To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Unified Progressive Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unified Progressive Party
통합진보당
LeaderLee Jung-hee[1]
Founded5 December 2011 (2011-12-05)
Banned19 December 2014 (2014-12-19)
Merger of
Succeeded byNone (banned)
Minjung Party (de facto)
HeadquartersNoryangjin-ro 12, Solbom Building 12th floor, Dongjak-gu, Seoul
IdeologyProgressivism (South Korean)[2]
Political position2011–2012:[a]
Centre-left[3] to left-wing[4]
2012–2014:
Left-wing[5][6] to far-left[7][8]
Colours  Purple

^ a: By September 2012, Minjungminju-wing (People's Democracy faction) within the UPP left in large quantities, and the Minjokhaebang-wing (National Liberation faction) (anti-American/pro-North Korean or left-wing nationalists) became the main players.[9]
Unified Progressive Party
Hangul
통합진보당
Hanja
統合進步黨
Revised RomanizationTonghap Jinbodang
McCune–ReischauerT'onghap Chinbodang

The Unified Progressive Party (UPP; Korean: 통합진보당, RR: Tonghap Jinbo-dang, Hanja: 統合進步黨) is a banned political party in South Korea. It was founded on 5 December 2011 as a merger of the Democratic Labor Party, the People's Participation Party of Rhyu Si-min, and a faction of the New Progressive Party.[2][10] Until 12 May 2012 it was jointly chaired by Rhyu Si-min, Lee Jung-hee, and Sim Sang-jung.[4][11]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    2 645 612
    1 980
    3 688 271
    4 925
    2 858 670
  • Progressive Presidents: Crash Course US History #29
  • Progressive Party (United States, 1912)
  • The Progressive Era: Crash Course US History #27
  • The Historical Progressive Movement and The Republicans | The Rise of Teddy Roosevelt
  • Political Ideology: Crash Course Government and Politics #35

