SpenceM: I suppose by "cultureless" I meant a lack of a cohesive national culture. America has lots of different cultures.

As for the myths you mention, I wonder how many of those are particular to your social milieu and geography.

62. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 1:54:49 PM

Toys

63. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 1:57:37 PM

The US is not without national culture. Witness American cinema, the Frontier Myth, Rugged Individualism, and pop culture. The main problem is that American culture has had such a dominant position in the development of international culture in the last 50 years that the new international culture has swallowed American culture as it developed.

64. Raskolnikov - 10/18/1999 2:01:08 PM

"As for the myths you mention, I wonder how many of those are particular to your social milieu and geography."

They were standard elementary education fare for me in the upper midwest. Although I think Spence hails from around those parts as well.

65. Raskolnikov - 10/18/1999 2:06:28 PM

Regarding the Progressives, they had a lot more success. Teddy Roosevelt and Bob LaFollette were the leaders, and they helped push through a lot of political reforms, such as the political primary system (prior to which nominees were often selected in a proverbial "smoke-filled room"), recall initiatives, to remove elected officials from office, and referendums. They also were big trustbusters.

Roosevelt actually placed 2nd in the 1912 election running as a Progressive, ahead of President Taft, the Republican nominee, but Roosevelt was a popular former President.

LaFollette, however, (a Senator from my home state of Wisconsin, who is still worshipped) got almost 20% of the vote himself in the 1924 election, much better than the Socialists ever did.

66. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 2:09:39 PM

The progressive movement is, I think, the "more" uniquely American of the two, for, even though some of the goals were the same, the progressives . Some of its political hallmarks, e.g., civil service instead of patronage based government employment, are not.

Progressives thrived in the North, primarily New England and New Scandinavia, from about 1910 to maybe 1925 or 1930. The roots are: fear of government corruption, temperance, American Protestantism, a need to moralize.

The populist movement is not uniquely American at all. Geographically, its center was the middle South, and its foundation was disaffection with Big Government and its relation with Big Business -- some of the same issues underlying the progressive movement of the early 20th century. Possibly the most prominent populist issue was the "free silver" plan to back US currency with silver, thus conferring the obvious benefits on debtors at the expense of creditors. The Democratic Party coopted the issue in 1896 (after a famous speech by populist William Jennings Bryan declaring that we "shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold").

Thus the populist basis had more flavor of class interest, a universally recognizable political dynamic, than the progressives. The latter were more likely to be everyone's favorite American, the proselytizing moral zealot.

The populists were dead and gone by 1912, before the progressives came on the scene.

67. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 2:11:10 PM

first sentence should say, "the progressives had a more uniquely American attitude."

As Rask says, the progressives were much more successful politically.

68. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 2:18:27 PM

I would expect only oblivious Californians, and only some of them (like people from the Pacific Palisades), to be ignorant of the myths I mentioned. The myths in that list that could be construed as regional are the ones of Johnny Appleseed and Paul Bunyan -- indigenous in particular to the greater Midwest. The others, and also Ben Franklin's spirit of discovery and risk-taking with the kite and the key, Thomas Paine's inflexible patriotism, etc., are I think pretty general.

America does have a few recognizable cultures in different geographical regions, I will agree. The most notable difference is between the South, where people call you "honey" a lot and speak with a feigned politeness that is the human equivalent of anus sniffing by dogs, and the Non-South. And of course there is the West ("I could be going to a party at any minute") vs. the East ("I could be going to a funeral at any minute"), but that's not so prominent.

69. CalGal - 10/18/1999 2:21:26 PM

Other American cultural/mythology touchstones:

• the fact that I can't remember this guy's name is driving me bonkers--the man who worked himself to death driving spikes in to finish the railroad tracks.
• Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence
• one particular battle in the war of 1812
• Betsy Ross
• Harriet Tubman
• Sacajawea
• Pocohantas
• the Pilgrims

70. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 2:24:30 PM

by the by, here is a Slate piece on the Populist and Progressive roots of the contemporary Reform Party. Some of the background of the Populists and Progressives is covered.

71. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 2:26:01 PM

I could have a word to say in this discussion, but I have been precluded by pelle. Have you guys ever heard the one, "A rose by any other name is still a rose" but what the hell do 13 year old girls know.

72. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 2:30:44 PM

Good additions Cal. A couple others, which are actually more prominent than their status here as afterthoughts would indicate:

73. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 2:32:34 PM

And, one of those two guys (I always forget which) was killed at the Alamo, I believe.

74. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 2:33:29 PM

make that not "bravado," but "bravery."

75. CalGal - 10/18/1999 2:36:29 PM

Also good additions, and the Alamo is actually famous throughout the country. Even the oblivious Californians know of it.

And then there are the 49ers, the originators of a national trend that still hasn't run its course: Moving to California to Make More Money.

Also, Jones mentioned a myth that needs to be encapsulated in one word: the cowboy.

76. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 2:37:46 PM

CalGal- I'll spare you the misery- John Henry was the "steel drivin' man"

77. CalGal - 10/18/1999 2:39:48 PM

Davy Crockett died at the Alamo, along with David Bowie, inventor of the Bowie knife--another cultural icon.

The inventor is a popular mythological figure in this country. Eli Whitney and Cyrus McCormick aren't as well known these days, but Thomas Edison is a god. Alexander Graham Bell. Washington what's his name--Carver? Franklin has been mentioned.

78. cmboyce - 10/18/1999 2:43:33 PM

And it's Davy Crockett who died at the Alamo.

79. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 2:45:16 PM

oh, that's right, they both died at the Alamo -- no wonder I couldn't remember which one didn't.

Major American parties have been fairly successful at coopting issues raised by upstart parties like the progressives and the populists. Have major European parties not been as successful, and if not, why?

80. cmboyce - 10/18/1999 2:50:08 PM

But none of these has the age of the myths that inform other cultures: the Arthurian schtick, the Mabinogian, the Sagas, Romulus, Hercules, etc etc. American myth is in its infancy, the germs in folktale that must have characterized the mythos of, say, Germany, in the neolithic or so. And given the astonishing state of communications, science, and literacy today, compared to even the 19th century, let alone Malory's time, I don't think we can expect them to achieve any such maturity. And I doubt if much political development can be attributed to them, either, probably for similar reasons. (At least in terms of ideas; campaign lit from at least Andy Jackson on, has made much of it.)

81. JonesAtLaw - 10/18/1999 2:56:22 PM

For Pelle- in Nebraska there is the legend of Feebold Feeboldson, Sweedish pioneer, who established the Kansas Nebraska border when his plow horse took off without him. The Feeboldson stories are a mix of Jack stories and pioneer "lies" told for humorous effect. Such as the time that the August heat became soo great that the corn in the fields popped, the horses seeing the white stuff coming down thought it was snow and froze to death...

82. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 3:05:12 PM

Well, I think perpetuation of the ethic of self reliance, the mistrust of government, and American patriotism -- all of which have strong effects on political development -- do depend at least in part on those myths. I don't mean to get too weepy or anything, but the way one plays as a kid, and stories and songs one hears, affect one's self image and view of the world, and therefore political attachments later in life.

83. PelleNilsson - 10/18/1999 4:01:36 PM

Spence --- #66

The progressive movement is, I think, the "more" uniquely American of the two.

I would agree to that. At the same time, and after reading the link you provided about the Scandinavian influence, I do recognise some of the tenets of the Swedish Liberal Party. It was, and is, a curious mixture of freethinkers, evangelical Christians, teetotallers, genuine liberals in the Mill tradition, and general do-gooders. "Too be a Liberal is to be ambivalent" is a well-known saying. In the 1950's and 60's it was a force in Swedish politics but now it hovers around the 5% mark.

(Off-topic aside. It is a hundred years since the birth of Swedish economist Bertil Ohlin. It was commorated last week by a three-day seminar. Krugman was there and said, graciously, that with a few technical amendmends the Ohlin-Heckscher theorem is still valid. What is less known is that Ohlin was the leader of the Liberal Party 1944-67

The populist movement is not uniquely American at all.

On the contrary, populism was born in the US in the form of the Populist Party. The first major European manifestation was the Poujadists (named after its leader) in France in the 1950's. Now, of course there are several. Le Pen in France, Glistrup in Denmark, Jörg Haidar in Austria. What characterises populism is that in the balance between leading and following they opt for the latter pandering to the prejudices of the electorate. There is no ideology involved.

84. wabbit - 10/18/1999 4:05:21 PM

Cal,

John Henry?

85. wabbit - 10/18/1999 4:07:07 PM

And now I see that Jones beat me to it. Ok, Johnny Appleseed.

86. PelleNilsson - 10/18/1999 4:10:10 PM

In #59 Raskolnikov stated

At their peak, the Socialists never got more than 5% of the vote.

But why? Which were the fundamentals that made the Socialists so much less appealing in the US than in Europe?

87. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 4:17:40 PM

Johnny Appleseed was the first one I mentioned.

Pelle: well, I didn't mean the Populist Party as a formal organization, I meant the cleavages characterizing it.

88. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 4:21:16 PM

Pelle, I think there are at least two answers to 86: Socialism is "un-American," and other political parties coopted the themes of the Socialists.

I prefer the second; as I noted earlier, it raises a new question: were major American parties better at coopting these themes than European parties, and if so, why? Further, does the ability of major parties to coopt the issues of insurgent parties vary with the underlying electoral institutions (e.g., plurality rule)?

89. glendajean - 10/18/1999 4:27:41 PM

David Bowie is a rock singer who is still alive. Jim Bowie, inventer of the Bowie knife, died at the Alamo.

A friend of mine had a 15 year old kid from France come visit. My friend was close with the boy's family and this was a chance for him to come to the US and practice his English.

I went with my friend and the boy to visit San Antonio for a day. He was a typical bored teenager, but when we went to the Alamo and he saw the picture of Davy Crockett, he began singing in French the "Davee, Davee Crockett" theme song.

90. Seguine - 10/18/1999 4:44:31 PM

Apropos of nothing: the proper pronunciation of "Bowie," when referring to Jim Bowie and Bowie knives, is "boo'-ee".

91. PelleNilsson - 10/18/1999 4:49:34 PM

Spence

Cleavages? You intrigue me.

I have a theory why the Socialist ideal didn't take but I have to save it for tomorrow. Bedtime coming up.

92. CalGal - 10/18/1999 4:50:26 PM

were major American parties better at coopting these themes than European parties, and if so, why? Further, does the ability of major parties to coopt the issues of insurgent parties vary with the underlying electoral institutions (e.g., plurality rule)?

Which leads right into: why is it that Americans don't stray from a two-party structure?

Jones, Wabbit--thank you. Jones, I hadn't seen your post when I went into my meeting, and we all spent far too much time trying to remember the man's name. Came back to my desk, saw your post, shouted "John Henry!!!" and everyone went "Yeah, that's it!!!"

And yes, I also realized during that meeting that it was Jim Bowie. But I knew how to pronounce it.

93. 109109 - 10/18/1999 4:53:18 PM

Also, as an aside, the Alamo has no basement.

Source: Pee Wee's Big Adventure..

94. glendajean - 10/18/1999 5:00:29 PM

It didn't have a back door, either.

source: Texas Commission on Myths and Legends

95. CalGal - 10/18/1999 5:41:05 PM

Which were the fundamentals that made the Socialists so much less appealing in the US than in Europe?

There was a discussion going on in Politics about the fact that we here in the U.S. just don't have a thriving left. This isn't new--I can't think of any time in our history that we've had anything approaching a strong "true left" tilt. Hell, the one time the Communists did try to infiltrate us, the reaction was so strong and hysterical that we spent a good decade recovering from it.

I think the simplest explanation is also the one that probably hits closest to the truth: we just don't trust our government all that much.

96. PelleNilsson - 10/18/1999 5:46:20 PM

CalGal

I'm not talking about "infiltrating" communist agents from the evil empire, but of home grown socialists like the Social Democratic parties in Europe.

97. CalGal - 10/18/1999 5:52:31 PM

Pelle,

No, no. I understand. That was just an aside to point out the strength of our rabid dislike for anything approaching the true left.

You asked why Socialism is so much less appealing here. It isn't Socialism per se. It is, rather, a dislike of any political ideology that forces reliance on the government rather than the individual.

I'm not stating this as a fact--it's just my best estimation of a reason, given that leftist political parties have never been successful in this country.

98. Angel-Five - 10/18/1999 5:57:24 PM

Well, I think a big American myth, and one that ties in very well with the near-religious reverence that is granted the Constitution, is the myth of united American patriotism, and the saintlike goodness of the Founding Fathers, during the revolution. Few people ever learn the truth about the American revolution, and indeed they get irate when you start talking about it. To many American patriots the Founding Fathers are the next best thing to Jesus and any criticism of them therefore is striking close to home.

We, in America, are taught a very comprehensive myth about the Revolution, usually incorporating most but not necessarily all of the following motifs:

The majority of Americans wanted freedom from Britain;

that the Boston Tea Party was a protest over taxation, and that the Boston Massacre was where a bunch of rude Brits fired into an innocent crowd of American patriots who were minding their own business at the time;

that a ragtag volunteer Continental army, despite their horrendous disadvantages, outfought and outfoxed the foolish British, and that any foreign help was a sort of afterthought;

that the thirteen colonies worked together as a country during the war;

indeed, that we won our freedom by unified force of arms and will;

that the Founding Fathers and the American Patriots were all benevolent, selfless folks who did what they did for the cause of liberty;

that the Founding Fathers had a unified vision of what our government should be like, and that it centered upon the highest moral principles of humankind's devising;

above all, that the Constitution was a well agreed upon document that expressed the will of these American Founding Fathers, some kind of American English tzaddiki.

99. Angel-Five - 10/18/1999 5:57:41 PM

The mythos that has sprung up around these Founding Fathers, who went from brave and dashing revolutionaries to elder statesmen, is IMO what lends the Constitution its aura in American politics. Arguments can be made as to exactly why Americans need to invest something like the Constitution as they have, and my guesses on that wouldn't be even as loosely defined as the above.

100. Thoughtful - 10/18/1999 6:01:46 PM

I think the fact that this country was/is populated with people who were oppressed in other lands, grew on a philosophy that defined and limited governmental powers against individuals, resulting in a rebellion against government oppression is a key element of American culture -- whatever it is. That thread can be seen throughout US history: from the Civil War to the 1960s Vietnam protests to Waco.

I think it's why Clinton had so much popular support as Starr was largely viewed as government overstepping its bounds. I think it drives criminal myths as well-- Billy the Kid, Bonnie & Clyde, Al Capone, etc. as they are viewed as individuals "fighting the system".

Religious groups align with that "suspicion of government power" in that they believe they answer to a higher authority...why X (his name won't come to me -- the abortion bomber who's been successfully hiding out in NC) has found so much support among the locals.

I think it also folds into myths about US international policy -- the belief that the US is the great liberator, spreading democratic values wherever it goes, stomping oppressive regimes, giving the US the right to interfere in other nations: to wit, Panama and the "evil" Noriega and Grenada, both of which led to huge bump ups in Presidential popularity polls.

101. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 6:04:01 PM

But undereducated darkness dwellers aren't the only people who avert their eyes when faced with the Constitution.

I know a lot of people who are both well educated and respectful of the Constitution, and it has largely to do with staying power -- it is arguably the oldest functioning institution of its kind in the world, and certainly one of the oldest.

102. Thoughtful - 10/18/1999 6:04:52 PM

I think this strong mistrust of the government is an important element as to why socialism never blossomed in the US, and why gun control is such an issue.

103. CalGal - 10/18/1999 6:06:45 PM

Thoughtful--yes, I agree with both your posts.

Angel--post #98 is simply not true about what has been taught in schools. Not since I was a kid, anyway.

104. Angel-Five - 10/18/1999 6:11:27 PM

CalGal: Whatever. I suppose people pick these things up reading comic books, then.

105. Thoughtful - 10/18/1999 6:11:51 PM

calgal I agree with you about Angel5's myths. Maybe in the 1st & 2nd grade, but certainly by high school we learn a much more balanced presentation of the facts.

In fact, suspicion of a powerful central government is what led to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. It is also why, until the end of the Civil War, people said the United States are not is as they still did not cede that much power to the federal government.

106. Angel-Five - 10/18/1999 6:13:20 PM

Oh, of course by the time you get to the critical thinking skills stage, and even a little beforehand, you get taught a different set of beliefs. But you still get that myth early on in American education, and it stick with people.

107. CalGal - 10/18/1999 6:32:31 PM

Thoughtful--well before highschool. I remember the first time I heard a balanced view of the Civil War was 8th grade or so.

Angel's list is more representative of how popular entertainment depicted events--and even that was outdated by the 30s or so.

108. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 6:35:38 PM

106

Are you saying the yoke of childhood beliefs can never be discarded? You obviously have discarded it; who else can?

Anyway, I didn't really get that version you describe in school. That was the version we all thought other kids got in their unenlightened schools. From the earliest formal treatments of the revolution (this is the mid '80s), conflicts among the framers of the Constitution were apparent, and their personal intersts noted. I wouldn't say these things were stressed above all else, but the elements were there.

109. CalGal - 10/18/1999 6:36:13 PM

Thoughtful,

You are absolutely right about gun control, btw. This is why I am always amused by those who expect the U.S. to be as easy-going on gun bans as most European countries--or as responsive. We are fundamentally different in our originating philosophy, and it doesn't do any good to ignore that. (And this is not an invitation to start up the endless battle, partisans.)

But anyway, Pelle, I think this is why Americans have never embraced any leftist political philosophy.

110. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 6:44:33 PM

I think American attitudes about the left are at most half the story. We did experiment with a version of the welfare state for some 3 or 4 decades. We have been more than happy to try out various degrees of state planning in the economy. Granted these efforts have been somewhat scaled down compared to the social democrat's theme park up in frozen Scandinavia -- and that may have something to do with a right shift in American politics -- but we tried them nevertheless.

The parties that advocated these measures in Europe never had a chance to get off the ground in the US, because the issues were coopted by Republicans and Democrats.

Further, if it was simply an issue of right shift, one would expect more enduring movements and third parties congealed around American concerns. We don't have that; those other issues too have historically been engulfed by the major parties in the US.

111. vonKreedon - 10/18/1999 6:45:09 PM

A5's version of what is taught about our founding fathers and the revolution very much coincides with my experience in school ('62-'73). By the time I was in HS there were specialty history/social studies classes that examined the early history of the US with a more critical approach, but, as A5 states, ones mythical view of the birth of the nation is already well set at that point. I cannot yet speak to what/how the subject is being taught now.

112. CalGal - 10/18/1999 7:06:51 PM

Spence,

Yes, we experiment with government "welfare" solutions--and unravel the majority of them in less than a generation. Hell, there are already several proposals on the table to privatize Social Security, and that was about as successful a government plan as we've ever had.

I'm not saying that Americans are libertarians. They demand government intervention and subsidization constantly. But we want the government as an assistant, not as the manager. And generally speaking, we want it for our industry.

Every subsidization of service to the individual--whether it be poverty assistance, education, retirement, or health insurance--is hotly contested and has never once come close to anything approaching European levels of individual protections, even during the Depression.

Socialism (to the limited extent that I understand it) involves government ownership of certain sectors and services. This is pretty much anathema to the U.S., and has been for most of its history, I believe. Anything that the government starts out owning is invariably privatized. I don't believe this is a recent phenomenon.

Mind you, I also don't think we'd go too far to the right, either. It's just that there aren't too many examples of successful fascist governments, so the subject doesn't come up as much.

BTW, my reasoning on this has nothing to do with current right/left political ideologies.

113. ranheim - 10/18/1999 7:12:17 PM

I might as well get into trouble.

One of my least favorite presidents is Lincoln. Until Lincoln, this contry was a republic. The government was small and a significant number of the powers-that-be wanted it kept that way. The tariff paid for the government. The states had considerable power; not the least because transportation to Washington D.C. was very time consuming; in some cases dangerous. There was no mandatory schooling.

After Lincoln, all that changed. We are now a democracy?! Yuck! I would guess that we will soon be the most socialistic nation of the G 7; if we are not there already. Everything -money and politics - revolves aroung Washington. Baton Rouge has a budget of $11 - 15 billion annually. NOTHING! You buy pencils with that amount of money.

A senior bureaucrat in Washington rules over a larger budget and has more authority than most governors. Rules and regulations have run amok in this country. A paper trail is nearly mandatory.

Obviously, I believe the country is on the verge of socialism. Only it will not be called that. ?a safety net? ?a security blanket? In any case, Washington will rob the rich and talented and lucky to pay for neer-do-wells.

Much like the bread and circuses of Rome. Only in the USA it is the welfare state and NFL.

114. CalGal - 10/18/1999 7:15:08 PM

Anything that the government starts out owning is invariably privatized.

Argggh. I meant to go back and rewrite this. Obviously, some governmental services are not privatized--but monopolies are continually challenged and debates on these services nearly always involve lessening the government control or even outright privatization.

Again, I don't think this is all that recent. Our political debates have always been centered far to the ideological right of Europe. (I am speaking of post-war Europe, if that isn't clear.)

115. dusty - 10/18/1999 8:19:45 PM

Angel-Five

I agree that the Boston-tea-party-as-a-protest-against-taxes myth rings a bell, but not another one of the items on the list.

Didn't you learn the story of Franklin ruminating on the meaning of the painting of the sun in the room where they wrote the Constitution? For all I know it is a myth too, but it is a myth that illustrates the intense difficulties of writing the Constitution.

116. ee - 10/18/1999 9:00:30 PM

A-5 list of myths is what I remember being taught 67-75.Not having attended school much past the 8th grade I never heard it any other way.

117. Seguine - 10/18/1999 9:28:59 PM

A5's list is correct for the conservative parts of this country. You people who think otherwise must have been educated in renaissance-like states of the Union; Texas, for one, was not among them, at least not during the 1960s and 70s. I daresay much or most of the South was not, either.

Can anyone here speak for the Midwest?

"...these American Founding Fathers, some kind of American English tzaddiki."

But unless he was referring to the delicious yogurt ("tzatziki") sauce that is sometimes drizzled over souvlaki or falafel, A5 probably meant tzadikim, plural of tzadik: a man who is holy by virtue of being selfless, learned, generous, observant--in short, a model human being whose existence is a blessing on humanity and whose behavior approaches saintliness.

In Texas, not only were the Founders tzadikim, the defenders of the Alamo were Maccabbees.

118. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 9:44:00 PM

Angel 5
I had no idea you were that much older than I. I thought at 67 iI was the aged one. In Reality, your posts to which ee ascribes to really reflect on American education, even through college. Do you suppose the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers are required reading in college? Since it was all written by dead white anglo types it wouldn't have much relevance today.

To those of you who think the far left has had little influence in America, I suggest you read the Communist Manifesto. Not the bad one the Birch Society puts out, but the good one that Valdimer Posner put out. I would post excerpts from it but pelle has forbidden me to do so. I obey the law. Of course, there really is no controlling legal authority.

119. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 10:17:05 PM

Cal,

I don't know whether I'm supposed to, but I don't see any disagreement between 112 and 110. In fact some of the points you make were ones I also made. And importantly, nobody knows, when things like Great Society are instituted, that they will be dismantled in a generation or two.

Seguine,

Yes, I grew up in the Midwest, smack between Gary, IN and Chicago. It wasn't exactly a liberal hotbed when it comes to thoughts on the founding.

120. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 10:18:58 PM

And naturally one can find common courses at any university in the US for which the Federalist Papers are required reading. But most places don't have a university-wide required reading list of any kind, with a few notable exceptions.

121. CalGal - 10/18/1999 10:32:55 PM

Spence,

I might have misunderstood your use of the term "right shift"--I thought you were implying that I was referring to a recent trend. I didn't think there was that much difference in our positions, no.

And importantly, nobody knows, when things like Great Society are instituted, that they will be dismantled in a generation or two.

Oh, agreed. I think the average American at various points in time has been comfortable with more governmental programs to support the individual than we are at this point in time. But just as I think we are currently about as far to the right as our pendulum swings, I think the Great Society is as far as we'll go the other way.

So sure, we'll experiment with state programs, or the Great Society, or whatever. But once the first flush of enthusiasm is over, they always have to fight for their existence.

All I was supposing was that the reason we don't go all that far left is because of our natural state, if you will, is to eye the government a tad suspiciously.

122. Aldavis - 10/18/1999 10:42:16 PM

"is to eye the government a tad
suspiciously." Marvelous use of understatement!

123. SpenceMirrlees - 10/18/1999 10:57:14 PM

Cal, no, I didn't mean "right shift" in that way. I meant shifted with respect to Europe (perhaps permanently so), not shifted with respect to previous generations of Americans (which may or may not have happened but doesn't matter for present purposes).

124. ProfEmeritus - 10/18/1999 11:01:24 PM

I have observed the swings in the US political bent for more than 60 years. The major characteristic to me is that Americans basically desire a centrist government between intervention and non-intervention. When one administration goes too far in one direction, there are always shifts, sometimes dramatic, in the other direction. Both of our present parties are capable of espousing what the underlying political view considers excessive intervention. This inevitably causes the pendulum to swing in the other direction. Some of these swings take a decade or more to work through to completion. Then the movement in the opposite direction begins.

125. CalGal - 10/18/1999 11:14:26 PM

Pelle,

I don't know if you've ever read The Age of Federalism; it's a very good overview of the early decades of the United States.

In addition to providing a history of specific events, the authors discuss other ideas or behaviors that are uniquely American and where they originated. As I was driving home, I connected two of them with the discussions in this thread--the failure of socialism as a political ideology in America, and our apparent lack of a cultural identity. As I am unclear at the best of times, I thought I'd just quote from the book.

Voluntary Associations

It has of course been pointed out that by means of voluntary associations in America a variety of religious, economic, fraternal, humanitarian, and political ends have been achieved, without coercion and under no official auspices of the state, to an extent unparalleled in any other national civilization. The device is one peculiarly characteristic of American society.
...
All this has been true for at least 150 years, and quite possibly for more. But what is less apparent is that there may have been a time when it was not true. There may have been an era in the American past when such associations did not generally exist, when they were not regarded as obvious or logical responses to public, private, or individual needs, when social values had little place for them, and when social habits may actually have discouraged and even resisted them.

pgs 451-52

126. CalGal - 10/18/1999 11:21:37 PM

American Culture and Washington D.C.

At the time of the republic's founding there was little room in the American imagination for the idea of a metropolis as the mirror of a national civilization. On the contrary, the anti-urban, anti-metropolitan component of the Revolutionary mentality would prove to be one of its most persistent and durable features..... One of the earliest decisions by the fathers of the new republic was made with the more or less clear purpose not to have that kind of metropolis in America.

Less clear would be the consequences for the nation's cultural identity, consequences that have remained problematical to the present day. The growth of cities in nineteenth century America would proceed without clear models in the American spirit for the pleasure and compensations of urban life; by the same token, a metropolitan capital as the matrix for the growth of a national society's self-knowledge was not available either. London or Paris did not, perhaps could not, serve as the model. But if they had, the result would have contained at least three lines of force, all intersecting in the same place: those of political authority, of commerce and money, and of art and intellect.
...
In early 19th century Americal, unlike the case in England and France, the foremost talents in politics and government, in the nation's economic life, and in the life of thought and artistic expression had no specific setting in place or time in which they could act upon each other (as a "complex soccial machinery") in quite this way [same way as Paris and London]. Each would thereupon function to most intents and purposes on a plane detached from the other two, and culture would make its terms and work out is forms without the example or authority of a metropolitan capital that was the acknowledged center of the nation's life.

pgs 168-9

127. MrSocko - 10/19/1999 12:06:57 AM

The answer to PE's question in msg #7 -- Who dubbed American constitutionalism "a civic religion"? -- is me, at least so far as The Fray/Mote goes. I took it from a book, whose author I now can't recall, not so much to describe American constitutionalism but rather American exceptionalism. In other words, the idea of America as shining city on a hill, light unto the nations, etc. This is a trait I ascribe to religion rather than philosophy, and it serves as one possible explanation for the roots of America's philosemitic policies when it comes to Israel.

WRT national mythologies, I've long agreed that America doesn't really have much to play with, but then again, I wonder if the simple explanation isn't age. A young country will necessarily have far less to draw on than an older one. Is this so surprising? And why are national mythologies so crucial anyway? They certainly don't add anything to my life.

128. SpenceMirrlees - 10/19/1999 12:21:26 AM

You read all this and decided America doesn't have national myths? Why not, because Tennyson never wrote about them?

129. cmboyce - 10/19/1999 2:02:48 AM

There's an important difference between myth and folklore. Folklore is essentially a collection of basic information (whether accurate or not), often in the form of simple entertainments, where myth is an effort, more or less artistic in character, to account for the imponderables, the mysteries, that seem to underlie all that information. Gilgamesh is mythic; Mike Finn is not. Within their very circumscribed world, such stories as those of Mike Finn and heroic accounts of D. Boone and whatever early accounts seem to have yielded the likes of Hercules, are structurally not unlike Gilgamesh and Genesis and what have you, but they don't concern themselves with all that. They are content with local schtick--the riverboat business, the migration into Kentucky, some local war's local hero. The "myths" of the American Revolution are of such stuff.

Perhaps the only real American myth is one that Cal (I think) alluded to above--believingly (I think)--that most of Americans came here to escape persecution and thus (extrapolating from the myth) have some sort of animus against government. Certainly some significant numbers of Americans arrived here in this manner and may have contributed to such an animus, but most immigrants came here, I would submit, chiefly for economic reasons. Horatio Alger is the folk element (suitably commercialized) that gives best expression to the American ethos deriving from that. (Much later than HA, folklore gives way to the media, a similar phenomenon with a different dynamic, I think.)

130. CalGal - 10/19/1999 2:19:22 AM

It was thoughtful that made the point about immigrants and persecution.

I think there is a real difference between immigrants who came to America before 1800 and after 1850 or so, isn't there? The immigrants who founded our country came here primarily to establish religious freedom. It was the descendants of these immigrants--who had also just finished fighting a war against a government they thought tyrannical--that created our constitution, with its considerable restraints on government.

At a certain point in the mid-19th century, America became the land of opportunity--and that's when the immigrant purpose changed as well.

But why was it the land of so much opportunity? Because it had much more freedom for those who would otherwise be trapped by their country's social and political structure. In other words, the aristocracy and the government were much of what they were escaping. I don't know what percentage of the immigrant population were prosperous and aristocratic Europeans, but I'm guessing it didn't hit double digits.

So the objective and purpose of the immigrants might have changed, but I don't see that they had any more reason to value or desire an intrusive government.

131. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 2:21:00 AM

These are vey interesting contributions. Yesterday I promised some ideas about why socialism never took on in the US. But first I'd like to correct Ranheim and AlDavis, who, I think, have fallen into a logical trap. Socialism leads to increased (or total) government intervention in business and social affairs. But the opposite is not true, ie. one cannot say that such interventions always spring from a socialist ideology. The term used is etatism and its leading exponents in post-war Europe was France and Spain, none of which had socialist governments until fairly late. And as I mentioned in an early post, the first state to introduce a social welfare system was Germany under Bismarck, who nobody in their right mind would call a socialist.

Socialism, both in its revolutionary and its evolutionary mode has a strong pie-in-the-sky element. "Solidarité, egalité, fraternité" -"together we work for a better future for the oppressed", and so on. Europe in the last half of the 19th century was a class society. Not that it was impossible to work one's way up. The keys were talent, of which there was plenty, but also higher education, which was in scarce supply and also expensive. The vast majority of the lower classes were locked into tilling the fields or long, dreary hours in the factories without seeing any signs of a better future for themselves or their children.

132. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 2:22:28 AM

If you want to know about the conditions in the lower strata in society I recommend Henry Mayhew's London Labour and The London Poor and Jack London's People of The Abyss (also about London).

Now my impression of America during this time (and it may also be a myth) is that with the huge influx of immmigrants there was a need to fill a great variety of jobs, and talent became more important than formal qualifications. In other words, the pie was not in the sky, but right there for those who had the ability to grab it. From here comes the very American model of "the self-made man" and the concept of the American Dream - with talent and hard work anyone can become anything.

And the conclusion: this mental attitude is not conducive to socialist patterns of thought.

133. SpenceMirrlees - 10/19/1999 2:24:09 AM

actually, the fact that the US was not so class-based may have something to do with the inability of socialism to take root.

134. SpenceMirrlees - 10/19/1999 2:30:14 AM

and now I see Pelle made exactly the same point in 132.

135. SpenceMirrlees - 10/19/1999 2:34:56 AM

Boyce, that's true, there is a difference -- myths contain folk tales and a little something extra. The part I have been talking about, and the part important for political development, is the folk tale part. The part about why we have 4 seasons, or why the sun travels as it does in the sky, is not so important as Noah's character or the feats of Hercules.

136. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 2:39:37 AM

CalGal

When I posted 131-2 I had not seen your 130. It seems that we are in agreement, even using the same word "trapped" to describe the immigrants situation in their home countries.

137. pseudoerasmus - 10/19/1999 2:56:24 AM

I take many exceptions to PelleNilsson's Will-and-Ariel-Durant version of European intellectual history, but I dwell only on two. (1) Bismarck's welfare state existed primarily in theory. For example, workers who were promised public pensions became eligible for them at an age well past their life expectancy. (2) There is little functional difference between socialism and étatisme.

138. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 3:27:26 AM

PE

Bismarck's welfare state existed primarily in theory. For example, workers who were promised public pensions became eligible for them at an age well past their life expectancy.

The cornerstones of Bismarck's social security system were

• The Sickness Insurance Law (1883).
  
• The Accident Insurance Law (1884).
  
• The Old Age and Disability Law (1889).

139. ranheim - 10/19/1999 9:00:55 AM

In the butterscotch bar to our right, Pelle has listed the Declaration of Independance.

The left in america quote the Declaration more frequently than the constitution. They especially love the part "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal," . . . Usually, nothing else from the Declaration is quoted. I agree, all men are created equal - that is when one approaches St. Peter at the pearly gates. Here on earth, equality is a sham.

For me, the Declaration was the Founders begging continental Europe for help in the struggle against England. i.e. war propaganda. The Founders were not speaking to the USA; they were speaking to the rulers of Europe and they succeeded in convincing France to aid them.

140. ranheim - 10/19/1999 9:02:31 AM

#131 Pelle

I am dense this morning! I don't know what you mean by this post.

(Please note that I wrote dense - not hungover!)

141. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 9:14:34 AM

Ranheim

I guess you refer to where I refer to you and Al. The point I tried to make is that while you equate state intervention with socialism, this is not necessarily true, and I quoted post-war (right-wing) France and Spain as examples of that.

142. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 9:16:42 AM

Checking out now. Back in three hours or so.

143. cmboyce - 10/19/1999 11:29:14 AM

Cal and Spence: I'm sure we have lots of common ground here, but I do think the "myth" overestimates protest against and/or escape from tyrannical government in the make-up of the "American character" (supposing such a thing exists).

The Revolution, and the making of the government, had two centers, Massachusetts and Virginia, and Virginia was quite frankly (their frankness) a venue for aristocratic commercial endeavor. Massachusetts provides the only salient example of religious persecution as trigger to the colonizing impulse (Pennsylvania and Maryland, too, arguably, but Penn family commercial interest dominated and most Pennsylvanians were other than Quaker very early; and Maryland, though Catholic in some sense, quickly became an outlier of Virginian Anglicanism and was in any case largely uninvolved in the development of political and cultural attitudes, at least outside Baltimore, which was purely and simply a commercial establishment).

Connecticut, New Hampshire (and, post-rev., Vermont and Maine) grew from Massachusetts, but except for the earliest Connecticut settlers were not, I think, dominantly Puritan in theory or practice and, like the rest of the country beyond the cities, their citizens were largely farming pioneers, subsistence farmers who intended, once well settled, to produce for the markets and not simply for subsistence.

In the south, Maryland, as I've said, and the Carolinas and Georgia, followed Virginia, insofar as their involvement in building the nation is concerned.

[more]

144. cmboyce - 10/19/1999 11:29:44 AM

Even before the revolution, Georgia (including what is now Alabama and Mississippi), like Kentucky, was being "colonized" by Virginians, and the bulk of the political establishment in these territories was Virginian. And they valued government.

New York has always been what it is today.

My point is simply that while self-reliance and such-like characteristics of people willing to engage in pioneering exploits must certainly have been present in many or most early American colonists, this doesn't imply any sort of negative attitude toward government. By Revolutionary times, the dominant impulse among the elites who made the Revolution, and the Federal government, was commercial. The rest were farmers, probably uninterested in non-local government as long as not interfered with by it. (And perhaps I should add that I do not regard either commercialism or apolitical disinterest as at all disreputable.)

The political country was thus not created by self-sufficient pioneer types or faith-imbued rebels, but by merchants and bankers and lawyers. This notion certainly seems to provide more suggestions about how we are now approaching plutocracy (a first step to kleptocracy?) than do the mythic Puritans and pioneers.

145. cmboyce - 10/19/1999 11:44:09 AM

An addendum to my last: That some of the "apolitically disinterested" farmers (an overstatement, I must concede) interested themselves to the extent of armed revolt (the Whisky Rebellion, eg), does not really gainsay my basic point. They were defeated, and defeated by the commercial interests who ran, and have ever since run, the country.

It is this commercial core that, I believe, constitutes the most salient characteristic of the United States. Later immigrant sensibilities have generally directed themselves to assimilation with it. An obvious outgrowth of English developments, it proceeded here without the weight of Old World aristocracy, and with the astounding energy provided by an entire exploitable continent.

146. Thoughtful - 10/19/1999 12:33:31 PM

Calgal, my high school started with grade 9 -- so not far off of your grade 8 for the more balanced approach to Amer. history.

147. Thoughtful - 10/19/1999 12:45:11 PM

cmboyce, It was I who brought up about the people coming here to escape oppression. If you think there were no government/political factors in the "Irish Potato Famine" then you are wrong.

Your posts imply that commercial oppression was excluded from my post. It was not. Commercial oppression or depriving people of the means to make money is as much a part of government oppression as is taxation of that money once they've made it. The agrarian economy in the colonies you referred to was a result of the fact that England made it "illegal" for colonialists to manufacture their own products. Instead they were required to ship raw materials back to England for manufacture, and then pay high prices and taxes for too few and much delayed goods.

Most revolutions are economic in nature -- except for the religious/ethnic fanatic ones -- and even many of them have a strong economic aspect.

148. Raskolnikov - 10/19/1999 1:14:12 PM

Maybe its an age thing. In elementary school in a small midwestern town in the seventies, I do recall being taught a sanitized version of the first Thanksgiving, and I remember reading "the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere". But elementary school teachers aren't usually well versed in history.

In Junior High and High School, myth didn't enter into it. My history teachers (one of whom was my father) consistently demythologized American history. I think that the first time I ever heard the "cherry tree" legend was in being told it was false.

149. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 1:20:30 PM

spudboy

In your #1517 in Current Events you said.

I happen to have done substantial research on this little corner of American history [the America First Committee, my remark], as well as its antecedents and decedents. And Buchanan really fits right into their tradition: isolationist, nationalist, selectively populist and conspiracist (which usually takes on an anti-Semitic character).

In this thread we are currently examining what we may call the political make-up of America in the wake of the huge immigration in the second half of the 19th century.

Could you please summarise your findings about the antecedents of America First. Is it possible that some of its roots lie in immigrants wishing to turn their backs on a Europe which had treated them harshly?

150. Raskolnikov - 10/19/1999 1:30:14 PM

"There's an important difference between myth and folklore. Folklore is essentially a collection of basic information (whether accurate or not), often in the form of simple entertainments, where myth is an effort, more or less artistic in character, to account for the imponderables, the mysteries, that seem to underlie all that information."

This misses an awful lot of mythic stories, ranging from King Arthur to all of the various tales about Greek women who boinked a beastial Zeus. The tale of John Henry, as an example, has a hell of a lot more emotional heft than the story of Jason and the Argonauts (except maybe for the parts involving Medea).

151. Raskolnikov - 10/19/1999 1:31:20 PM

I've always considered Buchanan the heir to the Know-Nothing Party, despite the fact that he is a Catholic.

152. Thoughtful - 10/19/1999 1:32:11 PM

Also, I don't know if this is the right answer, but it may be part of the answer, as to why socialism never "made it" here...the rise of the middle class. Others more versed in this stuff than I may be able to shed light on whether there is a strong correlation between income disparity and acceptance of socialism or not.

153. Uzmakk - 10/19/1999 1:59:33 PM

#127 "America's civic religion" was also used by the NY editor of the Economist last July in a piece in TNR, "Stop the Celebration". I have a lengthy criticism of that piece which I never polished up.

155. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 3:00:22 PM

Post #154 has been moved to Current Events #1531.

156. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 3:12:53 PM

Aldavis

I missed a post by you. Sorry. For a man your age you are too sensitive. You are welcome to quote the Communist Manifesto to your heart's delight as long as it is within the theme of this thread. But I don't want current politics here, which is why I moved Niner's post.

You find the manifesto in the links to the right. It is published by the Australian National University, Canberra.

157. JJBiener - 10/19/1999 3:51:57 PM

Thoughtful - The popular acceptance of socialism depends on the majority believing that they will be the beneficiaries of redistribution. Once a significant middle class develops, it is no longer clear whether they will be net payors or net payees. It is also harder for them to accept the rhetoric that they are victims of capitalism when they have been reasonably successful under that system. They begin to fear that the radical change will hurt their position and they are not willing to take that risk.

158. cmboyce - 10/19/1999 4:02:37 PM

"This misses an awful lot of mythic stories, ranging from King Arthur to all of the
various tales about Greek women who boinked a beastial Zeus. The tale of John Henry,
as an example, has a hell of a lot more emotional heft than the story of Jason and the
Argonauts (except maybe for the parts involving Medea)."

Well, yes, it does miss a lot of stories, as I only wanted to cite some representative figures, somewhere near the poles, and there's plenty of overlap, in many tales. And of course, the existence of some informs the development of others (eg, I don't think it's too far-fetched to suppose that the tales of Hercules' labors might have influenced that of John Henry). But the tale of the Argonauts (which I think I'd probably class with John Henry et al rather than with Zeus' amours) doubtless had lots of emotional heft for those who knew them as folklore/myth (allowing for that overlap), rather than as "readings" from a lost and (it may forgivably be thought) irrelevant world.

159. Thoughtful - 10/19/1999 4:18:43 PM

jj, yes, that would be the logic, but I was wondering if it was supported by the data.

160. Thoughtful - 10/19/1999 4:20:30 PM

Actually, jj, it would be more than that, because some can argue that a middle class won't arise without a significant degree of capitalism, suggesting that the acceptance of socialism may be a function of what preceded it. But all of this is absurd without some evidence.

161. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 4:21:59 PM

When one surveys the spectrum of political ideas, one finds fault lines that are not really political, but philosophical. One such is the view of the nature of man. Consider the following statement.

Citizens are on the whole sensible and rational persons. If left to themselves, free from the intrusive machinations of government, they will live in harmony and prosperity and will deal with any problems through voluntary efforts.

It is easy to construct a contrarian view, but I will not take up the space.

If we continue to consider the American tradition, what are your views of the above? Is it an issue now? How does it connect backwards in time?

162. cmboyce - 10/19/1999 4:24:53 PM

Thoughtful, I have no dispute with your #147. Politics is of course not separable from economics, and those who fled the Famine for the US present a very striking instance of economic and political motives mingling. I was refering, however, to an earlier period and especially intent on countering the idea that the collective mindset of the country as it developed its political thinking in hte late 18th century was deeply involved in the idea of resistance to political and religious oppression. I don't say it wasn't there, but I believe that the major attraction of the Colonies, from Whitehall (or whatever sobriquet would have applied then) to the meanest indentured laborer, was economic. "Economic" encompasses, here, twin potentials: to prosper financially as farmers on cheap or free land, and/or to prosper in business, as merchant or financier (though I guess the latter needn't have come over, I believe some did). I think that the commercial mindset-ethos-zeitgeist exercized a more powerful influence on the ways those early generations considered civil life than did that of either the Pilgrim refugee or the stalwart, independent yeoman farmer.

163. Raskolnikov - 10/19/1999 4:39:17 PM

By the way, since this thread has featured a lot of questions about history, I figured this is as good a place as any to post this...

Encyclopaedia Britannica Online

Encyclopaedia Britannica Online
By DAVE CARPENTER=
AP Business Writer=
CHICAGO (AP) _ Encyclopaedia Britannica,
the longtime leader in
information that has lost its way in the Internet
era, is giving
away its knowledge for free in a desperate bid to
stay afloat.
As of today, the publisher's 32-volume set
is available to
anyone who surfs the Web.
The only catch: You have to wade through
advertisements _
Britannica's source of revenue for the risky move _
to get your
information.
The entire Britannica _ from a-ak (an
ancient East Asian music)
to Zoroastrianism (a Persian religion) _ can be found
at the
Chicago company's retooled site, www.britannica.com.
Hoping to emulate the success of Amazon,
Yahoo and others, the
site also offers current information from newspapers,
news agencies
and 70 magazines as well as community services such
as e-mail,
weather forecasts and financial market reports.
The head of the new company, split off by
the publishing company
to house its digital properties, Britannica.com Inc.,
tried to put
the best spin on the venture, calling this ``a
momentous day for
knowledge seekers everywhere.''
``Purchasing the Encyclopaedia Britannica
was once a major
milestone in a family's life, but today we are
fulfilling our
promise to make it more accessible to more people
worldwide,'' said
Don Yannias, the new company's chief executive
officer.

164. Raskolnikov - 10/19/1999 4:40:50 PM

But giving up its prime asset for free _
bound volumes still go
for about $1,250 a set _ shows the straits into which
the
231-year-old company has fallen.
Encyclopaedia Britannica had revenue of
$650 million and a sales
force of 2,300 at its peak in 1989. Revenue estimates
are no longer
available from the privately held company, where the
work force is
thought to number about 350.


The company lost ground badly when
Microsoft Corp., after being
spurned by Britannica, teamed with discount-market
encyclopedia
publisher Funk & Wagnalls to produce a colorful,
multimedia
encyclopedia on CD-ROM in 1993. Britannica's own
CD-ROM version,
released a year later, was low on graphics and did
not fare well.
It also became the first encyclopedia
available on the Web in
1994, but the reception was muted by the $85-a-year
subscription
fee.
House calls by salesmen, once a company
trademark, were dropped
in 1996."



For what its worth, I can't get into the site, but I hope to God that Britannica succeeds at this. Having the information available for free would be a godsend to sites like this.

165. JRoth - 10/19/1999 4:49:29 PM

If the current issue on this thread is to distinguish among the motives of immigrants to America in the last century, I would venture that the mix depends quite a bit on the ethnicity one examines. Certainly the great Jewish immigration from the Russian Empire (Ostjuden) was a direct result of the progoms. The earlier immigration of German Jews (Deutschjuden) was primarily for economic motives though anti-semitism played some part.

166. Thoughtful - 10/19/1999 4:51:42 PM

cmboyce, I'm not disagreeing that economic freedom is an important element, but clearly it wasn't the only element. (In fact, the establishment of commerce rules and regs came later under the Supreme Court interpretations of the commerce clause.) One need only read the Bill of Rights to see the genuine paranoia of central government powers including religion, bearing arms, a free press, search and seizure of personal property, speedy trials, cruel punishments, and abrogation of states rights. These reach far beyond just monetary considerations. It is this suspicion, I think, that fostered the "free spirit" or however you want to describe it of the "American culture" whatever that is: that Americans have the right to define and limit the role of their government as they see fit, rather than the government defining and limiting the actions of its citizens. I'm reminded here of Singapore with its commercial success, but strict codes of personal conduct including gum chewing and toilet flushing.

167. JRoth - 10/19/1999 4:56:03 PM

Pelle,

The last time I encountered serious discussion of the 'night watchman' state was in a series of debates between Robert Nozick and John Rawls. It is very unclear to me that such a minimalist state was ever an American reality. My reading of this history is that economic groups and individuals have always favored having a central authority to grant or legitimise economic advantages such as land ownership, transportation rights of way, etc. We Americans seem to wish the disappearance of government functions which hinder us, but simultaneously advocate those functions which can improve or consolidate our own position.

