More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Peter Dreier

Peter Dreier

Posted: September 16, 2010 03:22 PM

A hundred years ago, any soapbox orator who called for women's suffrage, laws protecting the environment, an end to lynching, workers' right to form unions, a progressive income tax, a federal minimum wage, old-age insurance, the eight-hour workday and government-subsidized healthcare would be considered an impractical utopian dreamer or a dangerous socialist. Now we take these ideas for granted. The radical ideas of one generation are often the common sense of the next. When that happens, give credit to the activists and movements that fought to take those ideas from the margins to the mainstream. We all stand on the shoulders of earlier generations of radicals and reformers who challenged the status quo of their day.

Unfortunately, most Americans know little of this progressive history. It isn't taught in most high schools. You can't find it on the major television networks or even on the History Channel. Indeed, our history is under siege. In popular media, the most persistent interpreter of America's radical past is Glenn Beck, who teaches viewers a wildly inaccurate history of unions, civil rights and the American left. Beck argues, for example, that the civil rights movement "has been perverted and distorted" by people claiming that Martin Luther King Jr. supported "redistribution of wealth." In fact, King did call for a "radical redistribution of economic power." Using his famous chalkboard, Beck draws connections between various people and organizations, and defines them as radicals, Marxists, socialists, revolutionaries, leftists, progressives or social justice activists--all of which leads inexorably to Barack Obama. Drawing on writings by conspiracy theorists and white supremacists, Beck presents a misleading version of America's radical family tree.

Many historians, including Howard Zinn in his classic A People's History of the United States and Eric Foner in The Story of American Freedom, have chronicled the story of America's utopians, radicals and reformers. Every generation needs to retell this story, reinterpret it and use it to help shape the present and future. Unless Americans know this history, they'll have little understanding of how far we've come, how we got here and how progress was made by a combination of grassroots movements and reformers.

That's why, for this week's issue of The Nation Magazine, I have compiled my list of The 50 Most Influential Progressives of the 20th Century. The list appears in three parts (as slideshows) and will be followed by your suggestions, both for progressives we should have included, and nominations for the leading progressives of this century. The full article, with all 50 people, will be available on Monday. The magazine will be on newstands next week.

The list includes fifty people -- listed chronologically in terms of their early important accomplishments -- who helped change America in a more progressive direction during the twentieth century by organizing movements, pushing for radical reforms and popularizing progressive ideas. They are not equally famous, but they are all leaders who spurred others to action. Most were not single-issue activists but were involved in broad crusades for economic and social justice, revealing the many connections among different movements across generations. Most were organizers and activists, but the list includes academics, lawyers and Supreme Court justices, artists and musicians who also played important roles in key movements. The list includes people who spent most of their lives as activists for change -- long-distance runners, not sprinters.

The list includes people who spent most of their lives as activists for change--long-distance runners, not sprinters. Many of them were born in the nineteenth century but gained prominence in the twentieth. Some important activists who lived into the twentieth century but whose major achievements occurred in the previous century--such as labor organizer Mary Harris "Mother" Jones; environmentalist John Muir; African-American journalist, feminist and anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells; agrarian Populist leader Mary Lease; and Knights of Labor leader Terence Powderly--are not included.

Although many politicians were important allies of progressive movements--including Senator (and Governor) Robert La Follette; Senators Robert Wagner, Paul Douglas and Paul Wellstone; Congress members Victor Berger, Jeannette Rankin, Vito Marcantonio, Bella Abzug and Phil Burton; Mayors Tom Johnson, Fiorello LaGuardia and Harold Washington; as well as Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and (for his domestic social programs) Lyndon Johnson--the list excludes elected officials.

At a moment when Glenn Beck and the right have hijacked progressivism as dangerous, it is more important than ever that we engage in a real discussion about the accomplishments of true progressives. I encourage you to read; discuss; let us know who you would include, and most importantly share the feature.