Transcription

Episode 29: Progressive Presidents Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. History and today we’re going to finish our discussion of Progressivism, and indulge in a bit of “great man” history. Mr. Green, Mr. Green! Great man history, huh? Well I was born on a sunny, summer morning in 197-- Yeah you’re not great, Me from the Past. Also, you’re a boy not a man, and the only historically significant thing you ever participated in was a brilliant senior prank that wasn’t even your idea. However, 39 of our 43 presidents were, at least arguably, great men and today we’ll be talking about three of them. It will be kind of like a Jefferson vs. Hamilton for the 20th century, except not like that at all. But there will be a canal, and TWO people get shot. Intro So, as we saw in CrashCourse World History, national governments were on the rise from the middle of the 19th century until basically now. And in the U.S., Corporations became national and then, by the twentieth century, international. Like, the British East India Company was kind of an international corporation, but it wasn’t the same as Coca-Cola, although they did both deal in narcotics. And this mania for nationalization even affected sports. Like, in baseball, the National league and the American league were formed and in 1903 they played the first inaccurately named World Series. I’m sorry, was Botswana invited? Then it’s not a World Series. Anyway, the rise of a strong, national government was seen as an alternative to people’s lives being controlled by provincial city and state governments or by ever-growing corporations. Like, Herbert Croly, editor of the New Republic, thought that to achieve the Jeffersonian democratic self-determination ideal of individual freedom, the country needed to employ Hamiltonian government intervention in the economy. And he wasn’t the only one who believed that. Okay, so in 1901, 42-year-old Theodore Roosevelt became the youngest American president ever after William McKinley was assassinated by Leon Czolgosz. Czol--? Czolg--? Czol--? Hold on. “Czolgosz. Polish.” Czolgosz? Czolgosz? His name was Leon Chuckles? Man, Leon Chuckles was a real barrel of laughs for an anarchist. Usually they’re very serious. Right, so Leon Chuckles paved the way for Teddy Roosevelt, who in many ways the model of the 20th century president. He was very engaged in both domestic and foreign policy and he set the political agenda for the whole country. His political program, the Square Deal, aimed to distinguish good corporations that provided useful products and services at fair prices from evil corporations that existed just to make money. That is hilarious. A corporation that doesn’t exist just to make money. That’s fantastic, Teddy. Everybody knows that corporations are just inherently greedy people, but they are people. Roosevelt felt it was the federal government’s responsibility to regulate the economy directly and to break up power of wealthy corporations, and he used the Sherman Act to prosecute bad trusts such as the Northern Securities Company, which was a holding company created by J.P. Morgan that directed three major railroads and monopolized transport. And that did not make J.P. Morgan a happy bunny. Thank you for that, Stan. That’s, that’s wonderful. Shockingly, the legislative and executive branches managed to work together and Congress passed some actual legislation, including the Hepburn Act of 1906, which gave the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to regulate railroad rates and examine their company books. And Roosevelt was also a conservationist. He wanted to preserve the environment from economic exploitation, probably so that there would be plenty of animals for him to hunt with his big stick while he walked softly. Having appointed noted progressive Gifford Pinchot head of the forest service, millions of acres were set aside for new, highly managed national parks reflecting the progressive idea that experts could manage the world. But then in 1908, Teddy Roosevelt decided to go elephant hunting instead of running for re-election and he picked William Howard Taft to be his successor, but the man who became our largest president massively disappointed Roosevelt. When I say “our largest,” by the way, I don’t mean our greatest. I mean our largest. Taft was a pretty hard-core trust-buster who ordered the prosecution that broke up Standard Oil in 1911, but he didn’t see big business as bad unless the corporations stifled competition. He also supported the 16th amendment, allowing Congress to pass an income tax, and that paved the way for the 18th amendment, Prohibition, because with an income tax, the federal government didn’t have to rely on liquor excise taxes. So, why didn’t Roosevelt like Taft? Well, not only was Taft more conservative than most progressives, he also fired Pinchot in 1910. And Roosevelt was so frustrated with Taft that he actually challenged the incumbent president for the Republican nomination in 1912. Which Roosevelt lost, but he didn’t let it drop. He founded his own Progressive Party, called the Bull Moose Party so that he could run again. So, the election of 1912 featured four candidates: Taft; Teddy Roosevelt for the Bull Moose Party; Eugene Debs, for the Socialist Party; and Democrat Woodrow Wilson. It’s worth noting that in contemporary American political discourse, all four of these people would have been seen as somewhere between crazy liberals and actual communists. So Eugene Debs, from right here in my home state of Indiana, did not support the Socialist Party’s goal of abolishing capitalism, but he ran on a platform that included public ownership of railroads and banks, and laws limiting work hours. And running on the socialist ticket, Debs won 6% of the vote, which was, to quote another president, “not bad.” But the election of 1912 turned out to be a contest between Wilson and Roosevelt’s competing views over the dangers of increasing government power and economic concentration. Wilson claimed, “Freedom today is something more than being let alone. The program of government must in these days be positive, not negative merely.” That’s just not good grammar, sir. His program, called New Freedom, was supposed to reinvigorate democracy by restoring market competition and preventing big business from dominating government. It included stronger anti-trust laws and policies to encourage small businesses. Roosevelt’s answer to New Freedom was a program he called New Nationalism, because, of course, in election years all things are new. Roosevelt recognized the inevitability of big business and hoped to use government intervention to stop its abuses. New Nationalism included heavy taxes on personal and corporate fortunes and greater federal regulation of industries. So, the Bull Moose Party platform was in some ways a vision of a modern welfare state, it called for: Women’s suffrage Federal regulation National labor and health legislation for women and children Eight hour days and living wage for all workers National systems of social insurance for health, unemployment, and old age What are we, Canada? God, I wish we were Canada...You weren’t recording that, were you, Stan? Roosevelt thought his party’s platform was one of the most important documents in the history of mankind, and Americans agreed, they supported him and elected him in a landslide. Oh wait, no they didn’t. Instead, he lost. And also, a guy shot him at one of his campaign stops, that’s shooting #2. Roosevelt however survived and even went on to make the speech after being shot. What happened in the election is that Taft and Roosevelt split the Republican vote, leaving Woodrow Wilson president with a mere 42% of the popular vote, giving us our only democratic president between 1896 and 1932. Oh, it’s time for the mystery document? The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the mystery document. If I’m wrong, I get shocked by the shock pen, which many of you insist is fictional, but I promise, it’s not. “The two things we are fighting against, namely, excessive tariffs and almost universal monopoly, are the very things that these two branches of the Republican party both decline to combat. (...) They intend to accept these evils and stagger along under the burden of excessive tariffs and intolerable monopolies as best they can through administrative commissions. I say, therefore, that it is inconceivable that the people of the United States, whose instinct is against special privilege and whose deepest convictions are against monopoly, should turn to either of these parties for relief when these parties do not so much as pretend to offer them relief.” Alright, it’s definitely about the 1912 election. It talks about the Republican party being split into two parts, so it’s by a democrat. Or a socialist, but probably a democrat judging from the Mystery Document itself. You always make it hard, Stan. So it’s not going to be Woodrow Wilson because that would be obvious, but I do not know the names of any other prominent democrats, so I am going to guess Woodrow Wilson. YES? Get in! So, with its stirring anti-tariff, anti-monopoly, do not pass GO, do not collect $200 stance, New Freedom won out, and because the Democrats also controlled Congress, Wilson was able to implement this program. The Underwood Tariff reduced import duties and after the ratification of the 16th amendment, Congress imposed a graduated income tax on the richest 5% of Americans. Other legislation included the Clayton Act of 1914, which exempted unions from antitrust laws and made it easier for them to strike; the Keating-Owen Act, which outlawed child labor in manufacturing; and the Adamson Act which mandated an eight hour workday for railroad workers. If Wilson’s New Freedom sounds a lot like Roosevelt’s New Nationalism, that’s because they ended up being pretty similar. Wilson engaged in less trust busting than expected, and more regulation of the economy. Wilson didn’t institute a national system of health and unemployment insurance, but he did expand the powers of the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and prohibit unfair monopolistic practices. He also supported the founding of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, which gave the government much more control over banks in response to the Panic of 1907 where the U.S. had to be bailed out by J.P. Morgan. Fear not, big banks, the government will bail you out in due time. So, under Roosevelt, and Wilson, and to a lesser extent Taft, Progressivism flourished domestically, but it also became an international phenomenon as presidents expanded national government power outside the country’s border, mostly in the Western Hemisphere. Like, between 1901 and 1920, U.S. marines landed in Caribbean countries over 20 times, usually to create a more friendly environment for American businesses, but sometimes just to hang out on the beach. And this points to an interesting contradiction, Progressive presidents were very concerned about big business as a threat to freedom in the United States, but in Latin America and the Caribbean, they weren’t that concerned about freedom at all. Teddy Roosevelt especially was much more active in international diplomacy than his predecessors. He was the first president to win the Nobel Peace prize, for instance, for helping to negotiate the Treaty of Portsmouth that ended the Russo Japanese War in 1905. You may be familiar with his motto, “Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick” – which essentially meant “the U.S. will intervene in Latin America whenever we want.” And probably the most famous such intervention was the building of the Panama Canal. It featured feats of engineering and succeeding where the French had failed...Stan, these are my favourite things! Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. The way we got the 10 mile wide canal zone wasn’t so awesome. In 1903, Panama was part of Colombia but the U.S. encouraged Philippe Bunau-Varilla to lead an uprising. Bunau-Varilla, a representative of the Panama Canal Company, was so grateful after the U.S. sent a gunboat to ensure that the Colombian army couldn’t stop him that he signed a treaty giving the U.S. the right to build and operate the canal and sovereignty over newly independent Panama’s Canal Zone, which we gave up in 2000 after enjoying nearly 100 Years of sovereignty thanks to Carter’s stupid altruism. Roosevelt also added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, the 1823 statement that the U.S. would defend independent Latin American states from European intervention. Now, according to Roosevelt, we would wield our big stick like a policeman waving around a nightstick exercising an “international police power” over the western hemisphere. In practice, this meant using American troops to ensure that Latin American countries were stable enough for Americans to invest there. Like, in 1904 we seized the customs house in the Dominican Republic to make sure that they paid their debts to investors, then by “executive agreement” American banks got control of the DR’s finances. Roosevelt also encouraged investment by the United Fruit Company in Honduras and Costa Rica, helping to turn those nations into Banana Republics. No, not the store, Thought Bubble. Yes. Taft, on the other hand, maybe because of his experiences as governor of the Philippines, was less eager to wave America’s Big Stick. He emphasized loans and economic investment as the best way to spread American influence in a policy that came to be known as Dollar Diplomacy. Ultimately, Dollar Diplomacy was probably more effective, but it seemed weak to many people in contrast to Roosevelt’s strategy of SEND ALL THE TROOPS RIGHT NOW. Thanks, Thought Bubble. I wore my Banana Republic shirt just for this occasion. So, we’ve discussed Roosevelt and Taft’s foreign policy. Let’s move on to Wilson, who was, of course, an isolationist. No. Woodrow Wilson. Okay. Woodrow Wilson was not a volleyball. He was the son of a Presbyterian Minister, a former American history professor and once had been governor of New Jersey, so he understood moral indecency. Wilson thought the best way to teach other countries about the greatness of America was to export colossal amounts of American products. Like, in 1916, he instructed a group of businessmen, “Sell goods that will make the world more comfortable and happy, and convert them to the principles of America.” In short, Woodrow Wilson believed correctly that the the essence of democracy is the freedom to choose among hundreds of brightly coloured breakfast cereals. Still, Wilson intervened in Latin America more than any other U.S. President and his greatest moral triumph was in Mexico, where he wanted to teach the Mexicans “to elect good men”. To do this, Wilson sent troops to stop weapons from flowing to the military dictator Victoriano Huerta but the Americans, who landed at Veracruz were not welcomed with open arms, and 100 Mexicans and 19 Americans were killed. And then in 1916, having learned his lesson (just kidding), Wilson sent 10,000 troops into northern Mexico to chase after revolutionary bandit Pancho Villa. Villa had killed 17 Americans in New Mexico. And everyone knows that the proper response to such a criminal act is to send 10,000 troops into a foreign country. Pershing’s expedition was a smashing success fortunately…except that he actually did not capture Pancho Villa. But all of that was a prelude to Wilson’s leading America to our first international moral crusade, our involvement in the Great War. So, this period of American history is important because Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson oversaw the expansion of the power of the federal government both at home and abroad, and in doing so they became the first modern American presidents. I mean, these days, we may talk about small government and large government, but really, we’re always talking about large government. Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson recognized that the national government was going to have to deal with big business, and that it would have to get big to do that. And also that it had a role to play in ensuring that Americans would retain some freedom in this new industrial era. And they also built neo-imperialistic foreign policies around the idea that the safer the world was for American business, the better it was for Americans. As our old friend Eric Foner wrote: “The presidents who spoke the most about freedom were likely to intervene most frequently in the affairs of other countries.” Sometimes for good and sometimes for ill, we’ll see an extreme and ambiguous case of that next week when we look at America in World War I. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you then. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. Our show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Rojas, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Every week, there’s a new caption for the libertage. If you’d like to suggest one, you can do so in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome.

History

The UPP proposed an alliance with the major liberal Democratic Party, which the Democrats rejected.[4]

In the 2012 National Assembly election the party gained eight seats for a total of thirteen seats out of 300, advancing to the third position, well ahead of the conservative Liberty Forward Party (which lost most of its seats).

On 24 April 2012, the party provisionally voted to drop the "Unified" component of its name, and adopt the name "Progressive Party". The change was subject to a vote of the party's Central Committee on 13 May.[12] On 3 May 2012, the party internal investigation revealed that wide-ranging irregularities occurred in selecting UPP's proportional representation candidates.[13][14] UPP won six proportional representatives in 11 April general election,[15] but one legislator resigned amid the election scandal. All four co-leaders of the party subsequently resigned on 12 May.[16]

The South Korean government petitioned the Constitutional Court of Korea to dissolve the UPP due to their alleged pro-North Korea views in November 2013, two months after the UPP members allegedly involved in the 2013 South Korean sabotage plot were arrested. On 19 December 2014 the Constitutional Court of Korea ruled 8–1 in favour of the dissolution. The five UPP lawmakers were also deprived of their National Assembly seats.[17][18] According to Amnesty International, the UPP's ban raised "serious questions as to the authorities' commitment to freedom of expression and association".[19][20][21]

After the dissolution, some of the members joined People's United Party in 2016.

Political positions

Since the United Progressive Party was a big tent party until 2012 and before, there was no consistent ideology except for the motto of a "leftist" party. Before the 2012 party's controversy over fraudulent elections, the United Progressive Party was led by moderates, so some[who?] evaluated that "progressivism" was closer to "American (modern) liberalism" than "socialism".[22][23] However, after 2012, liberals and social democrats within the party left the party, and left-wing nationalists led the party much more, and afterwards were embroiled in controversy over allegations of being "far-left" or "pro-North Korea" (종북).[24]

Lee Seok-ki sabotage plot

On 5 September 2013, South Korea's intelligence agency, NIS, accused UPP lawmaker Lee Seok-ki of plotting a pro-North Korean rebellion. The case triggered a political and media firestorm in a nation where even praising the North can be considered a crime.[25] He allegedly led a May 2013 meeting, comprised partly of UPP members, in which reference was made to the prospect of attacking South Korean infrastructure in the event that recently heightened tensions between the Koreas led to war.

South Korean prosecutors subsequently indicted Lee on charges of plotting a pro-North Korea rebellion to overthrow the government, saying his plan posed a "grave" national security threat.[26] However, UPP lawmakers say that while the meeting in question did take place, they had no intention of destroying South Korean government infrastructure.[citation needed]

On 17 February 2014, Lee was sentenced by a district court to 12 years in prison.[27]

Electoral results

Legislative

Election Leader Constituency Party list Seats Position Status
Votes % Seats Votes % Seats
2012 Lee Jung-hee 1,291,306 5.99
7 / 246
2,198,405 10.31
6 / 54
13 / 300
3rd Opposition

Local

Election Leader Metropolitan mayor/Governor Provincial legislature Municipal mayor Municipal legislature
2014 Lee Jung-hee
0 / 17
0 / 789
0 / 226
34 / 2,898