168. pseudoerasmus - 10/19/1999 5:02:15 PM

JRoth: Of the two books on American history I have read, I highly recommend The Great Challenge: The Myth of Laissez-Faire in the Early Republic by Frank Bourgin.

169. CalGal - 10/19/1999 5:09:31 PM

If left to themselves, free from the intrusive machinations of government, they will live in harmony and prosperity and will deal with any problems through voluntary efforts.

This is nonsense, quite frankly.

170. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 5:09:43 PM

Raskolnikov

That information could have been presented in two lines rather than two posts. But thank you anyway. I could also not get in but the site exists and is referenced from other sites. I will put it up in Links. I also found another good general knowledge site, Langenberg, with links to Britannica, Enacarta, the US Dept. of Education and a couple of biography sites. I'll put that one up too in a moment.

171. JRoth - 10/19/1999 5:11:16 PM

Pelle,

The last time I encountered serious discussion of the 'night watchman' state was in a series of debates between Robert Nozick and John Rawls. It is very unclear to me that such a minimalist state was ever an American reality. My reading of this history is that economic groups and individuals have always favored having a central authority to grant or legitimise economic advantages such as land ownership, transportation rights of way, etc. We Americans seem to wish the disappearance of government functions which hinder us, but simultaneously advocate those functions which can improve or consolidate our own position.

172. JRoth - 10/19/1999 5:15:11 PM

Sorry all for the repost, I was trying to gain access to the Britannica site.

PE,

From the title you quoted I believe I would agree with the author.

173. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 5:21:16 PM

CalGal

The question is not if it is nonsense or otherwise. The question is whether such sentiments, or milder versions of them, have had an influence on the political debate.

I repeat that the purpose of this thread is not to opine about political ideas but to dissect them and discuss their origins and their possible applicability today.

174. PelleNilsson - 10/19/1999 5:23:13 PM

Delete "possible applicability today" and substitute "influence on today's debate"

175. JRoth - 10/19/1999 6:06:34 PM

Pelle,

Apologies if my comments were not on task. Apropos of your last post, I would say that a vulgar form of the laissez-faire ideal survives as a national myth, most notoriously in the rantings of the militia right. Ronald Reagan used the myth of self-sufficiency as window dressing for the 'supply-side' economics and it had a certain resonance. Nearly twenty years later many of the voting blocs which supported Reagan are more sophisticated, if not cynical. Practically everyone now understands that manipulation of the political process results in favored economic treatment, ignoring the economic distortions and inefficiencies which result.

Perhaps I am late to the thread but I am surprised no one has mentioned the early conflict between the Jeffersonians and the Federalists. That we are now much more Federalist is certainly not an unmixed blessing. But even the Jeffersonian republicans did not envision a minimal state; simply one of restricted franchise for a particular class.

176. CalGal - 10/19/1999 6:12:56 PM

The question is whether such sentiments, or milder versions of them, have had an influence on the political debate.

I have no idea who wrote the statement you quoted.

The two most influential forces in the founding of our government were probably Hamilton and Jefferson (the latter as implemented by Madison).

Jefferson was not nearly as profound a thinker as most people credit him. He often went on and on about the good character of the people, their sense, their trustworthiness when left alone without a tyrannical despot. If the people weren't of good character, then they could be educated into it. What is interesting is that, while this is all patent nonsense, it led him to what I consider his fundamental contribution to our political philosophy: the notion, unusual at the time, that one of the primary purposes of a government is to leave the people alone, that they can be trusted with self-governance.

However, very little of Jefferson's actual agenda was ever effected. Thank heavens. While Jefferson talked much about the calm and rational good sense of the people, his ideas for government were little more than flights of fancy--the man had less contact with reality than most.

The basic architect of our government was Hamilton, who won nearly every major battle and influenced the future of our country more than any other single individual. Hamilton believed very strongly that the key to successful government was constructing a system that worked best when everyone acted in their own self-interest. Not for him this silliness of relying on citizens to act sensibly. No, the trick was to count on selfishness--and make it work for you.

177. CalGal - 10/19/1999 6:17:14 PM

It is for this reason that Hamilton fought for--and generally won--a strong national government, rather than the loose republic that Jefferson envisioned.

It is a common misperception of those in this country who want to eliminate or further reduce government to use Jefferson's writings as support for their beliefs; after all, shouldn't we return to our roots?

But we live--and have pretty much always lived--in a Hamiltonian country.

So. Given your question about those sentiments--yes, they have had an influence on the political debate. But the debate always goes on within the foundation, which was built by someone who knew better.

That being said, it's important to know that everyone who follows the early history of our country is either a Hamiltonian or a Jeffersonian. I'm the former, and you can probably expect four or five indignant and contradictory posts in the next four or five hours as the Jeffersonians chime in.

178. CalGal - 10/19/1999 6:20:15 PM

And I just read JRoth's post. Apart from noting the coincidence, I'd point out that anyone who says "Jefferson vs. The Federalists" must be a Jeffersonian. Heavens. Such a characterization.

179. JJBiener - 10/19/1999 6:22:19 PM

CalGal - As much as I admire Jefferson, Hamilton's approach is far more realistic. People can always be counted on to act in their own interests. The question then becomes: is that self-interest rational or irrational. When brought into the present it is one of the fundamental questions which divide the politcal spectrum.

180. SpenceMirrlees - 10/19/1999 6:22:50 PM

Hamilton believed very strongly that the key to successful government was constructing a system that worked best when everyone acted in their own self-interest.

A profound idea that, of course, neither began nor ended with Hamilton. Consider this from David Hume, in On the Independency of Parliament:

Political writers have established it as a maxim, that, in contriving any system of government, and fixing the several checks and controls of the constitution, every man ought to be supposed...to have no other end, in all his actions, than private interest. By this interest we must govern him, and, by means of it, make him, notwithstanding his insatiable avarice and action, cooperate to public good...At the same time, it appears somewhat strange, that a maxim
should be true in politics which is false in fact.

The most famous manifestation of this idea is the invisible of economics; Adam Smith is of course the most famous exponent, but the idea was known long before by such minor thinkers as Bernard Mandeville (The Fable of the Bees). Political thinkers as early as Thomas Hobbes recognized and mentioned the importance of taking people as given and getting the incentives right -- of "greed proof" institutions.

The theme is alive today, albeit in somewhat modified and technically hyperactive form, in the branch of game theory known as mechanism design theory. Taking a standard of behavior as given, how can we design instiutions that lead individuals to produce outcomes that are in some sense desirable?

181. CalGal - 10/19/1999 6:26:18 PM

Spence,

You know, my post was long enough as it is, so I cut out the paragraph on the source of Hamilton's philosophy--first on the list being David Hume's ideas on both government and economics. No, these ideas weren't original to Hamilton and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. What made Hamilton unique was his construction of a government that implemented this philosophy.

182. SpenceMirrlees - 10/19/1999 6:27:20 PM

No, the question here is not whether self interest is rational or irrational. If that's the way things are, the rationality of it is completely irrelevant. Might as well accept it and move on.

I don't even know how one would answer the question of whether a particular interest is "rational." It's simply the Furby question, writ large. Can a particular preference be said to be irrational? Once again, de gustibus non est disputandum.

183. DaveM - 10/19/1999 6:28:29 PM

CalGal -

I think your dismissal of Jefferson is perhaps a bit harsh. He is, at least, the intellectual forefather of the resurgent civic republicans.

His political philosophy was based on the moderating effect of land and private property - when people have a stake in society, they attempt to preserve stability. A book called The Stakeholder Society, by Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott, has used Jefferson to argue for the creation of an $80,000 "stake" that would be distributed to each citizen on their 21st birthday. While Ackerman isn't realy a civic republican, Cass Sunstein and a few others are out there.

Jefferson was so optimistic about the potential for limited government because of his perception that the American continent was limitless - each citizen could effectively be entitled to a farm by birthright.

184. CalGal - 10/19/1999 6:28:53 PM

Spence,

No, the question here is not whether self interest is rational or irrational.

I agree. Were you responding to me? I'm trying to figure out where I said otherwise.

185. SpenceMirrlees - 10/19/1999 6:29:25 PM

ha. Cal, I never thought for a moment that the impact of Hume and other predecessors escaped you -- just happened to have read that quote recently and thought I'd toss it in.

186. SpenceMirrlees - 10/19/1999 6:30:01 PM

184

Nope, that was to 179

187. cmboyce - 10/19/1999 6:30:18 PM

Thoughtful, the Bill of Rights is certainly a strong point for your position, and I concede I hadn't taken it into consideration at all, so busy was I contemplating the earnest receivers of coins over counters. I should (& shall) rethink my idea that because "the business of America [was] business", even then (which I think is a proper assertion; until this century, America has been driven by small businesses), translates into an (even relative) de-emphasis on the mistrust of government. I'm picking a nit to some degree, anyway, because I realize that it was a question of mingled concerns, but I think I may have leant to hard on that counter.

188. SpenceMirrlees - 10/19/1999 6:31:54 PM

180

"most famous is...the invisible HAND of economics..."

189. cmboyce - 10/19/1999 6:32:08 PM

Delete "because". Gotta check for dust, Boyce!

190. CalGal - 10/19/1999 6:35:49 PM

Dave,

Answering your post on Jefferson would just derail this thread. I sputtered indignantly three times. (g)

So we can move this to another thread if you have any response to this: I think his "let's give everyone a farm" notion was one of his most ridiculous flights of fancy and Hamilton's realization that manufacturing was the key to our economic success is proof, again, of the man's genius. He was about 10 years too early for that idea, but the first successful manufacturing enterprise in this country used his blueprint.

191. CalGal - 10/19/1999 6:36:25 PM

Toys.

192. SpenceMirrlees - 10/19/1999 6:54:10 PM

Consistent with the political economy theme, you could take it to Economics & Political Economy if you were both so inclined. That thread would not be derailed, as its host is not so delicate and dainty as PelleNilsson.

193. ranheim - 10/19/1999 7:49:06 PM

I don't like or trust politicians. That is why I favor Jefferson and a minamalist government. It will never be and I realize that.

I have been self-employed for much of my post-student life. With my income, I cannot approach business (big or little) in campaign contributions. Therefore, I am always in the 'loyal opposition'.

Compounding that problem is that the USA has, basically, never had a party of labor. I know about the Socialists and some of the other fringe parties of the past! The fact is that there is very, very little difference between the current Republicans and Democrats; both parties of business. They must demonize one and other because to seperate them politically is akin to splitting a hair.

Going back to Pelle's question of how did this come about? I'll make a stab : The business of America is business - or something close to that - Calvin Coolidge.

There was a huge political fight over the New Deal. Less of a fight over the Great Society (except in the streets). Now, no one pays much attention to the continual increase in control emanating from Washington. What may be more harmful to individual freedom over the long haul are Executive Orders. There are 13,139 of them! I doubt that many - if any - of us know the contents of even a half dozen of them. And they carry the weight of law. The lawyers among us will correct me should I be wrong.

Between bureaucrats and Executive Orders we are all captives of Washington.

194. Raskolnikov - 10/20/1999 12:24:19 AM

I think if Cal Gal is giving short shrift to anyone, it is Madison.

195. CalGal - 10/20/1999 12:36:32 AM

No, I just didn't want to get into an argument about Jefferson's impact in this thread. I've said in many other discussions on this subject that the limited impact that Jefferson's ideas had wouldn't have even made it that far without Madison's translation and implementation--and Madison, of course, was a great innovator himself. Madison is the true counterpart to Hamilton. (Or, if you wish to be snide, it took a Madison and a little bit of Jefferson to equal one Hamilton.)

But I thought if I presented it that way, there would have been too many corrections--and Pelle didn't want this thread to focus on the specifics of American history. I think it's fair to say that the Jeffersonian/Hamiltonian split is the usual method of presenting the divide.

196. CalGal - 10/20/1999 1:09:49 AM

What's interesting is that Madison is generally considered the compromiser, and yet on issues that were important to him he was incredibly stubborn and immovable. I wonder if he got that reputation because of his role as Jefferson's architect. He may have been more willing to give and take when it was Jefferson's priorities, rather than his own.

197. PelleNilsson - 10/20/1999 1:16:00 AM

CalGal

I have no idea who wrote the statement you quoted.

No wonder. It's TM PelleNilsson.

198. PelleNilsson - 10/20/1999 2:32:58 AM

I have read all this with great interest and I'm glad to have learned about the Hamiltonian-Jeffersonian divide. If I understand things correctly the central paradigm is that people act in self-interest, which is generally a good thing, but there needs to be a framework to ensure that greed and avarice do not get the upper hand. Therefore, a government is needed.

It seems to me then, that there is a divide between a passive government and an active government, in that the latter would tinker with the incentive schemes in order to achive certain ideological goals such as greater economic equality, promotion of minorities and so on. Am I right in this?

It is interesting to note how conservative and liberal views of, and relations to the state have changed over the years. In the Swedish Parliament session of 1840-41 there was a great debate about what to do with a budget surplus that had emerged after many years of peace and paying off war debts. The liberals wanted to reduce taxes, alternatively to distribute the money to local government to be used for minor public works such as road improvements. The conservatives (who won the day) wanted to keep the money centrally and spend them on large projects, such as canals (the source of my interest in the matter).

If left to themselves, free from the intrusive machinations of government, they will live in harmony and prosperity and will deal with any problems through voluntary efforts.

When I wrote that I had two ideologies in mind: libertarianism and anarchism. It is interesting how the extremes sometimes touch. Another example of that is fascism and communism.

199. cmboyce - 10/20/1999 2:48:24 AM

I take it the Conservative position, for the canals, is being considered the passive one? I think both are active, but in different ways. The pro-canal crowd is active in the interests of capital. Or "business". The benefits accrued by the businessmen--chiefly, in the case of the canals, more business & thus more money--may or may not "trickle down". The country at large may or may not benefit. But in either case this is active government. I think that consevatives (not necessarily those of 1840, of course, of whom I know nothing you didn't just tell me) are in the habit of rationalizing their profit-taking from active government by insisting that if the profits can be in any way disguised as civic in character (or hidden), then their government is passive.

I don't quite see how there can be a "passive" government, any more than you can have a passive Post Office. Things must be done. And anyone willing to take the trouble to run a country, or even a smaller polity, is going to have an agenda. Maybe social work, maybe money. Maybe something else. But activity is rarely if ever completely disinterested, this side of catatonia.

This said, I gotta go to bed; it's almost three. I need a catatonia fix.

200. CalGal - 10/20/1999 3:44:04 AM

It seems to me then, that there is a divide between a passive government and an active government, in that the latter would tinker with the incentive schemes in order to achive certain ideological goals such as greater economic equality, promotion of minorities and so on.

I think the difference is between the word strong and active Hamilton was a believer in a strong government, but would have been aghast at any such notion of tinkering. He didn't believe in an activist government. (To my mind, at any rate.)

Jefferson proposed many such schemes that would only be possible with an activist government. As DaveM mentioned, he wanted to give everyone 50 acres of land and let them all be farmers. Except those who already had more than 50 acres. Manufacturing and banking were basically evil notions, in his mind, and Hamilton's ideas to structure the nation's finances in such a way to encourage these activities were little more than the spawn of the devil.

In short, Jefferson was an avid proponent of an activist government. How does one rectify this with his writings? Well, if you're a Hamiltonian, it's simple: Jefferson was utterly incapable of thinking things through, and he was more than a tad hypocritical. You'll have to check with a Jeffersonian to see how they resolve this cognitive dissonance.

cont'd.

201. CalGal - 10/20/1999 4:30:41 AM

But Jefferson's inconsistency on this issue is far more representative of the average American mindset than Hamilton's much clearer vision of a strong government that largely avoids activism.

On the other hand, who is to say that the inconsistency isn't part of our success? It certainly allows us to respond well to immediate needs--as soon as enough of us think that an activist government is a good thing, we put it in place. At the same time, our essential dislike of government intervention nearly assures the possibility that any such policies will be reviewed in the near future.

So I think the strength of our government is in its architecture, which is independent of its activism or lack thereof. That's Hamilton's legacy. Jefferson, with his inconsistent vision and brilliant description of it, left us the pendulum swings between activism and laissez faire.

That is undoubtedly an oversimplification, btw, but it's an interesting theory. Besides, it's late.