I'll give you the first five here: Eugene Debs; Jane Addams; Louis Brandeis; Florence Kelley; John Dewey.

For the rest, please click over to the first of our 50 Most Influential Progressives of the 20th Century slideshows.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 75
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
12:45 PM on 09/18/2010
I implore you to include Thelton Henderson in your list. His life story is intertwined with any number of groundbreaking issues - whether it be breaking the racial barrier as the first african lawyer in the DOJ, or his rulings from the bench. If you aren't familiar with him - you should be. Few have lived as remarkable a life, and accomplished so much...and with such great modesty.
photo
LMPE
I connect the most dissimilar things
04:27 PM on 09/17/2010
I agree with those.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linda Williams
03:19 PM on 09/17/2010
Thank you, Pete. I miss that cantankerous Zinn.
02:56 PM on 09/17/2010
I support the legacy of that great Texas member of Congress, Barbara Jordan and her commission on immigration. As she said, the goal of immigration reform and policy is to promote the welfare and national interests of America, NOT that of one group of people or another. In her remarks to Congress she stated her goals, to let in those who should be here, to keep out those who should not be here, and to deport all those who should NOT be here. The illegals are not in the category of those who should be here in her view. They should indeed be deported.

We have successfully done that before under Eisenhower, and we don't have to deport all of the illegals, but can simply make it impossible to have a job here. The Eiesenhower deportations removed millions more by that pressure. It also raised wages by a large amount in the areas where there were large numbers of illegals.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:24 PM on 09/17/2010
Thanks.
11:44 AM on 09/17/2010
Or the eugenics of Sanger and Wilson.

Or the gold snatching tyranny of FDR.

Or the "gunboat diplomacy" of Teddy Roosevelt.

Progressivism is scourge on humanity and an affront to individual liberty and justice.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Larry Motuz
Lawless markets lead ill-gotten gains.
07:08 PM on 09/17/2010
Liberty and justice. The only thing keeping them somewhat alive are thoughtful people. They've always been called socialists and communists by the right. So, for instance, was Ike.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Chernynkaya
11:36 AM on 09/17/2010
When we step back and look at the progressive agenda over the past century-- and certainly well byond that-- we can find a lot of comfort in the observable fact that our ideals have prevailed.

It wasn't that long ago that there were NO government safety nets for Americans (Social Security, Medicare, WIC, Food Stamps).  There were no consumer protections (FDA, building inspectors, product safety). There were no workplace laws (child labor laws, minimun wage, weekends, OSHA, family leave). There were no environmental protections (EPA, NOAA). I could go on, but you get it.

We  take these things for granted. We should take them for granted because they are the hallmarks of a civil, advanced society. But on the other hand, we must never take them ofr granted becasue right now, they are endangered by the Right.

While we need to ensure that these progressive programs are remain embedded, we should also also note that the values of Progressivism are actually part of our evolving mentality. Human beings must constantly move forward or we risk oblivion.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Larry Motuz
Lawless markets lead ill-gotten gains.
07:13 PM on 09/17/2010
Faved & fanned.

Sadly, the right does not believe in good government nor good governance. They have always opposed every initiative supporting social cohesion.
11:30 AM on 09/17/2010
Teddy Roosevelt, can't leave him out. As far as the right wing idiots who equate progressive with socialism and socialism with tyranny and dictatorship, they really should read a whole book someday, and not one approved by the Texas Board of Education.
10:04 AM on 09/17/2010
Documents obtained from Russia and backed up by files that the FBI has released state that Howard Zinn was a communist working for the Soviets. Despite this fact he is still the go to historian of many on the left.

