Since when does direct election constitute a movement to a socialist government? Are you just mad that the Federal government is not as Republican as the Georgia legislature?
I will say, you gotta hand it to those Progressives, passing an amendment way back in 1913 just so Obamacare could pass. That's some long range planning!
The Progressive movement is against our Constitution that set up a Republic, Republican form of Government, with many checks and balances to protect against the consolidation of power in fewer and fewer people. Progressives want a Socialist Government ( Their leader supported by Progressives as the ruling class) and their passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments during the Woodrow Wilson Administration set them up for a lot that would happen during the FDR Administration with so many Socialist Programs including Social Security. Senators during the FDR Administration were loyal to the Agenda of the Democrat Party. Democrats had the majority in the Senate. Had there not been the passage of the 17th Amendment Senators would have been protecting their State's Sovereignty and the 10th Amendment (State Rights) and would not have allowed FDR to push through Federal Social Programs. Instead they would have said that Social Programs are States Rights business and the States could pass what they felt were needed but not the Federal Government.
Look up the definition of Progressive. Progressive means to progress over a long period of time towards support of Socialism.. Their steady march towards making the U.S. a Socialist State continues with this President who told (Joe the Plummer) "We need to re-distribute the wealth”. That statement is as Socialist as it gets.
Seems to me that the Progressive movement (and once again I write, whatever that is) operates within the Constitution, not against it. You may disagree with some of the results such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but the way they were enacted was constitutional.
And I found no reference to Socialism in the Merriam-Webster on line dictionary in the definition of "progressive". The first three definitions were: "of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression".
And you may maintain that Wilson was a socialist masquerading as a Progressive hiding behind the facade of a Democrat, but he was also a racist, imperialistic jackass beholding to corporate financial interests (particularly those vested in Central and South American fruit harvests). He was responsible for the segregation of the Civil Service and the military during his administration and could easily be credited for setting back equal rights for blacks by 40 - 50 years. Not very progressive I think.
If you expect to win your argument, you cannot play fast and loose with history --- or logic.For example,members of the Progressive Movement( a very robust reform movement) included Teddy Rooseveldt and Herbert Hoover-- both good men and both Republicans.The Progressive movement was responsible for child labor laws, pure food and drug laws,corruption busting in government and business,and the conservation movement among many, many notable and farseeing improvements to American society.I don't think anyone of any political persuasion would be able to castigate them for their achievements given the facts.
You also cannot conflate progressives, liberals, and socialists into one group because obviously they are not all the same.Words have meanings and should be used carefully. I suspect that the word socialist in this essay is being used as the universal pejorative ,which is intellectually dishonest.
I also fail to see why the direct election of senators is a bad thing.Would you like someone to choose for you?
Finally, we have a Republican Party and a Democratic Party,an and ic being adjective forms.We do not have a Democrat Party, despite the rather ham-handed efforts of some to suggest that the Democratic Party does not concern itself with democracy and is ,therefore, not democratic.
I share your distain for Woodrow Wilson. He also set up the Federal Reserve Bank a private insurance system for all the big Wall Street and European Banks using the American tax payers as the insurance policy, to bail out the banks whenever they screwed up, like in 2008 when we were told the financial system would collapse without a bailout by the tax payers. All because of the Federal Government's housing scheme with Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae that collapsed the housing market. Wilson was a Democrat.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare just to name a few, have no legal or Constitutional support because the Independent States did not delegate any social programs to the Federal Government. There were no social bailouts by the Federal Government prior to FDR. Taking care of the social needs was an individual, town and community, an finally State Government responsibility in that order, never the Federal Government. Article I section 8 does not list Health Care. The States provided disaster relief when floods and other natural problems happened. But the relief was temporary, to get the people back on their feet working again, not like the life long Federal Government support given today with no expectation of anyone ever needing to get off the relief. State support is temporary, Federal support is generational. Huge difference!
Ironside, there are no life long Federal government support program available of which I am aware (unless you're talking about Social Security disability benefits). Most welfare programs are administered by the states with the preponderance of the funding coming from the Feds.
And while poverty is in many cases generational, I think it's more a function of lack of education, lack of opportunity tied to education, and - somewhat - a person's immediate societal norms. Name me two generational Federal welfare programs which you feel encourage people to be lazy, shiftless, and more desirous of remaining poor on the government dole rather than self-supporting.
I will not debate the state/federal role in welfare, but I will argue that long term welfare dependence leads to complete dependence on the 'government'. Welfare dependence sucks the initiative and drive right out of people because they have ZERO incentive to work when the government will not allow them or their babies to starve.
My parents were Depression Era kids. Starving WAS an option, however unpleasant that may seem. Nobody gave them a damn thing, they worked to eat.
Forgot the most important part...
Take away the Federal funding and the welfare dries up. Welfare dries up, you WILL see Change in this country....
Probably for the worse at first, but for the better in the long run.
My parents were also Depression era. But to say take away the Federal funding and welfare dries up is like saying take away the Federal funding and the National Guard dries up.
And I do not defend long term welfare except in those cases of the aged or infirm. Healthy, able bodied people should receive whatever is necessary to keep them from starving. But, they should work for it. I fully support any welfare to work initiatives. They have proven to work in many cases.
Essay #3 On the Constitution: "How To Retroactively Apply Your Existing Belief System To Make a Disingenuous Point"
"Oh, the Irony"
In your essay there are several points that do not match up with the facts. First Wilson and the Democrats did not get the 17th Amendment passed. It would have required a Constitutional Congress and two thirds of the states approving of the 17th Amendment. This was set up so that a minority could not dictate to the majority. By definition a Democratic form of government is majority rule. Minority rule is generally a dictatorship. Additionally the founding fathers formed a Republic and not a Republican form of government. The values of the Republican party have changed over the years and in particular the Republican party of the early years bears no resemblance the Republican party of today. While Senators were originally elected by state legislators, we must remember that the state legislators were elected by the people. One could say that the 17th Amendment removed the middle man and a chance for outside influence over who the Senators would be and protect the voice of the people. Today's discussion of "state rights" does not hold much water. I say this because too many times I see business rights trump state rights or individual rights. That is not what the Constitution or the founding fathers intended.