Hate speech is a legal term with varied meaning. It has no single, consistent definition. It is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary
as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a
person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or
sexual orientation". The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution
states that hate speech is "usually thought to include communications
of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a
group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, sex,
disability, religion, or sexual orientation".
There is no single definition of what constitutes "hate" or
"disparagement". Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to
country.
There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech, and hate speech legislation. The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial
actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership
in the group, or that disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on
the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify
protected groups based on certain characteristics. In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term. Additionally, in some countries, including the United States, what is usually labelled "hate speech" is constitutionally protected. In other countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.
Starting in the 1940s and 50s, various American civil rights groups responded to the atrocities of World War II by advocating for restrictions on hateful speech targeting groups on the basis of race and religion.
These organizations used group libel as a legal framework for
describing the violence of hate speech and addressing its harm. In his
discussion of the history of criminal libel, scholar Jeremy Waldron
states that these laws helped "vindicate public order, not just by
preempting violence, but by upholding against attack a shared sense of
the basic elements of each person's status, dignity, and reputation as a
citizen or member of society in good standing". A key legal victory for this view came in 1952 when group libel law was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Beauharnais v. Illinois.
However, the group libel approach lost ground due to a rise in support
for individual rights within civil rights movements during the 60s. Critiques of group defamation laws are not limited to defenders of individual rights. Some legal theorists, such as critical race theorist
Richard Delgado, support legal limits on hate speech, but claim that
defamation is too narrow a category to fully counter hate speech.
Ultimately, Delgado advocates a legal strategy that would establish a
specific section of tort law for responding to racist insults, citing the difficulty of receiving redress under the existing legal system.
After WWII, Germany criminalized Volksverhetzung ("incitement of popular hatred") to prevent resurgence of Nazism.
Hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity also
is banned in Germany. Most European countries have likewise implemented
various laws and regulations regarding hate speech, and the European
Union's Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA requires member states to
criminalize hate crimes and speech (though individual implementation and
interpretation of this framework varies by state).
International human rights laws from the United Nations Human Rights Committee have been protecting freedom of expression, and one of the most fundamental documents is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) drafted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948.
Article 19 of the UDHR states that "Everyone has the right to freedom
of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
While there are fundamental laws in place designed to protect
freedom of expression, there are also multiple international laws that
expand on the UDHR and pose limitations and restrictions, specifically
concerning the safety and protection of individuals.
Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) permits restrictions on the human right of freedom of
expression only when provided by law, and when necessary to protect
"rights or reputations of others", or for "protection of national
security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals".
Article 20(2) of the ICCPR prohibits national, religious, or racial hatred that incites violence, discrimination, or hostility.
A majority of developed democracies have laws that restrict hate speech, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.
In the United Kingdom, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 expands
on the UDHR, stating that restrictions on freedom of expression would be
permitted when it threatens national security, incites racial or
religious hatred, causes individual harm on health or morals, or
threatens the rights and reputations of individuals. The United States does not have hate speech laws, since the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Laws against hate speech can be divided into two types: those
intended to preserve public order and those intended to protect human
dignity. The laws designed to protect public order require that a higher
threshold be violated, so they are not often enforced. For example, a
1992 study found that only one person was prosecuted in Northern Ireland
in the preceding 21 years for violating a law against incitement to
religious violence. The laws meant to protect human dignity have a much
lower threshold for violation, so those in Canada, Denmark, France,
Germany and the Netherlands tend to be more frequently enforced.
A few states, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Rwanda Hutu factions, actors in the Yugoslav Wars and Ethiopia have been described as spreading official hate speech or incitement to genocide.
The rise of the internet and social media
has presented a new medium through which hate speech can spread. Hate
speech on the internet traces all the way back to its initial years,
with a 1983 bulletin board system created by neo-Nazi George Dietz considered the first instance of hate speech online. As the internet evolved over time hate speech continued to spread and create it's footprint; the first hate speech website Stormfront was published in 1996, and hate speech has become one of the central challenges for social media platforms.
The structure and nature of the internet contribute to both the
creation and persistence of hate speech online. The widespread use and
access to the internet gives hate mongers an easy way to spread their
message to wide audiences with little cost and effort. According to the International Telecommunication Union, approximately 66% of the world population has access to the internet.
Additionally, the pseudo-anonymous nature of the internet imboldens
many to make statements constituting hate speech that they otherwise
wouldn't for fear of social or real life repercussions. While some governments and companies attempt to combat this type of behavior by leveraging real name systems,
difficulties in verifying identities online, public opposition to such
policies, and sites that don't enforce these policies leave large spaces
for this behavior to persist.
Because the internet crosses national borders, comprehensive
government regulations on online hate speech can be difficult to
implement and enforce. Governments who want to regulate hate speech
contend with issues around lack of jurisdiction and conflicting
viewpoints from other countries. In an early example of this, the case of Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et l'Antisemitisme had a French court hold Yahoo!
liable for allowing Nazi memorabilia auctions to be visible to the
public. Yahoo! refused to comply with the ruling and ultimately won
relief in a U.S. court which found that the ruling was unenforceable in
the U.S. Disagreements like these make national level regulations difficult, and while there are some international efforts and laws
that attempt to regulate hate speech and its online presence, as with
most international agreements the implementation and interpretation of
these treaties varies by country.
Much of the regulation regarding online hate speech is performed
voluntarily by individual companies. Many major tech companies have
adopted terms of service which outline allowed content on their platform, often banning hate speech. In a notable step for this, on 31 May 2016, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter, jointly agreed to a European Union
code of conduct obligating them to review "[the] majority of valid
notifications for removal of illegal hate speech" posted on their
services within 24 hours. Techniques employed by these companies to regulate hate speech include user reporting, Artificial Intelligence flagging, and manual review of content by employees. Major search engines like Google Search also tweak their algorithms to try and suppress hateful content from appearing in their results.
However, despite these efforts hate speech remains a persistent problem
online. According to a 2021 study by the Anti Defamation League 33% of
Americans were the target of identity based harassment in the preceding
year, a statistic which has not noticeably shifted downwards despite
increasing self regulation by companies.
Commentary
Several activists and scholars have criticized the practice of limiting hate speech. Kim Holmes, Vice President of the conservative Heritage Foundation and a critic of hate speech theory, has argued that it "assumes bad faith
on the part of people regardless of their stated intentions" and that
it "obliterates the ethical responsibility of the individual". Rebecca Ruth Gould, a professor of Islamic and Comparative Literature at the University of Birmingham, argues that laws against hate speech constitute viewpoint discrimination (which is prohibited by the First Amendment in the United States) as the legal system punishes some viewpoints but not others.
Other scholars, such as Gideon Elford, argue instead that "insofar as
hate speech regulation targets the consequences of speech that are
contingently connected with the substance of what is expressed then it
is viewpoint discriminatory in only an indirect sense." John Bennett argues that restricting hate speech relies on questionable conceptual and empirical foundations and is reminiscent of efforts by totalitarian regimes to control the thoughts of their citizens.
Civil libertarians
say that hate speech laws have been used, in both developing and
developed nations, to persecute minority viewpoints and critics of the
government. Former ACLU president Nadine Strossen
says that, while efforts to censor hate speech have the goal of
protecting the most vulnerable, they are ineffective and may have the
opposite effect: disadvantaged and ethnic minorities being charged with
violating laws against hate speech. Journalist Glenn Greenwald says that hate speech laws in Europe have been used to censor left-wing views as much as they have been used to combat hate speech.
Miisa Kreandner and Eriz Henze argue that hate speech laws are
arbitrary, as they only protect some categories of people but not
others.
Henze argues the only way to resolve this problem without abolishing
hate speech laws would be to extend them to all possible conceivable
categories, which Henze argues would amount to totalitarian control over
speech.
Michael Conklin argues that there are benefits to hate speech
that are often overlooked. He contends that allowing hate speech
provides a more accurate view of the human condition, provides
opportunities to change people's minds, and identifies certain people
that may need to be avoided in certain circumstances.
According to one psychological research study, a high degree of
psychopathy is "a significant predictor" for involvement in online hate
activity, while none of the other 7 potential factors examined were
found to have a statistically significant predictive power.
Political philosopher Jeffrey W. Howard considers the popular
framing of hate speech as "free speech vs. other political values" as a
mischaracterization. He refers to this as the "balancing model", and
says it seeks to weigh the benefit of free speech against other values
such as dignity and equality for historically marginalized groups.
Instead, he believes that the crux of debate should be whether or not
freedom of expression is inclusive of hate speech.
Research indicates that when people support censoring hate speech, they
are motivated more by concerns about the effects the speech has on
others than they are about its effects on themselves.
Women are somewhat more likely than men to support censoring hate
speech due to greater perceived harm of hate speech, which some
researchers believe may be due to gender differences in empathy towards
targets of hate speech.
Progressivism in the United States is a political philosophy and reform movement. Into the 21st century, it advocates policies that are generally considered social democratic and part of the American Left. It has also expressed itself with right-wing politics, such as New Nationalism and progressive conservatism. It reached its height early in the 20th century. Middle/working class and reformist in nature, it arose as a response to the vast changes brought by modernization, such as the growth of large corporations, pollution, and corruption in American politics. Historian Alonzo Hamby
describes American progressivism as a "political movement that
addresses ideas, impulses, and issues stemming from modernization of
American society. Emerging at the end of the nineteenth century, it
established much of the tone of American politics throughout the first
half of the century."
Historians debate the exact contours, but they generally date the Progressive Era in response to the excesses of the Gilded Age from the 1890s to either World War I in 1917 or the onset of the Great Depression in the United States in 1929.
Many of the core principles of the progressive movement focused on the
need for efficiency in all areas of society, and for greater democratic
control over public policy. Purification to eliminate waste and
corruption was a powerful element as well as the progressives' support
of worker compensation, improved child labor laws, minimum wage
legislation, a limited workweek, graduated income tax and allowing women
the right to vote. Arthur S. Link and Vincent P. De Santis argue that the majority of progressives wanted to purify politics. For some Progressives, purification meant taking the vote away from blacks in the South.
Large corporations and monopolies: trust busting vs. regulation
The Bosses of the Senate, a cartoon by Joseph Keppler depicting corporate interests—from steel, copper, oil, iron, sugar, tin, and coal to paper bags, envelopes and salt—as giant money bags looming powerfully over the tiny, weak U.S. Senators
Most progressives hoped that by regulating large corporations they
could liberate human energies from the restrictions imposed by
industrial capitalism.
Nonetheless, the progressive movement was split over which of the
following solutions should be used to regulate corporations. Many
progressives argued that industrial monopolies were unnatural economic
institutions which suppressed the competition which was necessary for
progress and improvement. United States antitrust law prohibits anti-competitive behavior (monopoly) and unfair business practices. Presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft supported trust-busting.
During their presidencies, the otherwise-conservative Taft brought down
90 trusts in four years while Roosevelt took down 44 in seven and a
half years in office.
Progressives, such as Benjamin Parke De Witt, argued that, in a
modern economy, large corporations and even monopolies were both
inevitable and desirable. He argued that with their massive resources
and economies of scale, large corporations offered the United States
advantages which smaller companies could not offer. However, these large
corporations might abuse their great power. The federal government
should allow these companies to exist, but otherwise regulate them for
the public interest. President Roosevelt generally supported this idea
and incorporated it as part of his "New Nationalism".
Efficiency
Many progressives such as Louis Brandeis
hoped to make American governments better able to serve the people's
needs by making governmental operations and services more efficient and
rational. Rather than making legal arguments against ten-hour workdays
for women, he used "scientific principles" and data produced by social
scientists documenting the high costs of long working hours for both
individuals and society.
The progressives' quest for efficiency was sometimes at odds with the
progressives' quest for democracy. Taking power out of the hands of
elected officials and placing that power in the hands of professional
administrators reduced the voice of the politicians and in turn reduced
the voice of the people. Centralized decision-making by trained experts
and reduced power for local wards made government less corrupt but more
distant and isolated from the people it served. Progressives who
emphasized the need for efficiency typically argued that trained
independent experts could make better decisions than the local
politicians. In his influential Drift and Mastery (1914) stressing the "scientific spirit" and "discipline of democracy", Walter Lippmann called for a strong central government guided by experts rather than public opinion.
One example of progressive reform was the rise of the city manager
system in which paid, professional engineers ran the day-to-day affairs
of city governments under guidelines established by elected city councils.
Many cities created municipal "reference bureaus" which did expert
surveys of government departments looking for waste and inefficiency.
After in-depth surveys, local and even state governments were
reorganized to reduce the number of officials and to eliminate
overlapping areas of authority between departments. City governments
were reorganized to reduce the power of local ward bosses and to
increase the powers of the city council. Governments at every level
began developing budgets to help them plan their expenditures rather
than spending money haphazardly as needs arose and revenue became
available. Governor Frank Lowden of Illinois showed a "passion for efficiency" as he streamlined state government.
Governmental corruption
Corruption represented a source of waste and inefficiency in the government. William Simon U'Ren in Oregon, Robert M. La Follette in Wisconsin and others worked to clean up state and local governments by passing laws to weaken the power of machine politicians and political bosses. In Wisconsin, La Follette pushed through an open primary system that stripped party bosses of the power to pick party candidates.
The Oregon System included a "Corrupt Practices Act", a public
referendum and a state-funded voter's pamphlet, among other reforms
which were exported to other states in the Northwest and Midwest. Its
high point was in 1912, after which they detoured into a disastrous
third party status.
Education
Early progressive thinkers such as John Dewey and Lester Ward
placed a universal and comprehensive system of education at the top of
the progressive agenda, reasoning that if a democracy were to be
successful, its leaders, the general public, needed a good education.
Progressives worked hard to expand and improve public and private
education at all levels. They believed that modernization of society
necessitated the compulsory education of all children, even if the
parents objected. Progressives turned to educational researchers to
evaluate the reform agenda by measuring numerous aspects of education,
later leading to standardized testing.
Many educational reforms and innovations generated during this period
continued to influence debates and initiatives in American education for
the remainder of the 20th century. One of the most apparent legacies of
the Progressive Era left to American education was the perennial drive
to reform schools and curricula, often as the product of energetic
grass-roots movements in the city.
Since progressivism was and continues to be "in the eyes of the
beholder", progressive education encompasses very diverse and sometimes
conflicting directions in educational policy. Such enduring legacies of
the Progressive Era continue to interest historians. Progressive Era
reformers stressed "object teaching", meeting the needs of particular
constituencies within the school district, equal educational opportunity
for boys and girls and avoiding corporal punishment.
David Gamson examines the implementation of progressive reforms in three city school districts—Denver, Colorado; Seattle, Washington and Oakland, California—during
1900–1928. Historians of educational reform during the Progressive Era
tend to highlight the fact that many progressive policies and reforms
were very different and at times even contradictory. At the school
district level, contradictory reform policies were often especially
apparent, though there is little evidence of confusion among progressive
school leaders in Denver, Seattle and Oakland. District leaders in
these cities, including Frank B. Cooper
in Seattle and Fred M. Hunter in Oakland, often employed a seemingly
contradictory set of reforms. Local progressive educators consciously
sought to operate independently of national progressive movements as
they preferred reforms that were easy to implement and were encouraged
to mix and blend diverse reforms that had been shown to work in other
cities.
The reformers emphasized professionalization and
bureaucratization. The old system whereby ward politicians selected
school employees was dropped in the case of teachers and replaced by a
merit system requiring a college-level education in a normal school (teacher's college).
The rapid growth in size and complexity the large urban school systems
facilitated stabilized employment for women teachers and provided senior
teachers greater opportunities to mentor younger teachers. By 1900,
most women in Providence, Rhode Island,
remained as teachers for at least 17.5 years, indicating teaching had
become a significant and desirable career path for women.
Progressives set up training programs to ensure that welfare and
charity work would be undertaken by trained professionals rather than
warm-hearted amateurs. Jane Addams of Chicago's Hull House typified the leadership of residential, community centers operated by social workers and volunteers and located in inner city slums. The purpose of the settlement houses was to raise the standard of living of urbanites by providing adult education and cultural enrichment programs.
Anti-prostitution
During
this era of massive reformation among all social aspects, elimination
of prostitution was vital for the progressives, especially the women.
The anti-prostitution movement involved three main groups: Christians,
Progressive Era feminists, and physicians. Many individuals active in
the anti-prostitution movement shared some of the same perspectives from
each of these groups. Jane Addams, one of the most notable of early
American social workers, wrote a book addressing prostitution. According
to her argument in A New Conscience and an Ancient Evil,
the reason why women resorted to prostitution was due to the inadequate
salaries they received. However, she also mentions the absence of
family oversight of female modesty, as young women migrated from rural
to urban areas. Although most prostitutes were born in America, the
public believed that women were being brought into the United States and
later sold into prostitution. The opposition against prostitution could
have been a reflection of concerns regarding the influx of immigrants,
the growth of cities, the development of industries, and the erosion of
established moral standards.
A poster highlighting the situation of child labor in the United States in the early 20th century
Child labor laws were designed to prevent the overuse of children in
the newly emerging industries. The goal of these laws was to give working class
children the opportunity to go to school and mature more
institutionally, thereby liberating the potential of humanity and
encouraging the advancement of humanity. Factory owners generally did
not want this progression because of lost workers. Parents relied on the
income of children to keep the family solvent. Progressives enacted
state and federal laws against child labor, but these were overturned by
the US Supreme Court. A proposed constitutional amendment was opposed
by business and Catholics; it passed Congress but was never ratified by
enough states. Child labor was finally outlawed by the New Deal in the 1930s.
Support for the goals of organized labor
Labor
unions grew steadily until 1916, then expanded fast during the war. In
1919, a wave of major strikes alienated the middle class and the strikes
were lost which alienated the workers. In the 1920s, the unions were in
the doldrums. In 1924, they supported Robert M. La Follette's Progressive Party, but he only carried his base in Wisconsin. The American Federation of Labor under Samuel Gompers after 1907 began supporting the Democrats, who promised more favorable judges as the Republicans appointed pro-business judges. Theodore Roosevelt and his third party also supported such goals as the eight-hour work day, improved safety and health conditions in factories, workers' compensation laws and minimum wage laws for women.
Prohibition
Most progressives, especially in rural areas, adopted the cause of prohibition.
They saw the saloon as political corruption incarnate and bewailed the
damage done to women and children. They believed the consumption of alcohol limited mankind's potential for advancement. Progressives achieved success first with state laws then with the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
in 1919. The golden day did not dawn as enforcement was lax, especially
in the cities where the law had very limited popular support and where
notorious criminal gangs such as the Chicago gang of Al Capone made a crime spree based on illegal sales of liquor in speakeasies. The "experiment" (as President Herbert Hoover called it) also cost the federal and local treasuries large sums of taxes. The 18th amendment was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1933.
Eugenics
Some progressives sponsored eugenics as a solution to excessively large or under-performing families, hoping that birth control would enable parents to focus their resources on fewer, better children while others, like Margaret Sanger advocated it. Progressives also advocated for compulsory sterilization of those deemed "unfit". Progressive leaders such as Herbert Croly and Walter Lippmann indicated their classical liberal concern over the danger posed to the individual by the practice of eugenics. Progressive politician William Jennings Bryan opposed eugenics on the grounds of his anti-evolution activism. In a paper titled "The Progressives: Racism and Public Law", American legal scholar Herbert Hovenkamp (MA, PhD, JD) wrote:
When examining the Progressives on race, it is critical
to distinguish the views that they inherited from those that they
developed. The rise of Progressivism coincided with the death of scientific racism,
which had been taught in American universities since the early
nineteenth century and featured prominently in the scientific debate
over Darwin’s theory of evolution. Eugenics, which attempted to use
genetics and mathematics to validate many racist claims, was its last
gasp. The most notable thing about the Progressives is that they were
responsible for bringing scientific racism to an end.
Purifying the electorate
Progressives
repeatedly warned that illegal voting was corrupting the political
system. They especially identified big-city bosses, working with saloon
keepers and precinct workers, as the culprits who stuffed the ballot
boxes. The solution to purifying the vote included prohibition (designed
to close down the saloons), voter registration requirements (designed
to end multiple voting), and literacy tests (designed to minimize the
number of ignorant voters).
All of the Southern states used devices to disenfranchise black voters during the Progressive Era.