http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/zinn_howard.htm

The term progressive has long been another word for socialist Socialism has long been an excuse for some to take power. How do you think tyrants get power? It isn't by saying that they are going to kill millions of Jews or that they are going to purge millions of their own citizens. Even if those in government today don't have those kind of designs when you give that much power to central government all it takes is someone with those types of ambitions to take the reigns.
schatsie
banks are more dangerous than standing armies
10:20 AM on 09/17/2010
oh sure attack a dead man.....anyone who had half a brain would be interested in knowing how the great devil was doing compared to us......capitalists who wanted to cut taxes for the Wealthy and increas the regressive SS taxes to compensate......the taxes to pay for both the greatest generation and the current generation.....but god forbid that the rich should pay taxes for the greatest generation to retire after all the greatest generation had good pensions.....and now the rich want MORE TAX CUTs and god forbid they should be audited unless they contribute to progressive causes....
10:42 AM on 09/17/2010
It isn't an attack. It is a fact. The author makes Zinn out to be some impartial umpire of history when reality is the complete opposite. The taxes on SS aren't regressive. You get paid benefits on the amount that you pay into the program. There is a cap on those benefits so there is also a cap on the contributions. It isn't meant to be a welfare program or a way to redistribute wealth.

The "rich" want tax cuts? Most people define rich as having a great deal of wealth, not having a high income. Certainly a high income could help you become rich. Those that make over $250,000 employ alot of people. Raising their taxes in this economy could cause some additional lay offs. If you want to raise their taxes at some point that is something else, but to do it now would likely cost jobs of people who are not rich.
schatsie
banks are more dangerous than standing armies
10:47 AM on 09/17/2010
The SS TAXES are regressive because the rich have demanded that the bottom 83% pay for the greatest generations social security instead of getting the money from them.....That Greatest Generation paid TWO percent and up to 400 per year in 1967.....and that underfunded the SS trust fund.... and besides that the rich live longer and collect a greater percentage of their contributions than the bottom 80%. think about that....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Linda Williams
03:18 PM on 09/17/2010
If you remember your grade school history classes you will remember that historical 'sections' were broken down by wars fought. It was a joke among faculty that seniors graduated without having learned anything beyond WWI or II. The point is not that current wars were not covered that was appaling to me, it was the fact that history in our country is DEFINED by war. No mention of turning points based on innovation/invention, social movements, industry, commerce, agriculture. Read Zinn and you will read history that takes a look at the average human being. Why is it foreign and caustic to include REAL PEOPLE in historical documentation. It would appear that the nose for socialism and communism only sniffs bureaucratic rubble. That, IS the no-name brand; and that is the State of the unseen face of humanity. Why is it so difficult to remember what we have learned and put it into perspective instead of howling at the wind in fear?
09:51 AM on 09/17/2010
1) Stalin
2) Mao
3) Pol Pot
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
lightningbolt
10:02 AM on 09/17/2010
Those dictators are not progressive.  They told lots of people they are communists and socialists, but behind the scenes, they were running fascist dictatorships.  A real socialist government allows its people to criticize the government, which these dictators did not allow.  Why did they not allow it?  Most likely because they weren't real socialists and criticism would expose that BIG LIE.
schatsie
banks are more dangerous than standing armies
10:23 AM on 09/17/2010
Notice not a word about the Happiest Countries in the world who are all socialist......with 6 weeks of vacation, retirement at 60, mass transportation that works, health care that works and does not result in bankrupcies and foreclosures, and cheaper education....(german doctors graduate with 1/2 the debt that american doctors have.....)
11:17 AM on 09/17/2010
I am glad you have admitted that progressive is simply code for socialist and communist. The thing is, when collectivism is imposed upon a nation, free speech and choice cannot exist. Or else, what's to stop you from selling toothpaste in the open market? The state, with their guns, thats who.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
veritas aequitas
08:59 AM on 09/17/2010
In the early 20th century, the Left demanded that we reject capitalism in the name of progress. Embrace "scientific" socialism, it said, and prosperity will ensue. This delusion could not be maintained.

