Did the Fascists support the Progressive movement in the 1930s?

[Nova Land]

Recently a claim was made on this forum that there was significant support for fascism among members of the Progressive movement in the 1930s. Supposedly they had written songs in praise of Mussolini and considered fascism to be "the Next Big Thing".

I opened a thread so that people believing this to be true could present examples of Progressives making such statements. So far, no examples have been turned up.

In the course of that thread, Grizzly Adams has introduced a new claim worth examining:

Well, while it hasn't been shown that the 1930's Progressives in the US supported the fascists, we do have evidence the fascists supported the 1930's Progressives.

I am opening this thread so that Grizzly Adams (or others who believe this to be true) can provide examples of noted Fascists making statements in support of Progressive policies and programs.

For those not familiar with the Progressive Movement, here's a quick summary:

Progressive movment: A movement for reform that occurred roughly between 1900 and 1920. Progressives typically held that irresponsible actions by the rich were corrupting both public and private life. They called for measures such as trust busting, the regulation of railroads, provisions for the people to vote on laws themselves through referendum, the election of the Senate by the people rather than by state legislatures, and a graduated income tax (one in which higher tax rates are applied to higher incomes). The Progressives were able to get much of their program passed into law. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were associated with the movement.

It should be noted that, although the Progressive Era is generally defined as ending in the 1920s, the movement itself continued and is still around today. For more information on Progressivism, I would recommend looking at The Progressive magazine, started in 1909 by Bob LaFollette (one of the leaders of the Progressive movement) and still published today. Here's a link to their site.

 

[Nova Land]

We seem to have an absence of evidence that fascists in the 1930s supported Progressivism.

It is often said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I disagree. If something is said to exist but a search for evidence of its existence comes up empty, that is not proof the thing doesn't exist but it is certainly an indication that such is likely to be the case.

How strong or weak an indication this is will vary, depending on the circumstances. If evidence should be easy to find, and a diligent search has been failed to turn any good evidence up, then absence of evidence is a strong indicator. If evidence would be hard to find, or if there hasn't been time for those interested in a matter to do a diligent search, then it is a weak indicator.

In the thread which this one spun out of, a claim was made that Progressives in the 1930s had made extravagant statements of support for fascism. That is something which should be fairly easy to find examples of, if it were true. No examples were found. That seems to me a good indication the claim was false.

Ditto for this claim. There are many books available on fascism, including books of the speeches and writings of famous fascist leaders. If fascists in the 1930s had made statements in praise of the Progressive movement (or of liberalism in general) it should not be too difficult to provide examples. So far none has been provided.

And there's another indicator the claim is false: the use of bait-and-switch combined with naked link.

If one wants to persuade people of the truth of a claim, and one has good examples of the thing which one claims, a reasonable person provides those examples. But if one doesn't have any good examples -- and if one is less interested in what is true than in persuading people to accept one's claim -- a common tactic is to take things which are not actually examples of what was claimed and, through the use of rhetorical devices, make it sound as if one has provided examples.

That's what Jonah Goldberg appears to have done regarding the claim (in the thread from which this thread is a spin-off) that Progressives in the 1930s were supporters of fascism. He didn't provide any actual examples of noted Progressives in the 1930s making statements of extravagant support for fascism; but through rhetorical devices he was able to make it appear he had**.

Grizzly Adams does the same thing:

Well, while it hasn't been shown that the 1930's Progressives in the US supported the fascists, we do have evidence the fascists supported the 1930's Progressives.

Since the topic of the thread was a claim that Progressives in the 1930s made strong statements of support for fascism (such as calling it "the Next Big Thing", writing songs in praise of Mussolini, etc.), by saying that the converse is true Grizzly Adams is implying that fascists of the 1930s made similarly strong statements in support of Progressivism. But no examples of that are provided, either in the post or in the link provided. This is a bait-and-switch.

There are quotes from Hitler and Mussolini, commenting on the speech Franklin Roosevelt made at his first inauguration, at the link. But the quotes have nothing to do with Progressivism.

Neither Hitler nor Mussolini have anything good to say about Progressive ideals or Progressive programs, or indeed about Progressivism at all, in their quoted comments. Hitler says he liked the part of the speech in which Roosevelt talked about duty and a willingness to sacrifice. Mussolini says he liked the part where Roosevelt talks about the problem of Congressional delays in getting things passed and how he may ask Congress to give him emergency powers for dealing with the depression (which Mussolini interprets as a call to be given the power to shut down Congress, something he heartily approves of).

Roosevelt's proposed New Deal programs were based on Progressive ideals. Notably, there is nothing in the quoted remarks of either Hitler or Mussolini praising any of Roosevelt's proposed New Deal programs.

Compare the persuasive effects of the post Grizzly Adams made, in which it is asserted there is evidence to support his claim but the evidence itself is not provided, with the persuasive effects of this more complete post:

Well, while it hasn't been shown that the 1930's Progressives in the US supported the fascists, we do have evidence the fascists supported the 1930's Progressives.

For instance, Hitler once said: "[I am] in accord with [FDR] that the virtues of sense of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline must be the supreme rule of the whole nation."

And Mussolini once said: "President Roosevelt's words are clear and need no comment to make even the deaf hear that not only Europe but the whole world feels the need of executive authority capable of acting with full powers of cutting short the purposeless chatter of legislative assemblies. "

I would say that the first version, without the quotes, has considerably more persuasive power than the second version. Indeed, I suspect that is why the quotes were not included in the original post, and why no one posted them in this thread to support the claim.

The use of techniques such as bait-and-switch and naked link indicate that even the person making a claim can see the evidence in support of it is weak. A person who actually has good reason to believe their claim is true does not need to indulge in the use of deceptive devices of this nature.

This is why I generally do not click naked links, and encourage others not to click them either. Posting naked links is, too often, a technique for deception. It's use among skeptics should not be encouraged. If a person genuinely has evidence to offer, and thinks it can be found at a particular link, then they should provide the evidence (either by quoting it, paraphrasing it, or summarizing it). Including the link in addition to posting the evidence is good, but including a link instead of posting the evidence is not.

If someone can turn up genuine examples of noted fascists making statements in support of Progressive ideals or Progressive programs, those would be worth looking at. But so far no one -- not even the poster who claimed evidence existed -- has provided such an example.


** I have not yet read Goldberg's book, so I could be wrong on this. But it seems indicated from what others who have read the book have written about it. I hope to read the book soon, and if I am wrong will post a correction.