religions will cease to exist in the future as all believers become Baha'is. In the tablet to Queen Victoria, Baha'u'llah declares: "That which the Lord has ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith". (WOB, p. 163) Baha'u'llah is reported to have said to Edward Granville Browne that there would come a time when "all nations should become one in faith" and when "diversity of religion should cease" (qtd in Esslemont, p. 117-8). A tablet of TAbdu'l-Baha written in 1906 contains the following passage: "The fourth candle [of unity] is unity in religions (vahdat-i-din) which is the corner-stone of the foundation itself, and which, by the power of God, will be revealed in all its
421498
Was a policy enacted by Woodrow Wilson in the World War 1 era.  It focused on national integrity, making moral decisions, and preserving peace instead of basing actions on material interests.  Was backed by William Jennings Bryant... and dealt mostly with negotiating peaceful treaties to waring nations.  \n\nInteresting enough, the policy does not work.  Wilson ended up interfering with more countries than Will Taft and Roosevelt, which is what he was coming out against.
14949
"Pragmatic" is a buzzword that's often used as a good quality, but the very existence of pragmatism can be dangerous. To be pragmatic is to seek a solution that's practical, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S RIGHT! Usually, a pragmatic decision is one of compromise, where some are for and some are against, but it's the most "feasible" solution.\n\nThus leadership that claims to be pragmatic cannot be held in high esteem when compared to leadership that is decisive in choosing the right or moral option, even if there is much disagreement by one side or another. Remember, just because a majority believes or desires something, doesn't make it right. At one time, slavery was supported by the majority.\n\n"Progressive" has been most recently used to define the liberal movement, or that of the Democratic party.\n\nIn earlier U.S. history, a Progressive was "a member of a predominantly agrarian minor party that around 1912 split off from the Republicans".\n\nThe term was also used to describe followers of Robert M. La Follette in 1924 and Henry A. Wallace in 1948 presidential elections.\n\nToday, a Progressive is more or less a modern socialist, one who believes in "social improvement by government action." To be blunt, Progressives want to re-distribute wealth, punishing the productive achievers of the country and rewarding the indolent welfare-grabbers.
342798
Modern liberal theory can be best understood by reading Elizabeth Anderson's posts referred to below.  It is solidly grounded in capitalism, it is highly critical of central planning of every aspect of economic life, but it is far more intellectually sound than modern libertarian and conservative economic theory, which has an almost fundamentalist mindset when it comes to free-markets and taxation.  One may be right in accusing the extreme left-wing in American politics of flirting with profoundly anti-capitalistic sentiments, but one would be a fool to pretend that modern liberal theory is anti-capitalist.  If you wish to attack modern liberal theory, start by reading up on it.  There is a reason why the academic world is not dominated by libertarians and conservatives, and it has to do more with the relative value of their ideas--which have not done quite so well in the free marketplace of intellectual inquiry--and less to do with inherent bias in the academic system.  One way to learn about both liberalism and conservatism is to read Rawls, Nozick, Hayek (whom I actually admire quite a bit), Sen, Dworkin, etc.  And once you have read the careful and intellectually stimulating discussions between these people, it becomes incredibly silly to suggest that modern liberal theory believes in socialism.
824272
The Unitarin Universalists:\n\n"The living tradition which we share draws from many sources:\n\n    * Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;\n    * Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion and the transforming power of love;\n    * Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;\n    * Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;\n    * Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;\n    * Spiritual teachings of Earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature."