To address the statement you have "a lot of problems with." Let's look at the entire quote, by Matthew Spalding; PhD. with a doctorate in government with studies on political philosophy and early American political thought, a national scholar, author, executive editor of The Heritage Guide to the Constitution which is a line-by-line analysis of each clause of the U.S. Constitution, ummmm, an adjunct fellow of the Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies...the list can go on and on but that's enough for you to verify...lol, just razing ya' . The entire quote: "The objective of progressive thinking, which remains a major force in modern-day liberalism, was to transform America from a decentralized, self-governing society into a centralized, progressive society focused on national ideals and the achievement of 'social justice.' Sociological conditions would be changed through government regulation of society and the economy; socioeconomic problems would be solved by redistributing wealth and benefits." ....
Prior to this quote, Spalding stated:
"We can trace the concept of the modern state back to the theories of Thomas Hobbes, who wanted to replace the old order with an all-powerful “Leviathan” that would impose a new order, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who, to achieve absolute equality, favored an absolute state that would rule over the people through a vaguely defined concept called the “general will.” It was Alexis de Tocqueville who first pointed out the potential for a new form of despotism in such a centralized, egalitarian state: It might not tyrannize, but it would enervate and extinguish liberty by reducing self-governing people “to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.” ,,,
"The Americanized version of the modern state was born in the early 20th century. American “progressives,” under the spell of German thinkers, decided that advances in science and history had opened the possibility of a new, more efficient form of democratic government, which they called the “administrative state.” Thus began the most revolutionary change of the last hundred years: the massive shift of power from institutions of constitutional government to a labyrinthine network of unelected, unaccountable experts who would rule in the name of the people."
If you'd like to verify some of these statements, I suggest you read
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~eagleton...rogressive.htm
http://pdamerica.org/
and follow-up with reading some of the writing of these Progressives like Theodore Roosevelt, U.S. President in 1901. Their writings and their agenda speaks for itself.
I would hope this addresses the difficulties you may have with Spalding verifying "some of the statements when it come to presenting the 'history of progressives.' "
Your problem with who said the "objective...who said that,?" let's give context for the relevance of what the author said, " It was in the Progressive party’s platform of 1912. It came back under FDR and Truman, then Johnson, then Clinton, and now Obama. And the goal all along has had little to do with the quality of health care. The objective is rather to remove about a sixth of the economy from private control and bring it under the thumb of the state, whose “experts” will choose and ration its goods and services."
Who said that? The Progressive Party.
Quoting from the Progressive Platform of 1912 (source Teaching American History,
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/
HEALTH
"We favor the union of all the existing agencies of the Federal Government dealing with the public health into a single national health service without discrimination against or for any one set of therapeutic methods, school of medicine, or school of healing with such additional powers as may be necessary to enable it to perform efficiently such duties in the protection of the public from preventable diseases as may be properly undertaken by the Federal authorities, including the executing of existing laws regarding pure food, quarantine and cognate subjects, the promotion of vital statistics and the extension of the registration area of such statistics, and co-operation with the health activities of the various States and cities of the Nation."
Your points numbered 2 and 3 are the exact agreement many see against allowing the Progressive movement to take more control of individual rights and hand them over in a hand basket to the federal or state governments.
Point number 4: "whose “experts” will choose and ration its goods and services" - as opposed to insurance company 'experts' who's first loyalties are to the *stockholders*.
Who ever would become the government "experts," I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball, but don't you think the government experts and the "insurance experts" would, in the end, be one and the same..