Typically, the progressive elements in those states pushed for
disenfranchisement, often fighting against the conservatism of the Black
Belt whites.
A major reason given was that whites routinely purchased black votes to
control elections, and it was easier to disenfranchise blacks than to
go after powerful white men. In the Northern states, progressives such as Robert M. La Follette and William Simon U'Ren argued that the average citizen should have more control over his government. The Oregon System of "Initiative, Referendum, and Recall" was exported to many states, including Idaho, Washington and Wisconsin. Many progressives such as George M. Forbes, president of Rochester's
Board of Education, hoped to make government in the United States more
responsive to the direct voice of the American people, arguing:
[W]e are now intensely occupied in forging the tools of
democracy, the direct primary, the initiative, the referendum, the
recall, the short ballot, commission government. But in our enthusiasm
we do not seem to be aware that these tools will be worthless unless
they are used by those who are aflame with the sense of brotherhood. ...
The idea [of the social centers movement is] to establish in each
community an institution having a direct and vital relation to the
welfare of the neighborhood, ward, or district, and also to the city as a
whole.
Philip J. Ethington seconds this high view of direct democracy,
saying that "initiatives, referendums, and recalls, along with direct
primaries and the direct election of US Senators, were the core
achievements of 'direct democracy' by the Progressive generation during
the first two decades of the twentieth century".
Women marching for the right to vote, 1912
Progressives fought for women's suffrage to purify the elections using supposedly purer female voters.
Progressives in the South supported the elimination of supposedly
corrupt black voters from the election booth. Historian Michael Perman
says that in both Texas and Georgia "disfranchisement was the weapon as
well as the rallying cry in the fight for reform". In Virginia, "the
drive for disfranchisement had been initiated by men who saw themselves
as reformers, even progressives".
While the ultimate significance of the progressive movement on today's politics is still up for debate, Alonzo L. Hamby asks:
What were the central themes that emerged from the
cacophony [of progressivism]? Democracy or elitism? Social justice or
social control? Small entrepreneurship or concentrated capitalism? And
what was the impact of American foreign policy? Were the progressives
isolationists or interventionists? Imperialists or advocates of national
self-determination? And whatever they were, what was their motivation?
Moralistic utopianism? Muddled relativistic pragmatism? Hegemonic
capitalism? Not surprisingly many battered scholars began to shout 'no
mas!' In 1970, Peter Filene declared that the term 'progressivism' had
become meaningless.
Municipal administration
The
progressives typically concentrated on city and state government,
looking for waste and better ways to provide services as the cities grew
rapidly. These changes led to a more structured system, power that had
been centralized within the legislature would now be more locally
focused. The changes were made to the system to effectively make legal
processes, market transactions, bureaucratic administration and
democracy easier to manage, putting them under the classification of
"Municipal Administration". There was also a change in authority for
this system as it was believed that the authority that was not properly
organized had now given authority to professionals, experts and
bureaucrats for these services. These changes led to a more solid type
of municipal administration compared to the old system that was
underdeveloped and poorly constructed.
The progressives mobilized concerned middle class voters as well
as newspapers and magazines to identify problems and concentrate reform
sentiment on specific problems. Many Protestants focused on the saloon
as the power base for corruption as well as violence and family
disruption, so they tried to get rid of the entire saloon system through
prohibition. Others such as Jane Addams in Chicago promoted settlement houses. Early municipal reformers included Hazen S. Pingree (mayor of Detroit in the 1890s) and Tom L. Johnson
in Cleveland, Ohio. In 1901, Johnson won election as mayor of Cleveland
on a platform of just taxation, home rule for Ohio cities and a 3-cent
streetcar fare. Columbia University President Seth Low was elected mayor of New York City in 1901 on a reform ticket.
On March 14, 1903, President Roosevelt created the first National
Bird Preserve, the beginning of the Wildlife Refuge system, on Pelican
Island, Florida. In all, by 1909, the Roosevelt administration had created an unprecedented 42 million acres (170,000 km2) of United States National Forests, 53 National Wildlife Refuges and 18 areas of "special interest" such as the Grand Canyon.
Reclamation
In addition, Roosevelt approved the Newlands Reclamation Act of 1902 which gave subsidies for irrigation in 13 (eventually 20) Western states. Another conservation-oriented bill was the Antiquities Act of 1906 that protected large areas of land by allowing the president to declare areas meriting protection to be national monuments. The Inland Waterways Commission
was appointed by Roosevelt on March 14, 1907, to study the river
systems of the United States, including the development of water power,
flood control and land reclamation.
National politics
In the early 20th century, politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties, Lincoln–Roosevelt League Republicans (in California) and Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party
all pursued environmental, political and economic reforms. Chief among
these aims was the pursuit of trust busting, the breaking up very large
monopolies and support for labor unions, public health programs,
decreased corruption in politics and environmental conservation.
The progressive movement enlisted support from both major parties and from minor parties as well. One leader, the Democratic William Jennings Bryan, had won both the Democratic Party and the Populist Party
nominations in 1896. At the time, the great majority of other major
leaders had been opposed to populism. When Roosevelt left the Republican
Party in 1912, he took with him many of the intellectual leaders of
progressivism, but very few political leaders.
