CONNECT
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Monday 4 February 2013
A progressive backlash against concentrated wealth and power occurred a century ago in America. In the 1880s and 1890s such a movement seemed improbable if not impossible.
Today, an Anniversary of America’s First Progressive Revolution
Exactly a century ago, on Feb. 3, 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, authorizing a federal income tax. Congress turned it into a graduated tax, based on “capacity to pay.”
It was among the signal victories of the progressive movement—the first constitutional amendment in 40 years (the first 10 had been included in the Bill of Rights, the eleventh and twelfth in 1789 and 1804, and three others in consequence of the Civil War), reflecting a great political transformation in America. The 1880s and 1890s had been the Gilded Age, the time of robber barons, when a small number controlled almost all the nation’s wealth as well as our democracy, when poverty had risen to record levels, and when it looked as though the country was destined to become a moneyed aristocracy.
But almost without warning, progressives reversed the tide. Teddy Roosevelt became president in 1901, pledging to break up the giant trusts and end the reign of the “malefactors of great wealth.” Laws were enacted protecting the public from impure foods and drugs, and from corrupt legislators.
By 1909, Democrats and progressive Republicans had swept many state elections, subsequently establishing the 40-hour work week and other reforms that would later be the foundation stones for the New Deal. Woodrow Wilson won the 1912 presidential election. A progressive backlash against concentrated wealth and power occurred a century ago in America. In the 1880s and 1890s, such a movement seemed improbable if not impossible. Only idealists and dreamers thought the nation had the political will to reform itself, let alone enact a constitutional amendment of such importance—analogous, today, to an amendment reversing “Citizens United v. FEC” and limiting the flow of big money into politics.
But it did happen. And it will happen again.
This article was originally posted on Robert Reich's blog.
Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT Robert Reich
ROBERT B. REICH, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including his latest best-seller, “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future;” “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages; and his newest, an e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.
8 comments on "Today, an Anniversary of America’s First Progressive Revolution"
February 05, 2013 8:03am
Reich is wrong.
It was not "almost without warning, progressives reversed the tide." Populists actively fought plutocracy in the 19th century, forming a party, supporting Bryan, enacting anti-trust laws, and more. The presidency of T.Roosevelt, a self-promoter who sought to lead the progressive movement, is considered the beginning of the progressive era. Not until the 1930's did its reforms begin reducing inequality. Perhaps the most consequential early success was the 1907 Tilman act outlawing corporate electioneering, the law Citizens United reversed.
The 16th Amendment implicitly endorsed a progressive income tax, but was not "a constitutional amendment of such importance" as Reich thinks. It was proposed by the powerful Senator Aldrich, Rockefeller associate and lion of Gilded Age politics. It was approved by a unanimous Senate, largely lawyers for the robber barons. It was supported by Pres. Taft and Republicans, opponents of progressive taxation, because they expected the Supreme Court would reverse itself and uphold the taxation of income from property (which is all the Amendment did - not authorize the income tax, as Reich seems to think) if pending progressive tax legislation were enacted. The 16th Amendment was considered unnecessary, and was intended as a counterproductive diversion. The Republicans proposed the Amendment to derail the pending legislation, but miscalculated in expecting it to die a slow death in the ratification process.
Reich is unwittingly correct in saying the 16th Amendment is - like the 24th Amendment - "analogous, today, to an amendment reversing Citizens United v. FEC." Both enacted Amendments were diversions proposed by opponents of reform. An amendment reversing Citizens United would similarly be unnecessary; it would also provide a diversion from the legislation necessary to get money out of politics. But it would be far more likely to die in the ratification process.
February 05, 2013 10:35am
It is hard to know where the truth is. Robert's article sounds plausible, but so does Mopstr's! Then I look at the link Kahdushan gives to the words of the 16th Amendment, and see one of Mopstr's primary assertions - that the tax was just income from property - is suspect: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED ..." Then I see that site is arguing that the 16th Amendment isn't valid anyway, because it wasn't properly ratified one hundred years ago!!
This all made me reflect, as a country we waste way too much time excavating the past to find arguments for idealistic approaches we want to take to the future, and too much time playing “gotcha”! Let's learn fundamental lessons from the past that are relevant to the major issues now, like how the battles between the masses and the rich-and-powerful have been won and lost. But let's not waste time trying to unwind the past to change the present based on technicalities, or fighting for ideologies that don't make sense when we objectively take into account where we are now ... or are based in particular religions.
Let's accept that 'government' is our way of setting the rules and expectations for humans working together effectively in a democratic society, so we ALL have a duty to to make it work well, not to undermine it. Then, let's work on agreeing what are challenges we face now at our common national secular level. Then work together on what are the best strategies, policies and practices to make our economy successful globally, with fair motivations and shares for everyone, on a crowded, warming and increasingly unsafe globe in the 21st century!
February 04, 2013 11:24pm
The progressive movement was 100% a creation of the “malefactors of great wealth.”, as proved by the Pure Food and Drug Act which did not reduce food poisoning but did reduce competition in the meat packing industry. Upton Sinclair saw through it as the corporatist crap it was.
To call the Progressive Movement a "backlash" against the corrupt weathy is the opposite of the truth. Find out who really backed and created the movement and you might get a clue.
February 04, 2013 12:31pm
According to several decisions from the Supreme Court, the 16th amendmant does not grant the Federal government any new powers to tax. This can be paraphrased as there is no law compelling workers receiving either wages or salaries to file a Federal tax form or to pay Federal taxes, period. But if you do file it had better well be correct because upon filing the full extent of the tax code and penalties comes into effect under the law. Other than that, I haven't even read Reich's bit here, finding his "apologist" take on most issues and events makes me feel queasy....
February 04, 2013 11:24am
www.thelawthatneverwas.com
February 04, 2013 10:41am
How do I give a GIANT thumbs down on this crap?
February 04, 2013 10:40am
Astounding, a 'Progressive' applauding the establishment of the "Income" tax and the "Federal" Reserve which is NEITHER federal, and certainly not reserved.
Whatever benign goals those institutions may have had in the beginning or during their history have long ago been abandoned.
The F.R. was established by banker barons.
Do some effing research, Robert.
February 04, 2013 11:32am
www.thelawthatneverwas.com