References

  1. ^ http://www.goupp.org/kor/intro/greeting.php UPP intro page(korean)
  2. ^ a b "Minor parties launch 'Unified Progressive Party'". The Korea Times. 5 December 2011. Retrieved 1 February 2012.
  3. ^ Tom Lansford (19 March 2019). Political Handbook of the World 2018-2019. CQ Press. p. 745. ISBN 978-1544327112.
  4. ^ a b c Bae Hyun-jung (20 January 2012). "Minority parties struggle". The Korea Herald. Retrieved 1 February 2012.
  5. ^ Rüdiger Frank, Jim Hoare (13 September 2013). Korea 2013: Politics, Economy and Society. BRILL. p. 26. ISBN 9789004262973.
  6. ^ James E. Hoare, ed. (2020). Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Korea. Rowman & Littlefield. p. LXIX. ISBN 9781538119761. NIS raids offices and homes of 10 officials of the left-wing Unified Progressive Party on charges of conspiring to mount a pro–North Korean insurrection.
  7. ^ Chung Min Lee, ed. (2016). Fault Lines in a Rising Asia. Brookings Institution Press. p. 323. ISBN 9780870033131. The far-left Unified Progressive Party (UPP) was South Korea's most pro–North Korean political party, and its leadership was in near-perfect alignment with the policies espoused by North Korea, but it was disbanded when the ...
  8. ^ Oul Han, ed. (2021). Polarized Politics in South Korea: Political Culture and Democracy in Partisan Newspapers. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 22. ISBN 9781793635921. ... In 2014 for example, a far-left party (Unified Progressive Party) was dissolved due to pro-North Korean activities that threaten national security.25 Accordingly, ...
  9. ^ "노회찬, 심상정, 유시민 통합진보당 탈당: 민노당 전 최고위원, 지방의원, 참여계 당원 3000여명도 '탈당 러시'" [Roh Hoe-chan, Sim Sang-jung, and Yoo Si-min left the Unified Progressive Party: About 3,000 former supreme council members, local councilors, and participating members of the DLP are also leaving the party.]. 프레시안. 13 September 2012. Retrieved 4 December 2021.
  10. ^ "S. Korea's minor parties coalesce to form new progressive party". People's Daily Online. 5 December 2012. Retrieved 1 February 2012.
  11. ^ "Progressive parties unified". Yonhap News Agency. Archived from the original on 7 July 2012. Retrieved 1 February 2012. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  12. ^ Progressives drop ‘united’ from party name, The Korea Herald. 24 April 2012, retrieved 24 April 2012.
  13. ^ "UPP should clearly settle vote irregularity scandal". Yonhap News. 2 May 2012. Retrieved 3 May 2012.
  14. ^ Huh Yun-seok(허윤석) (3 May 2012). '지도부 사퇴' 밝힌 진보당, 비례대표 거취 '충돌' [UPP party leader resigned. Internal conflict is widening.]. SBS (in Korean). Retrieved 3 May 2012.
  15. ^ Kim Hee-jin (3 May 2012). "UPP admits its primary was rigged". Korea JoongAng Daily. Archived from the original on 27 January 2013. Retrieved 3 May 2012.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  16. ^ "Leftist party leaders resign over election scandal". The Korea Times. 12 May 2012. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
  17. ^ S Korea Court Orders Dissolution of Leftist Party
  18. ^ Official court opinion (in Korean)
  19. ^ "South Korea court orders party with 'pro-North Korea' views be disbanded". DW. 19 December 2014.
  20. ^ "South Korea court orders breakup of 'pro-North' leftwing party". The Guardian. 19 December 2014.
  21. ^ Steven Borowiec (19 December 2014). "In unprecedented move, South Korea bans 'pro-North' political party". Los Angeles Times.
  22. ^ "보수적인, 너무나 보수적인 우리의 '진보'" [Conservative. Our "progressive" that's too conservative.]. 프레시안. 1 December 2011. Retrieved 4 December 2021.
  23. ^ "UPP's biggest faction denies rigging". Korea JoongAng Daily. 7 May 2012. Retrieved 2 January 2022. The internal strife in the liberal Unified Progressive Party continued with the leader of the party's largest faction demanding a vote on whether the candidates elected in a rigged primary should step down.
  24. ^ "'종북논란' 벗어날 방안 없는 통합진보당" (in Korean). The Hankyoreh. 4 November 2014. Retrieved 4 December 2021.
  25. ^ "South Korea Lawmaker Arrested in Alleged Rebellion Plot | TIME.com". Time. Archived from the original on 7 September 2013.
  26. ^ South Korean prosecutors charge leftist lawmaker with plotting pro-North Korea rebellion
  27. ^ "(LEAD) Leftist lawmaker gets 12-year prison term for rebellion plot". 17 February 2014.

External links

This page was last edited on 3 April 2024, at 09:15
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.