Taken from Heritage: Birth of the Administrative State

Wilson's thesis in his works on administration was that it was far better and more efficient for a professional class of experts, instead of a multiplicity of politicians with narrow, competing interests, to handle the complex business of the modern state. To the objection that entrusting administrators with such discretion might not comport with the Constitution's distribution of power, Wilson responded that administrative principles and constitutional principles were distinct and, thus, that constitutional limitations could not easily be applied to the exercise of administrative authority.

It's not that I find the arguments for Progressive policies repugnant, I do not. In Wilson's context, clearly there is more for the State (note: Big S) to do than, as the Framers laid out, mitigate commerce, protect borders and establish a baseline of law that applies across state (small S) borders. Whether this action is a responsibility or opportunity is of little difference to me. To draw another example, the Great Society's goals far outweighed any then-contemporary perception of the negative consequences of the policies chosen.

What I do find reproachable, is the tendency for action without the prospect for results. Whether the current subject is SCHIP, minimum wage or immigration reform, the cause for action seems to outweigh the attention paid to results.