202. ranheim - 10/20/1999 8:38:49 AM

Cal

Back in the dark ages when I was a history student (a very bad one) we were told that Jefferson favored "Arcadia". If he did not coin this name, he made it popular. As has been mentioned previously, Jefferson would have all of us as gentlemen farmers. There would be no cities; he looked at (in the 1780s) London; Paris; etc, and believed that cities were evil. (As an aside, I'm not too sure he was wrong - but, I have been a small town boy {2000 or less} all of my life).

I don't see how you can say that Hamiliton was not an activist. He, I think obviously, did everything he could to foster banking and industry. And he believed that was a proper role for a central government to play. He also did everything he could to make the federal capital strong at the expense of the state capitals.

As someone in favor of minimalist government, I take the Jeffersonian side. But, as I've mentioned previously, that 'war' was fought long ago and the money of the bankers and industrialists overwhelmed the farmers. It is far too late to overrule that verdict -unfortunately.

203. CalGal - 10/21/1999 11:59:18 AM

Ranheim,

In the case of Jefferson, you are confusing "minimalist" and "non-activist", just as Pelle earlier assumed that "strong" and "activist" were the same thing.

You seem unaware of the fact that Jefferson's plan to make us all gentlemen farmers is extremely coercive and hardly minimalist. And I don't see how you think that farmers "lost". Last I checked, we produce a hell of a lot of food in this country. If you mean, instead, that the individual farmer lost out to big money farming, you may be right. But in that case, I'm surprised you support Jefferson, given that he was nothing more than "big money" farming. (You surely don't think that Jefferson had any intention of living on a paltry 50 acres, do you?)

204. CalGal - 10/21/1999 12:08:07 PM

Hamilton was not an activist. He had a very clear vision of what the country ought to be. But he had no intention of telling people what they ought to do. He wanted a prosperous country, which meant defining an economy and a government that didn't limit banking and industry.

But remember, one of the first real arguments over setting up the Treasury was whether or not to pay back the Continental securities using discrimination--discount the payment to anyone who wasn't an original holder. Jefferson (and Madison) thought that speculators, who had purchased the securities from soldiers, ought not to be rewarded for their investment. Only soldiers and their families should get the original amount. Hamilton opposed discrimination.

Now you (and others) probably see that as Hamilton favoring the banker and Jefferson favoring the soldier. But in fact, Hamilton favored the plan that made no distinctions. Jefferson wanted the government to break its stated word to favor one group over another. Which is the activist, again?

Hamilton didn't support policies that favored any one industry at the expense of others. He realized that a sound financial system, set up on the British model, would encourage the growth of banking.

Hamilton also believed strongly that a mixed economy would be stronger than a purely agricultural one--something that we take as a given these days, but wasn't something that most of the country's leaders (farmers all) wanted to hear.

Given that startup costs were high (and still are), Hamilton realized that the government needed to do more than provide freedom to build a manufacturing sector--it needed to provide active encouragement. He had no desire to control the economy; he just wanted to temporarily provide stimulus to incent communities to take greater risks.

To put it in perspective--would Hamilton have supported protective tariffs, or would he have been a free trader?

205. SpenceMirrlees - 10/21/1999 1:19:36 PM

well, Hamilton did explicitly support tariffs up the wazoo; the early Federalist Papers are littered with references to tariffs and duties as a source of revenue, and how disunion would screw up the ability to collect them. And also how disunion would make it more likely that other countries would invade over tariff disputes.

However, had he lived 50 years later, and had the benefit of Ricardo's comparative advantage, he may have changed his tune.

Federalist, what, 12 has Hamilton talking of an "active commerce," but it's not clear if he means active in the same sense you do. Probably not.

Speaking of the Federalist Papers, the Madison in them is even more non-activist than Hamilton. Madison's ideal state, based on his writings, is the Lockean referee state, a pluralist forum where different interests hack it out. Hamilton's ideal state is doing much more stuff.

In addition, Madison deserves some credit for any novelty in the Federalist Papers. He may or may not have had Hamilton's vision of state building, but those ideas in the Papers about types of institutions & their effects that were not cribbed from Locke, Montesquieu or ancient Roman writers are due to Madison. Indeed, though they are sometimes hailed as the great American contribution to political philosophy, there's not much in them on par with, say, Locke. Granted, there is much less in Locke that makes a useful primer for How to Start a New Country, but that hardly makes that subject political philosophy.

206. SpenceMirrlees - 10/21/1999 1:22:08 PM

198

the central paradigm is that people act in self-interest, which is generally a good thing, but there needs to be a framework to ensure that greed and avarice do not get the upper hand.

We're not a nation of Randists -- nobody ever rejoiced over self interest. It's at best taken to be a neutral thing, and if it leads to beneficial social outcomes, it's not because self interest is good, it's because the institutions designed to get around it are effective.

207. PelleNilsson - 10/21/1999 1:37:04 PM

CalGal --- #203

just as Pelle earlier assumed that "strong" and "activist"
were the same thing."

I'm not so sure I did. I used the terms "passive" and "active". As we know, a weak government can be an active, although ineffectual one. You seem to characterise Hamiltion's ideal as a strong but essentially passive government; one that sets up the guidelines and enforces them, but otherwise lets things play themselves out. I would submit that this kind of masterful inactivity is a very difficult thing to achieve.

208. PelleNilsson - 10/21/1999 1:44:24 PM

Toys.

209. PelleNilsson - 10/21/1999 1:49:41 PM

Spence

#205
the Lockean referee state, a pluralist forum where different
interests hack it out.

Can this be seen as one the origins of the corporativist state favoured in the fascist school of thought?

#206
You say that self-interest is a "neutral thing". Does that mean you don't consider it as a driving force in society?

210. SpenceMirrlees - 10/21/1999 1:53:51 PM

Pelle

Origins of corporatism: you could see if you wanted to, but I think you're looking in the wrong place. Perhaps you could elaborate on the connection you see.

Self interest: no, that definitely doesn't mean that. It just means I don't see it as necessarily good.

Just because someone says something isn't a Good Thing doesn't mean he thinks it doesn't drive society. Not uncommon to hear someone say "money is the root of all evil," as well as "money makes the world go 'round."

211. JRoth - 10/21/1999 2:02:07 PM

I won't object too much to the de-mythologizing of Jefferson, but I believe we are giving Madison short shrift. If I remember my history correctly, he takes the credit for Federalist Paper #10. This, with its famous discussion of competing factions, seems to be a genuine contribution in that it avoids the extremes of anarchic individualism or Leviathan AND manages to be hard-headed about the possibility of an Arcadia.

The theory of competing factions seems to best describe the current polity in America.

212. CalGal - 10/21/1999 2:17:56 PM

Spence,

well, Hamilton did explicitly support tariffs up the wazoo

Oh, I was speaking of protective tariffs--taxing imported goods, and so on. Sorry if that wasn't clear. My point was that Hamilton would most likely not have supported protective tariffs to spare industries from competition. This was in response to Ranheim's assertion that Hamilton was a proponent of industry.

There is no question that Hamilton supported tariffs and yes, he was very concerned about the government's ability to collect. I don't remember all of his rationale for choosing whiskey, but one of the reasons was that that the army's whisky rations (paid for by the government) were the distiller's major source of revenue.

In addition, Madison deserves some credit for any novelty in the Federalist Papers.

Absolutely.

Federalist, what, 12 has Hamilton talking of an "active commerce," but it's not clear if he means active in the same sense you do.

Oh, I'm not talking about his work in the Federalist Papers, but his report on public manufacturing.

213. CalGal - 10/21/1999 2:28:27 PM

I'm not sure how my 195 and 196 could be seen as giving Madison short shrift. But the two poles of political thought in our country have been always described as a conflict between Hamilton and Jefferson, and my original post was intended to frame that concept for Pelle, since it seemed relevant to his questions.

If you note, I said that Jefferson's ideas were implemented by Madison. Anyone who thinks that this was giving Madison short shrift doesn't understand the importance I place on the word "implementation". (g)

214. SpenceMirrlees - 10/21/1999 2:59:48 PM

You can't talk about a guy like Hamilton and just leave the Federalist Papers out of it. He was a young man at the time, 30 or something (well, some might say that's over the hill), but they're still a pretty important part of what he left us.

He supported tariffs as a revenue raising device; on that all agree. Did he support protective tariffs, as a device to save some industries from competition? He knew of the effect of tariffs, their effect on competition. In other words, all tariffs have a protective effect,* and Hamilton knew it. That did appear to be part of the point.

He also specifically mentioned excise taxes on spirits in the Federalist, and spoke supportively of the beneficial effect this would have on public morals. That's kind of an activist position, but granted it was an aside.

Hamilton did also appear to support government favoritism of at least one interest over another, namely the interest of creditors over debtors. No other reason to describe a move to paper money as "wicked" -- one of its principle effects would be to increase the money supply, which in turn would increase inflation and thereby lower the real interest rate on all existing debt contracts.

(The same effect can be seen as the source of the divisions in the Free Silver movement about a century later, leading to, among other things, The Wizard of Oz, the late 19th century Populist movement, and William Jennings Bryant's political career. In reverse order, now that I think of it.)

* There is a caveat to this, but it took too long to explain, and it's definitely not relevant to the views of Alexander Hamilton.

215. PelleNilsson - 10/21/1999 3:45:44 PM

Spence --- #210

I see a tentative connection and I will flesh it out.

As I have mentioned earlier, in passing, there are similarities between fascisim and communism. One is their despise of democracy as a sham. The second is the conviction that the nation has to be led by an elite, a vanguard, which understands and acts upon the "true interest" of the people. It is significant that party membership has to be earned, a person can not simply sign up.

But there are of course significant differences as well, most notably in their views of class and class struggle. In communism, this is the central paradigm (CalGal made me do it) which is the basis for all political analysis and action.

In fascism, class is an artficial construct. In the final analysis all citizens, irrespective of their place in society, have a common goal: the advancement of the nation and increased security and prosperity for all. This leads to the corporate state where elected assemblies are replaced by fora where representatives of the workers, the capital owners, the industrialists, the professional classes, and so on, meet to define and act on their mutual interest. All this under the supervision of the state, of course.

This is why your statement "the Lockean referee state, a pluralist forum where different interests hack it out" attracted my interest.

216. CalGal - 10/21/1999 3:53:33 PM

Pelle,

You seem to characterise Hamiltion's ideal as a strong but essentially passive government

Not completely. Hamilton believed in nudges, certainly. I was only pointing out the difference between "strong" and "active".

I would submit that this kind of masterful inactivity is a very difficult thing to achieve.

I agree. Not only is it difficult, who is to say that it is necessarily better than Jefferson's inconsistency?

So to keep it straight: Hamilton believed in a strong central government that kept activism to a minimum. Jefferson supported a minimal government, but strongly supported activism.

The battle that Hamilton won, over the long haul, was his push for a strong central government--although in the short term, Jefferson did his best to derail everything he'd put in place.

The other battle--the contest over activist vs. passive government--is what causes the pendulum swing we've been discussing. I think this is common to all countries. The issue is where does the pendulum rest at dead center? There seems no question that the US government is centered at a point far less activist than those in Europe. The reasons for this are, I believe, the distrust of government that we mentioned earlier.

217. pseudoerasmus - 10/21/1999 3:56:05 PM

That denizen of South Herringistan and I had a discussion on fascism. Perhaps Calgal could find it in the archives.

218. PelleNilsson - 10/21/1999 4:10:07 PM

CalGal

Hamilton believed in a strong central
government that kept activism to a minimum. Jefferson supported a
minimal government, but strongly supported activism.

The internal inconsistencies are obvious and, as you say, go far to explain the pendulum swing.

In Europe, the swing is much less and more likely to involve details rather than principles. The idea of the state having the ultimate responsibility for the welfare of its citizens is firmly ensconced.

A while back I saw a post from ranheim in Health where he said that he is not a believer in "the right to health care". I was completely taken aback. A statement like that is completely unthinkable in Europe. I hope ranheim will read this, in case I misunderstood.

219. SpenceMirrlees - 10/21/1999 4:10:15 PM

This leads to the corporate state where elected assemblies are replaced by fora where representatives of the workers, the capital owners, the industrialists, the professional classes, and so on, meet to define and act on their mutual interest. All this under the supervision of the state, of course.

The notion from Locke doesn't involve the state supervision that fascism does. The state is a neutral forum, and non-activist.

Actually, that passage from your post sounds more like an anti-Federalist position about representation than a Federalist one. One difference between the two sides was that Federalists thought of representation as a filter on the interests and passions of the populace. This definitely has some resemblance to what you describe as elites discovering the "true interest." Anti-Federalists (generally) thought the representative assembly should act like a mirror. Each interest in society should be represented in proportion in the assembly; Anti-Federalists, however, did not share the belief that democracy is a sham. Indeed, their aim was to forge a republic that resembled as much as possible a direct democracy with local control -- to put as much Rousseau as possible in a republican state. (It also bears some resemblance to the proposal made by one Lani Guinere about 8 years ago about representation of different interests in society.)

The distinction emphasizes two notions of what representation is for: on the one hand, a way to enhance the justice in the political process, by better discovering the interest of the polity; on the other, a device to economize on the transaction cost of governing -- almost a necessary evil that should be as faithful as possible to direct democracy. The framers of the Constitution -- Hamilton and Madison, people at the Constitutional convention -- typically did not espouse the latter view.

220. SpenceMirrlees - 10/21/1999 4:10:32 PM

In fascism, class is an artficial construct. In the final analysis all citizens, irrespective of their place in society, have a common goal: the advancement of the nation and increased security and prosperity for all.

This also does not closely resemble a Lockean forum. Different interests abound, springing not least from "different faculties in acquiring property," in the words of Publius (translation: it's somewhere in the Federalist but I forget who wrote it). Indeed, it sounds more like Rosseau's General Will.

This harmony of interests, "true" or otherwise, was not something the framers expected, and is antithetical to the institutions discussed in that most Lockean of the Federalist papers, Federalist #10. That's the one where Madison has a new insight about how to use the multiplicity of interests and factions to control their collective effect on government. Probably the most famous and philosophically the most original of all the Federalist papers.

221. CalGal - 10/21/1999 4:10:55 PM

Here you go....

222. SpenceMirrlees - 10/21/1999 4:15:12 PM

So, Pelle, your notion of fascism has some similarity to what the framers wanted in the new republic, notably in representation, but does not seem too similar to those portions of their outlook that could be called Lockean, notably the function and profile of the state.

223. SpenceMirrlees - 10/21/1999 4:17:14 PM

214

The man's name is William Jennings Bryan. No "t."

224. pseudoerasmus - 10/21/1999 4:18:01 PM

A while back I saw a post from ranheim in Health where he said that he is not a believer in "the right to health care". I was completely taken aback. A statement like that is completely unthinkable in Europe.

That's nonsense. In Germany, whose healthcare system is rather like America's, there are discussions of retrenchingon state services and making the system even more like America's. I think it's high time we don't let some Herringistani represent all of Europe.

225. PelleNilsson - 10/21/1999 4:20:13 PM

Spence

I was trying to move away from the Federalist vs anti-Federalist and the Hamilton vs Jefferson debate which I think has pretty well run its course.

Now, if you re-read my post with that in mind and elaborate a bit on the Rosseau connection, I shall be glad.

226. SpenceMirrlees - 10/21/1999 4:24:08 PM

222

As far as representation goes, there is a little more to it than that even. The function of representation espoused by the Federalists bears some resemblance to what you note as a component of fascism; the make up of the assembly espoused by the anti-Federalists bears some resemblance to your notion of the fascist assembly. Emphasis on "some" in both cases.

But neither side had what you call a fascist view about the nature of the state.

227. SpenceMirrlees - 10/21/1999 4:25:08 PM

225

Noted.

And ignored.

228. CalGal - 10/21/1999 4:26:03 PM

Spence,

You can't talk about a guy like Hamilton and just leave the Federalist Papers out of it.

Heavens. I wasn't. Where did you get that idea? However, his position and recommendations on manufacturing were presented in a very long report to Congress some years after the Federalist papers, and can safely be assumed to represent the sum total of his thinking on the subject up to that point in time. I don't believe there iis anything in his Report that contradicts a position he took in the Papers, anyway.


