(6 of 6)
"It is, I believe, an accurate description of post-War progessivism, as made articulate in The Nation and The New Republic, in the speeches of men like Mr. Tugwell and even in certain of the President's speeches, to say that it accepts the Marxian idea that social progress is the outcome of class conflict. The practical consequence of this idea has been the alignment of the progressive intellectuals in support of almost any demand made by a pressure group among the farmers or workers. . . . They have tried to make a progressive movement by catering to pressure groups, and they have justified their course by telling themselves that in a class struggle the unity of the discontented is more important than the justice or the wisdom of measures. . . . And under such intellectual leadership as this American progressivism has become sterile, complaining, impotent and to a shocking degree vindictive.
"Governor La Follette is most refreshingly free of these preconceptions ... a man who has come unscathed through most of the illusions and delusions of the post-War period, and is not confused by ideologies imported from European countries, where the conditions of life are radically different from our own. As yet there are, of course, only words. But for the first time in more than a decade the words are not a mere reflection of the manifestoes of the British Labor party and of idealized reports of the Russian planned economy.
"For the first time in a decade a recognized American progressive has realized and said with the utmost emphasis that in this country the primary problem is not the distribution of income, but the production of wealth on a scale commensurate with our exceptional opportunities. For the first time in many years. . . ."