The Republican Party then became notably more committed to
business-oriented and efficiency-oriented progressivism, typified by Herbert Hoover and William Howard Taft.
The foundation of the progressive tendency was indirectly linked to the unique philosophy of pragmatism which was primarily developed by John Dewey and William James. Equally significant to progressive-era reform were the crusading journalists known as muckrakers.
These journalists publicized to middle class readers economic
privilege, political corruption and social injustice. Their articles
appeared in McClure's Magazine and other reform periodicals. Some muckrakers focused on corporate abuses. Ida Tarbell exposed the activities of the Standard Oil Company. In The Shame of the Cities (1904), Lincoln Steffens dissected corruption in city government. In Following the Color Line (1908), Ray Stannard Baker criticized race relations. Other muckrakers assailed the Senate, railroad companies, insurance companies and fraud in patent medicine.
Novelists criticized corporate injustices. Theodore Dreiser drew harsh portraits of a type of ruthless businessman in The Financier (1912) and The Titan (1914). In The Jungle (1906), socialist Upton Sinclair
repelled readers with descriptions of Chicago's meatpacking plants and
his work led to support for remedial food safety legislation. Leading
intellectuals also shaped the progressive mentality. In Dynamic Sociology (1883), Lester Frank Ward laid out the philosophical foundations of the progressive movement and attacked the laissez-faire policies advocated by Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner. In The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), Thorstein Veblen attacked the "conspicuous consumption" of the wealthy. Educator John Dewey emphasized a child-centered philosophy of pedagogy known as progressive education which affected schoolrooms for three generations.
In the 21st century
Modern
progressivism can be seen as encompassing many notable differences from
the historical progressivism of the 19th–20th centuries. Some
viewpoints of modern progressivism highlight these perceived differences
like those of Princeton economics professor Thomas C. Leonard who viewed historical progressivism in The American Conservative
as being "[a]t a glance, ... not much here for 21st-century
progressives to claim kinship with. Today's progressives emphasize
racial equality and minority rights, decry U.S. imperialism, shun
biological ideas in social science, and have little use for piety or
proselytizing," Ultimately, both historical progressivism and the modern
movement share the notion that the free markets lead to economic
inequalities that must be ameliorated in order to best protect the
American working class.
Mitigating income inequality
Politician Bernie Sanders (pictured at podium) is widely recognized for contributing to a progressive shift within the Democratic Party since the 2010s.
Income inequality in the United States has been on the rise since 1970. Progressives argue that lower union rates, weak policy, globalization and other drivers have caused the gap in income. The rise of income inequality has led progressives to draft legislation including, but not limited to, reforming Wall Street, reforming the tax code, reforming campaign finance, closing loopholes and keeping domestic work.
Wall Street reform
Progressives
began to demand stronger Wall Street regulation after they perceived
deregulation and relaxed enforcement as leading to the financial crisis of 2008. The Occupy Wall Street movement, launched in downtown Manhattan, was one high-profile reaction to the financial shenanigans. Passing the Dodd-Frank
financial regulatory act in 2010 provided increased oversight on
financial institutions and the creation of new regulatory agencies, but
many progressives argue its broad framework allows for financial
institutions to continue to take advantage of consumers and the
government. Among others, Bernie Sanders has argued for reimplementing Glass-Steagall,
which regulated banking more strictly, and for breaking up financial
institutions where market-share is concentrated in a select few 'too big
to fail' corporations.
In 2009, the Congressional Progressive Caucus
(CPC) outlined five key healthcare principles they intended to pass
into law. The CPC mandated a nationwide public option, affordable health
insurance, insurance market regulations, an employer insurance
provision mandate and comprehensive services for children. In March 2010, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, generally referred to as Obamacare, which was intended to increase the affordability and efficiency of the United States healthcare
system. Although considered a partial success by some progressives,
many argued that it did not go far enough in achieving healthcare reform
as exemplified with the Democrats' failure in achieving a national
public option. In recent decades, single-payer healthcare has become an important goal in healthcare reform for progressives. In the 2016 Democratic Party primaries, progressive presidential candidate Bernie Sanders raised the issue of a single-payer healthcare
system, citing his belief that millions of Americans are still paying
too much for health insurance and arguing that millions more do not
receive the care they need. In November 2016, an effort was made to implement a single-payer healthcare system in the state of Colorado, known as ColoradoCare (Amendment 69). Senator Sanders held rallies in Colorado in support of Amendment 69 leading up to the vote.
Despite high-profile support, Amendment 69 failed to pass, with just
21.23% of voting Colorado residents voting in favor and 78.77% against.
Minimum wage
Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage peaked in 1968 at around $9.90 an hour in 2020 dollars.
Progressives believe that stagnating wages perpetuate income inequality
and that raising the minimum wage is a necessary step to combat
inequality.
If the minimum wage grew at the rate of productivity growth in the
United States, it would be $21.72 an hour, nearly three times as much as
the current $7.25 an hour. Popular progressives such as SenatorBernie Sanders and RepresentativeAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez have endorsed a federally mandated wage increase to $15 an hour.
The movement has already seen success with its implementation in
California with the passing of bill to raise the minimum wage $1 every
year until reaching $15 an hour in 2021. New York workers are lobbying for similar legislation as many continue to rally for a minimum wage increase as part of the Fight for $15 movement.