Did he support protective tariffs, as a device to save some industries from competition? He knew of the effect of tariffs, their effect on competition. In other words, all tariffs have a protective effect,* and Hamilton knew it. That did appear to be part of the point.


I do not believe Hamilton chose to tax whiskey because of its effect on competition. Did he choose it because it was more immune to the effect of an increase--thereby "protecting" other products from being hurt by a tariff? Okay, sure. But hell, they needed money from somewhere. There is a difference between choosing to tax whiskey to hurt its sales and taxing whiskey because they needed income and it seemed the most immune to the ill effects of a tariff. ( And at this point we've moved well beyond CalGal's ability to discuss economics, so if you must fuss my purdy lil haid on it then remember that, for purposes of this discussion, I was addressing motivation.) I only meant that Hamilton should not be regarded as an "industry activist".

229. CalGal - 10/21/1999 4:27:04 PM

Spence, cont'd.

As I just said to Pelle, I don't think Hamilton would have espoused the notion of a passive government. I also don't think it's debatable that he was not the activist that Jefferson was. Ranheim was comparing Jefferson's "let's make everyone a farmer" to Hamilton's "hey, let's actively encourage people who want to risk starting a manufacturing concern" and my indignant response (Hamilton was not an activist.) was meant in that sense.

It is interesting; I had never really thought of the difference between a strong/weak government and active/passive government.

BTW, we're now down into technicalities; if you want to continue it perhaps your thread is a better place?

230. PelleNilsson - 10/21/1999 4:42:01 PM

You disappoint me, Spence. You brought up Locke and Rosseau and now you're backing away.

231. SpenceMirrlees - 10/21/1999 4:49:52 PM

230

Oh, I forgot, Pelle can't take a joke. Fear not, herring breath, you shall be deluged with Locke and Rousseau beyond your wildest dreams. I just can't post much at the moment.

Yes Cal, why don't we continue over in econ?

232. Aldavis - 10/21/1999 4:51:48 PM

Hamilton died in 1804 at the age of 39. Madison wrote, according to Professor Adair, 26 Chapters of the Federalist Papers. Jay wrote 5 and Hamilton 51.

233. PelleNilsson - 10/21/1999 4:54:01 PM

PE

Pray read before you invoke the "nonsense" macro. All nations in Europe recognise the citizen's "right to health care". How it should be organised is another matter. I'm aware of the debate in Germany, and a similar one is going on here too.

And you are wrong about Germany's health care system being 'rather like' America's, just as you were wrong about Bismarck's social welfare program.

234. SpenceMirrlees - 10/21/1999 4:55:32 PM

232

235. SpenceMirrlees - 10/21/1999 4:57:16 PM

whoops -- sorry.

232

Not that it matters, but I'm not sure those totals are right. For one thing, that makes only 82 papers.

236. PelleNilsson - 10/21/1999 5:02:56 PM

Spence

#230 was a joke too. How difficult these things are in cyberspace. But I prefer being misunderstood over using those silly emoticons.

237. Aldavis - 10/21/1999 5:06:37 PM

Spence
the reason these figures are not correct, which they are, is that 3 were a joint effort. I will be hap[py to give you the source for this information if you feel it is important, but I think the odds and the probability will be that you will say it is not needed.

238. pseudoerasmus - 10/21/1999 5:12:24 PM

PelleN, #233

Either you don't know anything about Germany's healthcare system or you don't know anything about America's. I had a rather detailed post comparing the two in the healthcare thread. Excavate it, read it, and learn.

What you said was that in Europe it was unthinkable to say one doesn't believe in the right to healthcare. Which is false.

#138
I was not wrong about Bismarck's social insurance system. His Old Age and Disability Law did not kick in until 70, but the average German worker didn't live beyond his late 50s in the 1880s. There are many similar weaknesses in his other laws.

239. PelleNilsson - 10/21/1999 5:25:45 PM

PE

What you said was that in Europe it was unthinkable to say one
doesn't believe in the right to healthcare. Which is false.

With "unthinkable" I meant unthinkable within the mainstream political debate. Please name a European country where the state's responsibility for ensuring adequate health care for all is not recognised (even if the care is ultimately delivered by the private sector).

I'll refrain from further comment on the Bismarck issue because I don't want to derail my own thread. But I don't agree, no Sir, I don't agree at all.

240. pseudoerasmus - 10/21/1999 5:40:31 PM

#239
Well, the vast majority of European governments are signatories to the European Social Charter, so there is state recognition. But given that even the shitty Albania is a signatory, that doesn't mean much. Alos, that hardly means there are no mainstream political parties which explicitly or implicitly oppose the idea of healthcare as a right.

Re Bismarck you disagree only because your knowledge of the history is at a high schooler's level.

241. PelleNilsson - 10/21/1999 5:45:29 PM

PE

Mention one such mainstream political party.

My knowledge of Bismarck is profound.

242. ranheim - 10/21/1999 5:50:31 PM

Pelle

You want my feelings on the "right to medical care" here or in the health thread? I am not a student-type; I had the ability to pass tests.

Its my wife's birthday. We will be going out tonight and I have no idea whether I'll be able to post again today. Tomorrow for sure.

243. pseudoerasmus - 10/21/1999 5:51:18 PM

Pelle: The Free Democrats.

Your knowledge of Bismarck is so profound that when I mentioned one common criticism of his social policies, you drew a total blank.

244. PelleNilsson - 10/21/1999 5:56:06 PM

The Free Deomocrats of Sweden? Nobody in their right mind would call them mainstream. Anyhow they don't exist anymore.

I'm not going to be drawn on Bismarck here. I hope we can visit the issue in some future thread.

And so to bed.

245. CalGal - 10/21/1999 5:57:18 PM

Pelle,

The idea of the state having the ultimate responsibility for the welfare of its citizens is firmly ensconced.

I am not up on European history, but isn't the socialism of Europe relatively new?

246. PelleNilsson - 10/21/1999 5:59:06 PM

ranheim

I just wanted to be sure that I had not mis-quoted you. If you want to expand on the issue please do so in Health and leave a note here. I seldom visit there because it is so very American and, therefore, beyond my comprehension.

247. pseudoerasmus - 10/21/1999 6:02:08 PM

The Free Democrats of Germany, you silly person. Who even knows that Herringistan has got something called the Free Democrats.

Also, the Tories.

BTW, I don't think Russia is a signatory to the European Social Charter. So, is it unthinkable in Russia? Or do you not consider it a part of Europe for your purposes. Like I said, stop talking about Europe as if it were coequal to your bloody Herringistan.

248. PelleNilsson - 10/21/1999 6:06:51 PM

I was going to bed but ...

The Free Democrats of Germany!? Denying the state's responsibility for health care? Please provide adequate excerpts from the party programme.

249. pseudoerasmus - 10/21/1999 6:30:22 PM

Actually, the claim is based on an article I read in Die F. A. Zeitung. I actually thought it was common knowledge that the Free Democrats wanted to substantially reduce the state's role in healthcare. Anyway, I'll try to dredge up the article.

Anyway, the Tories. That's enough.

250. SpenceMirrlees - 10/22/1999 4:23:21 AM

A few thoughts on Rousseau and Pelle's notion of fascism: background first, then similarities, then differences

Two of the most prominent aspects of Rousseau's political philosophy are the General Will and the Lawgiver. The first is the expression of something like public interest that supposedly transcends the petty interests and factions in society. Like the Holy Spirit descending on the whole College of Cardinals when they select a Pope, the whole of the social assembly is more than the sum of its parts. The excess, emerging from the social ether, is the General Will.

To my mind, the General Will in Rousseau is a rabbit out of a hat, and it's never quite explained what the secret is to its discovery; one only finds mention that man is a social creature, and by joining the social compact, he realizes his true nature, which leads to an understanding of the General Will. I suspect if Rosseau was a contemporary management consultant, the words "organic" and "synergistic" would pop up often.

One thing is clear: the General Will is not simply some crude sum total of various interests in society, which would simply be a compilation of the amour du soi modern citizens are likely to experience after having descended from the noble savagery of the state of nature. (Rousseau's state of nature, while not altoghether satisfying, is a much more pleasant place than that of Hobbes.)

One method Rousseau does postulate for how the General Will is to be realized is by means of a Lawgiver. Particularly in the early stages of a society, the populace may not be quite ready to discover the General Will all by itself, and may need the headcracking, charismatic Lawgiver to help it along. The figure Rousseau has in mind is a Moses-like figure, capable of transcending petty squabbles.

251. SpenceMirrlees - 10/22/1999 4:23:31 AM

Now the parallels of these elements with Pelle's description of fascism are obvious. The General Will is that common interest Pelle described and that the corporist state in fascism is supposed to realize. The Lawgiver is the strong state capable of "helping" the society discover it. In other words, if you take fascism on its own terms, it is not hard to find decidedly less objectionable roots for some of its constructs.

On the other hand, Rousseau did not espouse, for a mature society no longer in need of the Lawgiver, that the formal apparatus of the state would be between the populace -- particularly its expression of the General Will -- and legislation. Rousseau's ideal (mature) state looks very much like Voltaire's as revealed at the end of Candide; not exactly a place where democracy is a sham. More like a peaceful little Sparta. In short, the Lawgiver, traceable to the State in fascism, is a temporary construct for Rousseau, to be shed when the society finds its way to the General Will. That, I believe, reasonably parallels the communist notion of what would happen to the State when the society is truly ready for communism.

Further, Rousseau had no place for a corporatist state. The transaction cost justification of representation is irrelevant, as the society is by presumption hardly so unwieldy as to make direct legislation difficult. The filtering justification of representation is a perversion of the purpose of government: to codify the General Will in law. Republican government would impede the organic process of discovering the General Will.

Finally, the scope of the state for Rousseau is limited to matters affecting the general welfare of all. If the state transgresses these boundaries, individuals are released from the social contract which formed the state to begin with.

252. SpenceMirrlees - 10/22/1999 4:25:43 AM

...so, the state may command the individual only insofar as it promotes the general welfare -- thereby offering the individual some explicit protection from the state -- but by the same token may make any commands that promote the general welfare.

253. SpenceMirrlees - 10/22/1999 4:28:30 AM

251 shouldn't refer to a republic in the narrow sense, but any society in which legislation is made by an assembly, representative, elected, or otherwise.

254. PelleNilsson - 10/22/1999 4:37:29 AM

Spence

Thank you. I switch to ruminating mode for a while. But I want to point out to other readers that in my usage (and I think in Spence's as well) the term "fascism" is completely distinct from "nazism".

255. SpenceMirrlees - 10/22/1999 4:49:05 AM

Of course. What led you to say that?

256. PelleNilsson - 10/22/1999 3:11:24 AM

PE

As a fellow host: you can move off-topic posts, for example to the Playpen rather than delete them outright.

257. alistairConnor - 10/22/1999 5:00:38 AM

Also, the Tories... Well, if the tories were really fundamentally opposed to the right to health care, it's rather odd that after 17 years in power, the English public health system still functions, and still delivers free universal health care, whereas they have transformed other sectors of British society beyond all recognition.

You are talking unmitigated bullshit, Pseud.

258. pseudoerasmus - 10/22/1999 5:06:58 AM

Well, Connor, Thatcher talked about healthcare not being a fundamental right, or perhaps you missed that. The reason the Tories didn't touch National Health (except for a few minor reforms) is that it would have been electoral suicide. Have you become obtuse to the gulf between principle and electoral expediency. (I do not make these remarks in sympathy with them, if that's what's behind your brain implosion.)

259. alistairConnor - 10/22/1999 5:08:26 AM

And I think that leaves you with zero mainstream European political parties denying the state's fundamental responsability in providing health care.



At the last count.

260. PelleNilsson - 10/22/1999 5:08:48 AM

CalGal

I missed your Message # 245. Sorry.

Pelle:The idea of the state having the ultimate responsibility for the welfare of its citizens is firmly ensconced.

CalGal:I am not up on European history, but isn't the socialism of Europe relatively new?

I see several implicit questions here.

As a parliamentary force, socialism emerged with the general franchise, that is, generally speaking, after WW1.

For its emergence as ideological force I guess we can go back to the French Revolution but more definitely to 1848, Europe's "year of revolutions" (the Paris Commune is the best known) and the year Marx-Engels published the communist manifesto. Whatever the merits of Bismarck's social welfare laws, the fact remains that they were enacted to counter the socialists.

You seem to equate the idea of the state's responsibility for health care with socialism. This is not necessarily the case. In Sweden, a system of provincial doctors was instituted in 1744 (although a more informal system had existed since the mid 17th century). In an instruction from 1822 it is stated that these doctors, apart from delivering medical care, should

"be observant on all factors that can contribute to the good health of the inhabitants and on all factors that threaten their health".

It was this organisation that enabled Sweden to control, if not eliminate, smallpox through vaccinations, starting in the early 19th century.

Similar institutional set-ups may well have existed on other European countries as well.

261. pseudoerasmus - 10/22/1999 5:11:18 AM

#259
Two, at the last count. And I'm sure I can find more somewhere between Ireland and Armenia.

262. alistairConnor - 10/22/1999 5:12:26 AM

Well, if indeed they professed that, and did not implement it during their long reign, that rather demonstrates the extent to which it is a fundamental, untouchable element of the social contract in Europe.

In any case, the Tories haven't been a mainstream political party since Edward Heath.

263. pseudoerasmus - 10/22/1999 5:14:52 AM

#262
Again, Connor, I emphasise that I have not made any of these remarks in sympathy with the sentiment that healthcare might not be a right. I suggest you place an ice pack underneath your scrotum.

264. alistairConnor - 10/22/1999 5:15:18 AM

Pelle, you sköndinövian races have been socialist since the dawn of time, but simply too pragmatic to waste time codifying and beating their breasts about it.

265. alistairConnor - 10/22/1999 5:18:28 AM

Relax, Pseud, my rage is not directed at you, but at our local gormless goons who are destroying New Zealanders' access to free universal health care, while simultaneously denying that they are doing any such thing, and that any such right ever existed in the first place.

266. PelleNilsson - 10/22/1999 5:18:33 AM

I should add that the state's concern for the health of its citizens was in reality a concern for itself. The state needed strong, healthy people, not least as soldiers. But it did introduce the strong connection between state and health care which lives on today.

267. pseudoerasmus - 10/22/1999 5:20:43 AM

Moreover, I submit that any political party which advocates significant retrenchments in state healthcare spending in favour devolution to private expenditure, is making an empty shell of its supposed commitment to the "fundamental right to healthcare". It becomes lip service, as in most of the newest signatories to the European Social Charter.

This is not because guaranteed healthcare cannot necessarily be provided in part privately, but because experience shows that the larger the private component, the more precarious the guarantee.

268. PelleNilsson - 10/22/1999 5:23:55 AM

Alistair and PE

Soon, I'll start moving posts to the Health thread.

269. JRoth - 10/22/1999 9:48:45 AM

Might one timidly ask whither the direction of this thread?

I thought Spence kicked-off a good topic with his discussion of Rousseau's Volounte Generale. If I remember correctly, the Social Contract was anti-Enlightment (and hence contra Locke) in that it rejected the fashionable optimism that the application of reason would ineluctably improve man's lot. Rather his emphasis was on what we would now call a psychological state; the happiness of individuals.

Certainly Rousseau's state of nature was quite different than Locke's; perhaps we naturally prefer to imagine ourselves as Locke's industrious savages rather than Rousseau's shy and lazy creatures. And his critique of private property- especially the distinctions of wealth and power that result- was quite opposed to Locke's formulations.

I remain unclear to what extent the timid democrats of America's founding were influenced by Rousseau. It seems quite difficult to reconcile his views with those others that we credit for providing the theoretical basis for the American Experiment.

So it would seem that the timid democrats of America's founding might have been influenced by a stream of Continental thought

270. JRoth - 10/22/1999 9:50:15 AM

Woops, please disregard the trailing fragment, dust got in my eyes.