Faced with the ever-rising living standards in the more capitalist countries, from the United States to West Germany to Asia, and with the ever-increasing misery and even death in the more socialist countries, from Soviet Russia to East Germany to North Korea, the Left had a choice. Either reevaluate the path to progress and become a champion of capitalism, or continue attacking capitalism knowing full well that it is the only means to prosperity.

The Left chose the latter.
schatsie
banks are more dangerous than standing armies
10:05 AM on 09/17/2010
And exactly how does that explain the Great Depresion or the fact that it was worse in the US....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
veritas aequitas
10:42 AM on 09/17/2010
It was worse because of FDR's socialist policies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
veritas aequitas
08:58 AM on 09/17/2010
In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal.

In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.”
schatsie
banks are more dangerous than standing armies
10:07 AM on 09/17/2010
Tell that to the happiest countries in the world where there suicide rate is 1/10 of the US suicide rate and where the homicide rate is 1/10 of the US rate....but then again, without that rate we would not be loosing 1 million people a year....
10:53 AM on 09/17/2010
You mean those small, close knit, homogenous countries that rely heavily on exports?

For the same reason the EU will fail, the US will fail. If liberals embraced the Constitution we could be more like Europe, with states rights.
11:06 AM on 09/17/2010
What country? CUBA?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Larry Motuz
Lawless markets lead ill-gotten gains.
07:36 PM on 09/17/2010
Your name means 'Truth and Justice'...neither of which are found in your postings. Your sources are as biased as Conservapedia.
07:54 AM on 09/17/2010
We liberals really do need to improve in teaching about what liberalism/progressivism has brought to our country, and the world.
09:52 AM on 09/17/2010
Stalin, Mao, we get it - mass starvation and mass murder. Fun times.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
lightningbolt
10:04 AM on 09/17/2010
Thank you for proving TedBaxter1's point.  People need to be taught who real progressives are.  Those so-called communist/socialist dictators were only communists or socialists in name.  Behind the scenes, they were running fascist dictatorships.
schatsie
banks are more dangerous than standing armies
10:10 AM on 09/17/2010
over 2 million premature deaths a year in this country....one million a year from the excessive suicide (no mental health care for the bottom 95%) and homicide because there are no jobs.....and the other million is because of healthcare that is not affordable....Even with Medicare, you might have to pay over $1000 per month in coinsurance and that does not include the copays for Pig Pharm.....(while the same drugs cost 1/10 the price in Canada, so paying for them out of pocket is not a problem....Where healthcare charges are 1/10 the charge here specially for diagnostics like labs and radiology....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Titus
Bourbon, no ice
07:47 AM on 09/17/2010
It's very interesting to me that I noted most of the people on this list came of age (early adult hood) in the late 1890s to early 1900's. Given this was the time of th "gilded age" and Robber Barons that TR eventually had to step on with his battle against the Trusts, I wonder if we are seeing a prelude to a similar reaction against the uber wealthy now. While the issues driving many of these (bad working conditions, racial discrimination, sufferage issues) have been at least partially addressed through these peoples' efforts and government's response, it seems that the conditions today (1 in 7 people in Poverty, unemployment at 9+ percent, real wages declining the last 20 years and homelessness on the rise) don't signal an environment where a new progressive movement might take hold?
schatsie
banks are more dangerous than standing armies
10:12 AM on 09/17/2010
Read your money your mind, people still believe in the Republican Fairy Tales and it is an animalian neuro response to the way that information is provided by the MSM.....and also thomas Franks book about Kansas and the culture war that is waged in the south....
photo
OliverTwist
Contrarian advocate for truth and justice
07:02 AM on 09/17/2010
What a wonderful list! Now we're talking real agents of change!
schatsie
banks are more dangerous than standing armies
10:14 AM on 09/17/2010
We also are agents of change and we need to be at the March on October 2.....Time for us to be there.....We are the decendents of the strikers at the Rockefeller Ludlow Mines who were attacked and Killed by the mercenary Pinkertons.....