Modern progressives advocate strong environmental protections and
measures to reduce or eliminate pollution. One reason for this is the
strong link between economic injustice and adverse environmental
conditions as groups that are economically marginalized tend to be
disproportionately affected by the harms of pollution and environmental degradation.
In the 21st century progressives in the United States are advocating
for the implementation of legislation that will promote a more equal
society and help reduce the gaps between diverse populations in the
American society, including the gaps between populations of different
races, gender gaps and socio-economic gaps. Progressives support the
promotion of criminal justice reform to rectify systemic injustices, and
the eradication of discriminatory practices in areas such as employment
and housing.
Definition
With the rise in popularity of progressives such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, the term progressive began to carry greater cultural currency, particularly in the 2016 Democratic primaries. While answering a question from CNN moderator Anderson Cooper regarding her willingness to shift positions during an October 2015 debate, Hillary Clinton
referred to herself as a "progressive who likes to get things done",
drawing the ire of a number of Sanders supporters and other critics from
her left. Senator John Fetterman has moderated his foreign and domestic positions that have arisen in late 2023 such as the war in Gaza and the increased illegal immigration on the southern border creating doubts about his progressivism. Questions about the precise meaning of the term have persisted within the Democratic Party and without since the election of Donald Trump in the 2016 United States presidential election, with some candidates using it to indicate their affiliation with the left flank of the party.
Progressive parties
Following
the first progressive movement of the early 20th century, two later
short-lived parties have also identified as progressive.
In 1924, Wisconsin Senator Robert M. La Follette ran for president on the Progressive Party ticket. La Follette won the support of labor unions, German Americans, and socialists by his crusade. He carried only Wisconsin, and the party vanished elsewhere. In Wisconsin, it remained a force until the 1940s.
A third party was initiated in 1948 by former Vice President Henry A. Wallace as a vehicle for his campaign for president of the United States. He saw the two parties as reactionary and war-mongering, and attracted support from left-wing voters who opposed the Cold War policies that had become a national consensus. Most liberals, New Dealers, and especially the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
denounced the party because in their view it was increasingly
controlled by Communists. It faded away after winning 2% of the vote in
1948.
A Christian state is a country that recognizes a form of Christianity as its official religion and often has a state church (also called an established church), which is a Christian denomination that supports the government and is supported by the government.
The Armenian Orthodox church puts its founding at 301, with the conversion of Tiridates and declaration of Christianity as the official state religion, although the date is disputed. In 380, three Roman emperors issued the Edict of Thessalonica (Cunctos populos), making the Roman Empire a Christian state, and establishing Nicene Christianity, in the form of its State Church, as its official religion.
After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the late 5th century, the Eastern Roman Empire under the emperor Justinian (reigned 527–565), became the world's predominant Christian state, based on Roman law, Greek culture, and the Greek language."
In this Christian state, in which nearly all of its subjects upheld
faith in Jesus, an "enormous amount of artistic talent was poured into
the construction of churches, church ceremonies, and church decoration". John Binns describes this era, writing that:
A
new stage in the history of the Church began when not just localised
communities but nations became Christian. The stage is associated with
the conversion of Constantine and the beginnings of a Christian Empire,
but the Byzantine Emperor was not the first ruler to lead his people
into Christianity, thus setting up the first Christian state. That
honour traditionally goes to the church of Armenia.
— John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches
As a Christian state, Armenia "embraced Christianity as the religion of the King, the nobles, and the people". In 326, according to official tradition of the Georgian Orthodox Church, following the conversion of Mirian and Nana, the country of Georgia became a Christian state, the Emperor Constantine the Great sending clerics for baptising people. In the 4th century, in the Kingdom of Aksum, after Ezana's conversion to the faith, this empire also became a Christian state.
In the Middle Ages, efforts were made in order to establish a Pan-Christianity state by uniting the countries within Christendom. Christian nationalism
played a role in this era in which Christians felt the impulse to also
recover those territories in which Christianity historically flourished,
such as the Holy Land and North Africa.
The constitution of Costa Rica states that "The Catholic and Apostolic Religion is the religion of the State". As such, Catholic Christian holy days are recognized by the government and "public schools provide religious education", although parents are able to opt-out their children if they choose to do so.
The Lutheran established church is a
department of the state. Church affairs are governed by a central
government ministry, while clergy are government employees. The
registration of births, deaths and marriages falls under this ministry
of church affairs, and normally speaking the local Lutheran pastor is
also the official registrar.
— W. A. R. Shadid, Religious Freedom and the Position of Islam in Western Europe, page 11
82.1% of the population of Denmark are members of the Lutheran
Church of Denmark, which is "officially headed by the king of Denmark".
A majority of Danes, 82.1% (as of January 2008), are members of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark—by Section 4 of the constitution,
the state church, officially headed by the king of Denmark. Pastors in
the Church of Denmark are civil servants employed by the Ministry of
Ecclesiastical Affairs, which also constitutes the head of
administration. The economic base of the Church of Denmark is
state-collected church taxes combined with a direct state subsidiary
(12%), which symbolically covers the expenses of the Church of Denmark
to run the civil registration and the burial system for all
citizens.}}</ref> Furthermore, clergy "in the Church of Denmark
are civil servants employed by the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs"
and the "economic base of the Church of Denmark is state-collected
church taxes combined with a direct state subsidiary (12%), which
symbolically covers the expenses of the Church of Denmark to run the
civil registration and the burial system for all citizens."