271. Uzmakk - 10/22/1999 1:49:36 PM

OOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMM(wink, wink) -- Hey!!!--Oh, excuse me oh Great One, but how much longer to I have to open my website before I have the scorn of the entire Universe turned upon me?--(wink, wink)OOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM--sorry to interupt you here, in this forum, on this thread, Oh Great One--OOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMM--but, you will recall that we made a deal and that you were to perform a cosmic shifting of forces in the event that I did not have a website within a month's time--OOOOOMMMMMMMMM----I have not been keeping track of time, and I fear your power and your punctiliousness, oh Great One. Please, oh Great One, check your calendar and give me a specific date by which I must be on line so that I can complete my cosmic duty, or I shall dally forever--OMMMMMMMMMMMMMM--Thank you, Oh Great One.OOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

272. PelleNilsson - 10/22/1999 2:02:54 PM

Uzmakk

Your promise is dated Oct 7, 1999. Lunchtime I believe.

273. Uzmakk - 10/22/1999 2:13:16 PM

Thank you, Great One. I shall mark Nov 7 on the calendar...mmmmmmmmmmmmm

274. ranheim - 10/22/1999 2:25:03 PM

Pelle

Check #762 & 764 in the health section. I would appreciate your comments.

I'll be back tonight.

275. SpenceMirrlees - 10/22/1999 2:57:22 PM

Roth,

yes, reason did not occupy the hallowed position for Rousseau that it did for Locke. Rousseau differed from other philosophers using the social contract device by rejecting the idea that humans were logical in the state of nature. Most contract philosophers thought of humans as essentially complete in the state of nature, if given to fears about security. Rousseau thought of humans as essentially social beings, who were not fully realizing their nature outside of civil society. Hence the social contract, rather than being the more usual device by which only order is added to a solipsistic world, is essential to the actualization of humans. It is through this somewhat fuzzy actualization process that people come to understand the General Will. But anyone who joined civil society for Lockean or Hobbesian purposes -- out of self interest, by recourse to reason or the logic of self-preservation -- was not really getting the point.

While Rousseau did rail against the causes of unequal division of property, he was not against the institution of private property. Upon joining civil society, a person gives all her property to the state, but the state immediately gave it back, with first dibs on any property that would be necessary to advance the general welfare in society. To Rousseau, this is not subordination of the individual to the state -- there would be no conflict if the state ever needed any private property; seeing its necessity to advance the General Will, a person would voluntarily wish to relinquish any property the state needed. It's not at all inconsistent with the individual's most desired use of his own property.

276. SpenceMirrlees - 10/22/1999 2:57:40 PM

It seems quite difficult to reconcile his views with those others that we credit for providing the theoretical basis for the American Experiment.

That's because the Rousseauians lost. The strain that was present was part of anti-Federalist philosophy (which is not to say that all anti-Federalists thought this way). In particular, the idea of the function of representation is to be as faithful as possible to Rousseau's vision. The Federalist idea of representation as a filter, and of enlargement of the size of society, contradicted the Rousseauian and anti-Federalist position for the same reasons.

277. PelleNilsson - 10/22/1999 4:24:54 PM

Spence

the actualization of humans

Are you at bottom an Aristitotelian?

278. SpenceMirrlees - 10/22/1999 5:48:17 PM

I take that as a grave insult. A voodoo curse on the House of Nilsson.

I am no Aristotelian, no sir.

Okay, Aristotelian in what sense?

279. PelleNilsson - 10/22/1999 6:37:19 PM

It was the word actualization that cought my eye. I don't know how Aristotle's terminology is translated into English, so what follows is A. into Swedish, translated to English.

According to A., all things have an essential form, and the form includes a potentiality to be transformed into something else and more "evolved". Thus, mud can become bricks which can become buildings. Actualization is the realization of the potentiality.

If you read this again

Rousseau thought of humans as essentially social beings, who were not fully realizing their nature [their potentiality; Pelle] outside of civil society. Hence the social contract, rather than being the more usual device by which only order is added to a solipsistic world, is essential to the actualization of humans.

280. SpenceMirrlees - 10/22/1999 8:15:23 PM

Well, I meant that with respect to Rousseau's view of humans, not my own. In any case, I think one can use the word actualize in a broader sense, which that was. But you can think of it as Aristotelian if it makes you happy.

281. SpenceMirrlees - 10/22/1999 8:16:50 PM

I thought the form business was Plato.

Hell, it can be both of them; I don't care. Never been into those Greeks any too much.

282. PelleNilsson - 10/23/1999 4:19:49 AM

It appears that the possible connection I posited between Rosseau and fascism is a false trail. I consulted Walter Laqueur (ed.) Fascism and none of the contributors trace its ideology further back than 1880-90. It started out as an "anti" movement: anti-capitalism (of the international kind), anti-socialism, anti-intellectualism, anti-democracy. It then evolved an ideology based on (very simplified here) national myth and glory, national and individual development through blood and steel, worship of the strong, and a corporatist view of the state.

Fascism is not dead. You can hear people talk about the need for a "benevolent despot" or a "government of experts" to get away from the "petty political quarrels". I don't mean to say that people that hold such views are fascists, but these views can be exploited by fascists. For anybody interested in the psychological dimension of this I recommend Erich Fromm Escape From Freedom.

283. PelleNilsson - 10/23/1999 4:33:48 AM

As readers will note I have just changed the title of this thread to give it a bit broader scope. But the caveat still stands: no discussions about current political events except as illustration to an argument.

284. ranheim - 10/23/1999 8:27:19 AM

#282

The presumption of a very substantial % of people is that the government is "good" and "wise". Looking at local politics first (because I have met quite a few of these people personally) : they all have a 'gift of gab'. But, after that, there is one other thing that seems standard in all of them : they want something. Whether it is gravel in their driveway; potholes filled in the road leading to their house; etc. All that I know want something for their personal use; but, at the expense of the state.

I don't know people elected at the state and federal level nearly as well. I suspect that they are just the most successful of local politicians.

So far as acting in my behalf or for the 'public good' I have just about zero faith that will ever happen. The huge % of elected officials in the USA are after money or power or both.

Why trust them?

285. Cellar Door - 10/23/1999 9:59:04 AM

Pounding Pound

286. Seguine - 10/23/1999 11:53:17 AM

"I thought the form business was Plato."

It was.

But "form," in Plato's doctrine of Forms, is not altogether what that word may imply to the casual reader. Something like "quality" is more accurate, and Plato used (the Greek for) "forms" and "ideas" interchangeably. He thought that common characteristics that could be conceptualized were representations of something essential and objective, an "essence" of the thing or group of things perceived. Beauty, for instance, was a perceptual quality of things that somehow objectively, essentially, were "beautiful," or contained beauty. The essences "beauty" or "goodness" existed as absolutes. So with objects in the natural world, which (if I recall properly) he thought could be classified logically under some unifying ontological principle.

Aristotle sort of pursued the Platonic notion of universal forms/qualities in his doctrine of Categories, wherein he assumes that certain of the generic qualities we ascribe to things (length, color, substance, placement, etc.) are real categories that exist outside our perception of them. The difference here betweeen Aristotle and Plato is that Plato set out to categorize things according to qualities that most of us believe are subjective; Aristotle classified things according to the way they existed (burnt, blue, doubled, alone, etc.), that is, according to characteristics we ordinarily view as objective.

Aristotle also classified things to some extent according to their qualities in relation to one another; I don't think that means he was a relativist in the modern sense of the word--maybe he was the original cladist? Plato believed in absolutes, the realization of which, through education, would make men's lives worthwhile. Statesmen in particular, he thought, required such education for the good of the State, and thus the good of those they would lead.

287. ScottLoar - 10/23/1999 11:57:45 AM

Such posts as the one above entice me to retreat to Chinese.

288. PelleNilsson - 10/23/1999 12:55:52 PM

ranheim --- Message # 284

You must have read my Message # 283 before you posted, and yours is a borderline case. But let us take this opportunity to look at the broader issue.

You seem to despise your local elected officials and you don't trust them. So how would you like governance to be organised? Through direct democracy where the citizens come together from time to time and vote on matters of mutual concern? Or should the elected officials be replaced by appointed experts? If so, appointed by whom? Other alternatives?

I know it is difficult to present a coherent set of ideas in essentially fragmented threads such as Politics and Current Events. Feel free to do so here.

289. ranheim - 10/24/1999 9:34:34 AM

Pelle

I don't see how the process would or could be changed very much. The USA is never going back to white, male, property owners as the only people permitted to vote.

Since the process can't/won't be changed, the best alternative that I see is to make the government extremely small so as to be able to interfere into the life of its citizens as little as possible.

There are some historians here in the Mote. Not being one myself, I have the vague impression that in the days of kings the taxes raised by the king were quite limited. A tithe (10%) went to the church. The king took another 10 - 15%. If total taxes in those days of old were to exceed 30 or 40%, a revolt usually ensued. The current cabal running the government of the USA thinks we are under-taxed when they confiscate essentially half of one's income.

Decisions should be on the local level so much as is practicle. There are very few things that need to be decided at the federal level. A few are : it is not possible for Louisiana, by itself, to defend the borders of the USA. So the military and diplomacy at the federal level. A tariff of 10% in LA and one of 15% in Mississippi is not very workable. In the days before WW I, it was discovered that the roads of one state petered out at its border; the contiguous states would have roads that petered out at their borders : BUT A MILE AWAY. There would have to be some agreement between the states in matters of transportation. Likewise an agreement dealing with the mail and other means of communication. There aren't too many other things that need to be mandated by Washington.

There was a time in the USA when one could move across a border and be in another world : the fronteir. Today, it is all homogenized. The influence of Wahsington D.C. And all that the residents of Washington care about is within the beltway.

290. Seguine - 10/24/1999 1:00:24 PM

"Today, it is all homogenized. The influence of Wahsington D.C."

The influence of television and other means of transmission of culture and social norms. (Means, for example, such as this one.)

Even so, the US is not yet homogeneous. And you will find your frontier unmolested in, say, Idaho.

291. Seguine - 10/24/1999 1:10:41 PM

Re 287, I'm not sure what Loar's taste in women has to do with anything.

292. PelleNilsson - 10/24/1999 2:21:41 PM

ranheim

I don't see how the process would or could be changed very much. The USA is never going back to white, male, property owners as the only people permitted to vote.

Since the process can't/won't be changed, the best alternative ...

Do I detect a certain wistfulness here? Does the second sentence represent the ideal state of affairs in your opinion?

Decisions should be on the local level so much as is practicle.

I think few people would dispute that. My question to you was, and is, how? In Message # 284 you dismissed elected local officials as selfish and not worthy of trust. What do you suggest? Direct democracy involving all citizens? A committee of non-elected respected citizens?

293. ranheim - 10/24/1999 3:11:55 PM

Pelle & Seguine

I am not at all familar with the mountain states of the west. Maybe I should be.

Yes, I am wistful for government of the past. It was much less intrusive. And it was considerably more elitist.

Currently, at the federal level, more and more highly qualified people, when asked to run for office, are replying "You must be joking! Put up with the media's questioning". One example is the former senator Sam Nunn. He was asked why he did not choose to run for senator again and/or run for the presidency. His reply was holding up two fingers. The person asking the question knew that he had two children.

At the local level it is becoming much the same. Quality people are beginning to refuse to run for public office because of the media's "in depth questions" and there is, locally at least, quite a few who have responded "I am an honest man/woman! I'm not going to ruin my reputation by becoming involved in politics".

Where would this "committee of non-elected respected citizens" come from? It would be my guess that the media would tear such a committee apart as being non-democratic/elitist. Of course, the media is elitist! But, they won't permit any one else to be the same.

294. Gram2 - 10/24/1999 3:20:56 PM

284. ranheim - Not everybody is out for themselves in politics. We took part locally for ten years and with the help of others like ourselves who were only concerned with our town, we were able to bring about some good changes. Of course, there are many who want a career in politics and the prestige and power they receive from holding public office. The only way politics will improve is when ordinary people start getting involved at the grass roots level. If they only realized how politics actually affect their daily lives, they would take part.

295. PelleNilsson - 10/24/1999 5:02:25 PM

gram2

Welcome to the thread. I think that the respective positions you and ranheim hold illustrate a sharp dividing line as to governance. The subject is well worth pursuing. However, posting from Europe, I'm time zone challenged. It's 11 pm here now. But please watch this space tomorrow, and, in the meantime, feel free to add whatever you want.

296. stostosto - 10/24/1999 6:11:22 PM

ranheim
The tax burden in the USA today stands at about 34% of GDP. That may be a lot, and it's certainly more than what it was at the turn of the century. But it's actually one of the very smallest tax burdens in the rich world. Where I live (Denmark), the government is taxing and spending som 54% of GDP. In our host's home country the figure is 63%. We haven't seen riots, revolts or revolutions over this, yet. There has been a couple of tax revolting parties taking som 10% of the vote at most. But the little, and comparatively highly civilized revolting that does go on is almost invariably to do with plans to scale back welfare programs.

I think the difference in political ideas between Europe and USA is starkest exactly in this area; the sheer vehement of the American unwillingness to pay taxes - and, of course, have the government supply public goods and income distribution accordingly.

I think it's interesting. Any comments? Why is there such a difference?

297. pseudoerasmus - 10/24/1999 6:13:10 PM

God, sto, that's all they've been talking about!

298. pseudoerasmus - 10/24/1999 6:17:50 PM

There is one possible explanation for the disparity between European and American attitudes about statism which has not been mentioned here: the decentralised power structure of the USA. The national government in the USA is the weakest (domestically speaking) among OECD countries, and its various regional governments (states, cities) the most powerful. I think that goes a long way toward explaing why the state is so much smaller and weaker in the USA than in Europe.

299. stostosto - 10/24/1999 6:22:16 PM

pseuder
I have seen them (the participants of this thread) talk about several other things. Anyway, my remark was precipitated by ranheim's apparent belief that the American tax burden is outrageously heavy. So, I just wanted to put a little perspective on it.

300. pseudoerasmus - 10/24/1999 6:26:15 PM

In terms of % of GDP, the US tax burden is the lowest among the industrialised democracies, except Japan, which has a slightly lower burden.

301. CalGal - 10/24/1999 6:31:08 PM

Sto,

The first discussion begin at Message # 95.

302. stostosto - 10/24/1999 6:37:17 PM

Pseud
The American decentralization is certainly a factor; but still. The 34% of GDP is the figure for "general government", I believe, which is encompassing all levels of government. The fed only takes in around - what? -20? percent of GDP.

If you compare it to the EU, many of the member countries are no bigger than individual American states. Denmark certainly isn't, but nor is Belgium, Holland, Sweden, or Portugal. Spain's population is on a par with California's.

I know you know that. Anyway, the question still stands, since we are looking for an explanation, then, as to why the individual American states don't make up for the 'tax gap' with European high taxers.

Actually, one of my own hypothesis goes more or less in the opposite direction. I wonder if there isn't an inverse correlation between the size of a country and the tax level. In smaller countries there may be a stronger feeling of having a check on the people who spend your tax money. Likewise, there may be a greater feeling of social cohesion, hence greater accept of redistribution. Ceteris paribus.

And an effective decentralization in big countries would be expected to decrease this inverse correlation, since the taxing unit would be smaller.

303. CalGal - 10/24/1999 6:40:20 PM

I asked this earlier--hasn't Europe's switch to socialism been fairly recent?

304. pseudoerasmus - 10/24/1999 6:46:49 PM

#302

No, stostoststo. But why should the individual American states be expected to make up for the 'tax gap' with European high taxers"? Maybe I didn't make myself clear the first time around.

The point is that the decentralisation of power in the USA allows for (1) competition between polities; and (2) diffusion of power; and (3) constitutional limitations on legislation.

In (1), states whose governments tax too much, and accumulate too much power, suffer an exodus of citizens to other states which tax less and accumulate less power. This creates a low-tax, low-power equilibrium.

The meaning of (2) should be obvious.

Re (3), most Western European countries can impose fairly radical changes on society with a simple majority in the national assembly. In the case of Thatcher's Britain, not even a majority was required, for the Tories never commanded anything but a plurality in the House of Commons. In the USA, that's just not possible.

305. pseudoerasmus - 10/24/1999 6:47:21 PM

#303

Europe is not socialist.

306. stostosto - 10/24/1999 6:51:43 PM

CalGal:
Are you equating high taxation with socialism? In that case, Margaret Thatcher marked a break with (or, rather, a temporary reigning in of) British socialism. But John Major during whose time in office the British tax burden reverted to pre-Thatcher levels, was a great socialist.

