Woodrow Wilson helped start the 20th century version of the Klu Klux Klan and re instituted segregation in the federal government. That does not sound very progressive, Helen Keller was his contemporary and she was against those things and for Eugene Debs and workers' rights and women's rights.

Yes, those parts weren't very progressive. Wilsonian Progressive reform, which is one of the things he's most famous for (and creating the League of Nations) was pretty progressive, though. It's why he's historically known as a progressive.

How can you claim Wilson was a progressive when he clearly acted like a reactionary? He in fact won against the progressive party in 1912 (against Roosevelt and others), and ushered in the end of the progressive era.

He created the FTC, instituted major banking reform and created the Fed as well as instituted a graduated income tax. He made child labor illegal and signed into law an 8 hour work day. He created the League of Nations.

Most people consider him a progressive.

It just shows that framing the world as liberal/conservative , left/right, capitalist/socialist and expecting people to fall neatly and consistently into on of these camps is a stupid thing. People are much more complex and their actions in one area often don't reflect what they do in another. For example, there are probably racist environmentalists and racists who protect the environment which is something that shouldn't exist if you follow the usual beliefs about environmentalists or racists.

Indeed. Here's a condemnation of Wilson from a different perspective, one emanating from distrust of government power. Might be called "radical conservatism", in the original first senses of those words rather than as found in the political jargon of today's headlines:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-best-way-to-tell-...

He also styled himself as a progressive, and was largely supported by progressives. He specifically took rhetoric from the Progressive Party platform.

Donald Trump bears little resemblance to Reagan or Lincoln, but he is still a Republican. Wilson, likewise, was a progressive - even if he did other things we might consider anti-progressive.

The definition of progressivism, like Republicanism (and conservatism, and liberalism), has also changed significantly in the last century. Prohibition of alcohol, for example, was a central plank of most progressives of Woodrow's era, but it is not considered such now. Likewise, opposition to racial inequality is often associated with modern progressivism, but it was not so explicitly supported by many early progressives.

Nixon started the EPA, and I’m pretty sure we don’t call him a liberal environmentalist.

All of the above insults are true; but it's not about Wilson being some kind of two-headed monster. As an internationalist, and an idealist, he has quite been seen as a hero as well.

So it's not about one man at all. It's about ends-vs.-means and the importance of respecting inconvenient rights.

>you should never let things like the constitution get in the way of doing "good".

Protip: If it's really that "good" you won't need to make an end run around the constitution to get it done.

> This is more about Woodrow Wilson, than Debs. Wilson, like many progressives, thought that you should never let things like the constitution get in the way of doing "good".

as opposed to conservatives? this is a disingenuous and useless distinction