Barbara Yorke writes that the "Carolingian Renaissance heightened appreciation within England of the role of king and church in a Christian state." As such,
Since the 1701 Act of Establishment, England's official state church has been the Church of England, the monarch being its supreme governor and 'defender of the faith'. She, together with Parliament, has a say in appointing bishops, twenty-six of whom have ex officio seats in the House of Lords.
In characteristically British fashion, where the state is
representative of civil society, it was Parliament that determined, in
the Act of Establishment, that the monarch had to be Anglican.
— Christian Joppke, page 1
Christian religious education is taught to children in primary and secondary schools in the United Kingdom. English schools have a legal requirement for a daily act of collective worship "of a broadly Christian character" that is widely flouted.
The preamble to the Hungarian Constitution of 2011
describes Hungary as "part of Christian Europe" and acknowledges "the
role of Christianity in preserving nationhood", while Article VII
provides that "the State shall cooperate with the Churches for community
goals". However, the constitution also guarantees freedom of religion
and separation of church and state.
Section Two of the Constitution of Malta specifies the state's religion as being the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.
It holds that the "authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church
have the duty to teach which principles are right and which are wrong"
and that "religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith shall
be provided in all State schools as part of compulsory education".
Monaco
Article 9 of the Constitution of Monaco describes "La religion catholique, apostolique et romaine [the catholic, apostolic and Roman religion]" as the religion of the state.
Church and state were formally separated in 2017 after a change to the constitution in 2012. A timeline for the relationship between church and state is provided on the Norwegian Government's official website.
Cole Durham
and Tore Sam Lindholm, writing in 2013, stated that "For a period of
one thousand years Norway has been a kingdom with a Christian state church"
and that a decree went out in 1739 ordering that "Elementary schooling
for all Norwegian children became mandatory, so that all Norwegians
should be able to read the Bible and the Lutheran Catechism firsthand." The modern Constitution of Norway stipulates that "The Church of Norway, an Evangelical-Lutheran church, will remain the Established Church of Norway and will as such be supported by the State." As such, the "Norwegian constitution decrees that Lutheranism is the official religion of the State and that the King is the supreme temporal head of the Church."
The administration of the Church "is shared between the Ministry for
Church, Education and Research centrally and municipal authorities
locally", and the Church of Norway "depends on state and local taxes". The Church of Norway is responsible for the "maintenance of church buildings and cemeteries".
In the mid-20th century, the vast majority of Norwegians participated
in the Lutheran Church. According to a 1957 description, "[o]ver 90
percent of the population are married by state church clergymen, have
their children baptized and confirmed, and finally are buried with a church service." However, current membership in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway is much lower, standing at 65% of the population in 2021.
Samoa
Samoa
became a Christian state in 2017. Article 1 of the Samoan Constitution
states that “Samoa is a Christian nation founded of God the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit”.
Tonga became a Christian state under George Tupou I in the 19th century, with the Free Wesleyan Church, a member of the World Methodist Council, being established as the country's state Church. Under the rule of George Tupou I, there was established a "rigorous constitutional clause regulating observation of the Sabbath".
Vatican City is a Christian state, in which the "Pope is ex officio simultaneously leader of the Catholic Church as well as Head of State and Head of the Government of the State of the Vatican City; he also possesses (de jure) absolute authority over the legislative, executive and judicial branches."
Zambia
is officially a Christian state as well, though the legal ramifications
clearly do not compare to the latter state. The Preamble of the Constitution of Zambia
establishes Zambia as a Christian state without specifying "Christian"
denominationally. It simply proclaims: "We, the people of
Zambia...declare the Republic a Christian nation..." As far as state
practice is concerned, it may be pointed out that the Government
maintains relations with the Zambian Council of Churches and requires
Christianity to be taught in the public school curriculum.
— Jeroen Temperman, State-Religion Relationships and Human Rights Law, page 18
After "Zambia declared itself a Christian nation in 1991", "the nation's vice president urged citizens to 'have a Christian orientation in all fields, at all levels'."
1869, however the organisation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is regulated by the Constitution of Finland and Church Act of 1993. The state also carries out taxing for the funding of the church on its members.
The Church of Greece is recognized by the Greek Constitution as the "prevailing religion" in Greece.
However, this provision does not give official status to the Church of
Greece, while all other religions are recognized as equal and may be
practiced freely.
A number of countries have a national church
which is not established (as the official religion of the nation), but
is nonetheless recognised under civil law as being the country's
acknowledged religious denomination. Whilst these are not Christian
states, the official Christian national church is likely to have certain
residual state functions in relation to state occasions and ceremonial.
Examples include Scotland (Church of Scotland) and Sweden (Church of Sweden). A national church typically has a monopoly on official state recognition, although unusually Finland has two national churches (the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Finnish Orthodox Church), both recognised under civil law as joint official churches of the nation.
.jpg)
.jpg)
