similarities between communism andrnwhat (before Mr. Hyde took over Dr.rnJekyll entirely) used to be distinguishedrnas neoconservatism—between internationalrncommunism and global democracy,rnwhich are chiefly differentiated at thisrnpoint in history by the fact of the first havingrnMade In The U.S.S.R. stamped onrnit, the other Made In The U.S.A. WithrnGood Intentions? is valuable not only forrnits defense of worthy, defunct causes butrnfor the demonstration it provides of justrnhow early in the national game thoserncauses really were lost.rnThe contemporary case against antichildrnlabor legislahon, school consolidation,rnwomen’s suffrage, the creation ofrnthe Interstate Highway System, and therninstitution of a standing army was madernby a coalition of anh-Progressive dissidentsrnof a largely Jeffersonian character:rnmen and women Bill KaufFman describesrnas “faithful to the old republic,rnmotivated by agrarian biases even whenrnthey lived in cities, [whose] bedrocksrnwere (1) family autonomy; (2) a minimalrnstate; and (3) human-scale communities.”rnThese “people our forgotten history”;rntheir opponents are the dramatisrnpersonae of official histories and the forerunnersrnof the Clinton administration, asrnwell as (if we may believe the polls) thern70-plus percent of the American peoplernwho believe it will have initiated thernAmerican equivalent of the Age of thernAntonines, as Bill Clinton steps downrnafter reluctandy acceding to demandsrnto serve a third and fourth term and SenatorrnHillary is translated into PresidentrnHillary. The answer to the assertion, “Itrncan’t happen here!” is that it happenedrnhere yesterday, and never quit happeningrnthroughout the intervening night.rnSince the Civil War, really, the Conshtutionrnhas been ignored or “interpreted”rnby people having little or no interestrnin the concerns the Framers had,rnbut loving, rather, what they hated, andrnhating what they loved: The result is therntotal revisement of the agendum ratifiedrnin 1789. Verily there is nothing new underrnthe sun—though the sun, in its decliningrnage, is expected to burn hotterrnand hotter. The Child Labor Amendmentrnmovement early in the 20th centuryrnwas dubbed “the crusade for the children”rnby supporters, many or most ofrnwhom believed that family and parentchildrenrnrelationships required remodelingrnby the state. “We must limit,” the researchrndirector of the National ChildrnLabor Council stated, “parental freedomrnas well as employers’ fi-eedom, but thernmain thing is to strengthen the home —rnfor the children’s sake”; an executive ofiRcialrnof the same organization, GertrudernFolks Zimand, brushed aside the familiarrnobjection against attempts at legislatingrnmorality with the remark, “Lawsrnmake morals.” As for states’ rights considerations,rn”The issue of states’ rightsrnhas never been raised on behalf of a goodrncause,” in the opinion of Grace Abbott,rnReviewed in this issue!rnWITH GOOD INTENTIONS?rnReflections on the Mythrnof Progress in AmericarnBy Bill Kauffmanrn”In his impassioned explorations of six lost causesrn. . . . Kauffman advances the losers’ argumentsrncogently, even when, especially in the case of thernanti-women suffragists, he disagrees. When hernagrees, he is riveting, amusingly vituperative (herndubs New Deal bureaucrat Rexford Guy Tugwell,rnwho scuttled homesteading, ‘Tyrantosaurus Rex’),rneven piquantly ribald.” —BooklistrnPraeger Publishers • 1998 • 144 pagesrn• 0-275-96270-9 • $35.00rnAt buokiikma, un the web at www.praegeTcoin. ur call l-800-275-5>slH>rn88 Ptot Road Wwl • PO Box 5007 • Weitport, CT 06JJ81-Si)()7rnAD08rnhead of the Children’s Bureau. The crusadingrnProgressive Judge Ben Lindsey ofrnDenver, endorsing a National Child LaborrnAmendment to the Constitution,rnpopularized the phrase “Governmentrnas Overparent,” while others cited thernrhetorical equivalent of deadbeat dadsrn(the working-class sots who were also therntarget of the 18th Amendment) as furtherrnreason to support this critical piece ofrnforward-looking legislation. “With thernChild Labor Amendment,” Kauffmanrnwrites, “the battle between partisans ofrnthe old republic and the new republicrnwas joined.” While the amendment itselfrnwas defeated, most of the old PalmerrnBill’s provisions were incorporated by thernFair Labor Standards Act in 1938, thusrngiving the Progressives most of what theyrnasked for, though not what Kauffmanrncalls the “amendment battering ram”rnthey desired as a weapon with which tornbreak in the door of the poor man’s castle.rnStill,rnOpposition to the amendment hadrnunited, in common—and successfulrn—cause, an extraordinary coalition:rnrural southern Protestants,rnnorthern working-class Catholics,rnantifeminists, localist Progressives,rndomestic manufacturers, farmers,rnand Mugwump wisemen. Together,rnthey defeated a measure thatrnhad virtually the entire political establishmentrnbehind it.rn”A pity,” Kauffman adds, “that the coalitionrnhas never reformed.”rnOver and again, Kauffman’s accountrnis subtly insistent on the contemporaryrnrelevance of the terms and substance ofrnthe Progressive versus anti-Progressiverndebates. In the context of the argumentrnfor school-consolidation in the post-rnWorld War II era, Kauffman cites thernconsolidationists’ leading proponent. Dr.rnJames B. Conant, president of HarvardrnUniversity, as remarking, in a Ripley’srnBelieve-It-Or-Not tone of astonishment,rnthat in the past the staternwas remarkably indifferent as tornwhether parents chose to take advantagernof the educational opportunitiesrnoffered, and local authoritiesrnsometimes were not very strictrnabout enforcing the compulsory attendancernlaws. . . . As long as thernpublic concern was directed almostrnexclusively to the educationrnof future voters and the unfoldingrnJUNE 1999/27rnrnrn