I think you could say similar things of Germany's Helmut Kohl. Or any of a daunting number of Italian Christian Democratic PMs. Or most other conservative prime ministers in western Europe (and there has been quite a few, even in tax-and-spend-socialist-to-the-core Scandinavia).

Sneak socialists, the bunch of them. So sneaky, in fact, that I am pretty sure they'd be surprised themselves if they knew...

307. pseudoerasmus - 10/24/1999 7:01:08 PM

Actually the (3) of #304 amounts to a difference between parliamentary and presidential systems. In the USA, there is a total division of power between the ruling administration and the national assembly; so much so that (I believe) there has rarely ever been a time when the president and the majority in Congress came from the same party. In most Western European countries, the ruling administration is born of a majority or a coalition in the national assembly. In Western Europe, the agenda of the party in power are more easily legislated.

308. pseudoerasmus - 10/24/1999 7:01:54 PM

So, as it usually is, the difference is structural and institutional, not "historical" and "cultural" (which are usually omnibus bogus explanations).

309. ranheim - 10/24/1999 7:07:48 PM

When I previously spoke of a tax of 30 - 40%, I specifically mentioned kings; not the current governments of the world. Although there is a king or two left. My very general knowlege of history is that the revolt was headed by other holders of wealth : the nobility. Who frequently wanted to unseat the incumbent. You historians should know whether I am even close to right.

The arguement has been made before in Mote that Bismarck put in the social programs that he did as a result of the far left in the Germany of that day. Is the same true since WW I? That the social programs of many European countries have been formulated so as to keep communism at bay?

I thought that the top bracket in the USA at the federal level was 36%. Then one adds the state income tax; real estate taxes; sales taxes; and a whole host of other "fees" (choose the euphemism for tax that you wish) and one is close to a total tax of 45 -50%.

310. stostosto - 10/24/1999 7:13:57 PM

I don't quite see the association between parliamentary government and high taxes. Why would a government with greater legislative powers necessarily come out in favour of higher taxes? Margaret Thatcher seems to be a counter example. Also, in a country like Italy where they have been changing government more often than shirts (which says a lot in Italy), the institutional strength of the government is not the first thing that springs to mind. (Similar things could be said about Denmark, but I won't tire you with this).

311. pseudoerasmus - 10/24/1999 7:15:30 PM

No, Ranheim, marginal tax rates are no way of calculating the tax burden. All tax collected in the USA -- by the federal, state, local govts; tariffs, fees, sales taxes, dog taxes, etc. -- amount to less than 35% of GDP.

312. stostosto - 10/24/1999 7:17:52 PM

ranheim
don't you have deductions in the US? Anyway, the 34% figure is the authoritative figure. But, of course, it's the government that reports it, and you know how trustworthy a Washington bureaucrat statistician is? (Alger Hisssssssssss....).

313. pseudoerasmus - 10/24/1999 7:19:41 PM

#310
Because a parliamentary government can ram through its programme more effectively than a presidential form of govt! So, even if a party controlling the presidency in the USA has exactly the same agenda as the party or parties controlling the government in a Western European country, the former will be less likely to succeed in implementing its agenda. It's that simple.

The point here, Stostosto, is not the taxing tendency of any particular party in power. The point is the inherent power of the state itself. In the USA, the state is weaker than the state in Europe.

314. CalGal - 10/24/1999 7:27:57 PM

Pseudo,

Actually, we just spent the last 100 posts discussing some of the other structural reasons for the difference--not the historical or cultural. I think you're wrong to dismiss them completely, however.

In (1), states whose governments tax too much, and accumulate too much power, suffer an exodus of citizens to other states which tax less and accumulate less power. This creates a low-tax, low-power equilibrium.

I agree with this, but I'm not sure that the people's migration to a low-tax, low-power state is a given. Most Europeans in the countries under discussion completely approve of the benefits they vote for themselves--and the high tax rate that goes with it.

As for European socialism, sorry. I may have misunderstood Pelle. But regardless of what you call it, I am asking if the European social contract (for lack of a better word) is something that existed before WWII?

315. stostosto - 10/24/1999 7:34:42 PM

I submit that in parliamentary systems with proportional representation, the government almost always has to negotiate any legislation with the opposition (or at the very least the dominant government party with its coalition partners who have agendas of their own). In this process, the opposition's demands may be less taxation generally, or for specific groups. But just as often, the government can buy the needed support for its agenda by conceding public expenditures towards the opposition's agenda.

This dynamic is very much a part of a PR parliamentary governmental system - and of the American presidential one. The president often hands out 'pork' to secure the vote of congressmen from the opposition party. In fact, I think the British first-past-the-post system is rather unique in that it allows the government almost dictatorial powers within its election period.

As to your contention that the state iself (as distinct from the political institutions, I take it) is stronger in European countries than in the US. Yes, it would seem so. But isn't that somehow the starting point of this debate..?

316. pseudoerasmus - 10/24/1999 7:35:43 PM

#314
How could you claim to agree with my statement and then contradict yourself. (No, please don't explain.)

Most Europeans in the countries under discussion completely approve of the benefits they vote for themselves--and the high tax rate that goes with it.

In Western Europe, most of those who disapprove of such policies, or those who approve but don't want to pay for them, can't just "move" to Monte Carlo or even to a neighbouring country. Well, until now, that is. Now, an EU citizen can pretty move anywhere within the EU. Let's see if this has an effect on the power of the state in Western Europe.

317. CalGal - 10/24/1999 7:42:35 PM

Well, if you don't want an explanation, don't ask questions. I was agreeing that your statement accurately described the U.S., but I wasn't sure if you could then apply it to Europe. Would they move if they could, or do they like their way of life?

Now, an EU citizen can pretty move anywhere within the EU. Let's see if this has an effect on the power of the state in Western Europe.

And that was what I was going to bring up next, because I wasn't sure if they were going to be able to move anywhere or not in the brave new world that's coming. Thanks.

318. pseudoerasmus - 10/24/1999 7:43:26 PM

#315

But in most Western European countries, the pork-barrelling (though that's not really the right term for Europe) takes place within the governing coalition, not between the governing coalition and the parties in opposition.

In the USA, the pork-barrelling required to build a coalition to pass the president's legislation almost always also dilutes his agenda.

As to your contention that the state iself (as distinct from the political institutions, I take it) is stronger in European countries than in the US. Yes, it would seem so. But isn't that somehow the starting point of this debate..?

Not at all! The limitations on the power of the state are an artifact of a legal document crafted in the late 18th century. Under a parliamentary system, I wager the state would grow larger in the USA.

319. CalGal - 10/24/1999 7:50:19 PM

Under a parliamentary system, I wager the state would grow larger in the USA.

And there you have it--the reason we revere our 18th century document.

320. ranheim - 10/24/1999 8:18:46 PM

I ws thinking of what I pay. And it is too damned much!

321. CalGal - 10/24/1999 8:33:10 PM

Who gives a shit? Take it to Politics.

322. Cellar Door - 10/24/1999 9:20:24 PM

I think what I get for what I pay is too damend litte. I'm sick of supporting the "defense" industry. I'm sick of the church getting a free ride while doing it's damndest to take control of my life!

323. LadyChaos - 10/24/1999 9:22:46 PM

Sto,

For an interesting perspective on the division of taxation power between the States and the Federal Government, here's a link to the the Federalist Papers of Hamilton. Scroll down to Federalist Paper No. 30 to begin the part on taxation.

Part of the dynamic between state and Federal taxes that PE discusses is the fact that states have learned to depend on Federal money for such things as highway construction and social welfare. This results in a sort of redistribution of national wealth, thus making taxation more uniform between the states while money is spent where it is most needed. One drawback to this system is that the availability of Fed money doesn't create much local political pressure to spend it rationally, and it can end up subsidizing urban sprawl, for example.

324. Seguine - 10/24/1999 10:39:02 PM

Ranheim, Cellar,

Since both of you are convinced that what you pay in taxes exceeds what the government provides you in return, would either of you care to list those (tangible and other) goods you recieve in exchange for your tax dollars?

I ask in all seriousness, for Cellar appears to object to the kinds or quantity of goods provided, while Ranheim (I think) simply objects. It appears then there are two "anti-tax" positions suggested here: one might not object to taxation if he felt it were sufficiently representative of his spending preferences. The other apparently objects to taxation in principle; and that principle, as far as I can tell from what has been said so far, is that income redistribution is bad.

Is this correct?

325. Aldavis - 10/24/1999 10:56:10 PM

Lady Chaos
One of the effects of Federal Government collecting and then distributing to the States is that is gives the Federal Government a control it otherwise would not have. For example, when Nixon wanted the speed limit reduced to 55, all he had to do was threaten to withhold highway money. the same thing was done to get States to raise the minimun age for drinking.

326. Aldavis - 10/24/1999 10:58:06 PM

pseudo
"In the USA, the pork-barrelling required to build a coalition to pass
the president's legislation almost always also dilutes his agenda."
Could you give an example of this? I really don't quite understand how this works.

327. Seguine - 10/24/1999 11:48:38 PM

Spence summarizing Rousseau: "the state may command the individual only insofar as it promotes the general welfare -- thereby offering the individual some explicit protection from the state -- but by the same token may make any commands that promote the general welfare."

According to John Rawls, "Baby, baby, baby..."--no, wait, that's Lou Rawls.

According to John Rawls, if we are moral we should give up whatever is required in order to assist the least among us. But what if doing that doesn't promote the "general welfare"? IOW, what is meant by the general welfare?

Ursula LeGuin has a short story, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas," in which a utopian society (Omelas) is contingent somehow (and I can't remember why, it's been years since I read it) on the existence of a single rejected, filthy, ignorant, miserable, half-starved child held in chains in a basement. Everyone in the otherwise perfect society knows the child exists, and in what condition, but no one can or will free or assist him. For some people, this is intolerable, so they leave Omelas; but where do they go to find a "better" world?

328. Cellar Door - 10/25/1999 12:40:28 AM

I've managed to get my blood pressure medication. Not an easy task.

329. PelleNilsson - 10/25/1999 1:29:08 AM

The Federalist Papers are now linked at the right. Thank you Lady!

330. ee - 10/25/1999 1:34:42 AM

Cellar:. I'm sick of the church getting a free ride while doing it's damndest to take control of my life!

The church that I worship with has no employees, is not active in any political matter and only seeks to worship God and spread the gospel of Christ. How is that you think that we should be taxed and why?

331. PelleNilsson - 10/25/1999 1:49:34 AM

CalGal

You asked first asked about socialism in Europe in #245, which I missed and didn't answer until #260, which, in turn, you probably missed. Here is the relevant part:

As a parliamentary force, socialism emerged with the general franchise, that is, generally speaking, after WW1.

For its emergence as ideological force I guess we can go back to the French Revolution but more definitely to 1848, Europe's "year of revolutions" (the Paris Commune is the best known) and the year Marx-Engels published the communist manifesto. Whatever the merits of Bismarck's social welfare laws, the fact remains that they were enacted to counter the socialists.

332. PelleNilsson - 10/25/1999 1:57:09 AM

ee

Not here, please!

333. SpenceMirrlees - 10/25/1999 2:13:49 AM

Pelle, I implore you to keep your thread on track and banish this talk of taxation and churches to the politics thread, where is belongs. 324 is one thing, an attempt to recover the basis of taxation, but partisan positions belong with the rabble.

334. SpenceMirrlees - 10/25/1999 2:15:14 AM

Seguine,

What Rousseau meant by the general welfare is the interest (for lack of a better word -- that's not quite right in his terminology) identified with the general will. Now, what the general will is, and how it's to be discovered, well, I don't think Rousseau himself is quite clear on that, except to sweep the problem under the rug by introducing a notion of human nature that sort of makes the general will appear in an earnest assembly of people.

One might argue that those people should stay in Omelas and do what they can to help that kid. How are they helped in any way by moving on? Because they will live in a different place? Do they move on because they morally object to countenancing that kind of suffering, and if so, is their moving on less objectionable? The kid is still suffering.

In fact, by a rather weak economic efficiency argument, if they're going to move on, they might as well stick around. Moving on won't help the kid, and can only hurt the movers-on, as they will, by assumption, not find a society that is more perfect in every other respect than Omelas. Nobody will be helped, and someone will be hurt if they move on; why do it?

335. SpenceMirrlees - 10/25/1999 2:15:36 AM

Speaking of political ideas, try this one on for size: a majority may voluntarily sometimes wish itself to be bound by the opinion of a minority on some policy issue, if the minority has the right of non-participation. The reason is that such binding can induce a persistent minority to participate in the political process, whereas it might not find participation worthwhile if it's always shut out. The majority wants minorities to participate, in turn, because they can add information to the political process that is useful in fashioning good policy (by whatever standard of good -- efficiency, say).

336. SpenceMirrlees - 10/25/1999 2:31:26 AM

PE

298: There is one possible explanation for the disparity between European and American attitudes about statism which has not been mentioned here: the decentralised power structure of the USA.

But the question remains how the power structure got like that in the first place. I acknowledge that, especially 210 years later, there is some feedback from institutions onto preferences. But something, possibly some structural factors, possibly preferences about statism, existed in the first place to make the institutions look like they do.

304: competition between polities

I was going to suggest that Europe as a whole now experiences that same competition between polities in it, before I saw 316. It will be very interesting indeed to see the effects of recent integrations on competition between states.

337. PelleNilsson - 10/25/1999 2:43:07 AM

I suggest we use the word 'socialist' with some caution. PE says that Europe is not socialist, which is true. The fact that Socialist Democratic parties are a major political force in most European countries does not change that. Leaders like Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, Leonard Jospin in France, Tony Blair in the UK are not fanatic left-wingers whose aim is to nationalise industry, confiscate private property and generally ruin the rich.

Moreover, the degree of state involvement in business - statism - is not a simple matter of left and right. I have noted in an earlier post somewhere that statism was (and probably is) much more pronounced in centre-right France than in centre-left Sweden.

An example on how an identical result can be produced from very different ideological bases. Towards the end of the 19th century it became possible to exploit the rich iron ore deposits in the extreme north of Sweden (the enabler was the Bessemer process which can handle ore containing phosphorus). The question was then whether this should be done by the state or by the private sector.

The Socialists said the state because in principle natural resources should be owned by the state.

The Liberals said the state because it would ensure humane working and living conditions for the workers.

The Conservatives said the state because they wanted to prevent 'international capital' (read English) from taking control of a national resource.

338. PelleNilsson - 10/25/1999 2:49:10 AM

Spence --- #333

I slept through all this. If it recurs I will indeed move posts.

339. stostosto - 10/25/1999 4:01:32 AM

Pseuder:

"In the USA, the pork-barrelling required to build a coalition to pass the president's legislation almost always also dilutes his agenda. "

Apart from the fact that there actually has been frequently a majority in Congress corresponding to the party of the President (I believe the Congress majority was Democrat from FDR until 1994) - which you seem to assume never is the case - how is it that a dilution of the President's agenda would inevitably lead to lower taxes? I just don't see that logic. The President's name might be, say, Ronald Reagan.

CalGal:
There is no contradiction in what you say in #314. The question is: Would people and money invariably move to places with a lower tax, or would they also factor in such niceties as good public schooling, free and universal health care, low crime rates, low poverty rates, an equitable distribution of income, etc.

Btw, it is true what is being said about the right of EU citizens to live and work in any EU country. This was one of the so-called four freedoms (people, capital, goods, services) of the single market which was enacted in 1992. You are even entitled to social benefits in your country of residence - something that has occasionally been used in anti-EU campaigns here in the socially generous (actually or perceivedly) Scandiland.

And over time, I have little doubt that mobility will be greater across intra-EU borders. Yet, at the moment mobility is actually very low in the EU, not just between countries but also within them. It is extremely difficult to get northern English people (Full Monty types) to move southwards for jobs, for example.

340. stostosto - 10/25/1999 4:03:25 AM

[continued]
There is a likely scenario in which intra-European mobility will be expanded by the well-educated elite while less cosmopolitan parts of society will feel even more abandoned than before. This could add to the already growing polarization of European societies and lead to calls for greater social expenditure.

Ultimately, I think intra-European mobility will tend to stay much lower than intra-American mobility on account of culture and language.

But, I concede that this mobility question probably bears on the ability of the state to tax and spend great proportions of GDP. It's not as straightforward as that. The heavily taxed Nordic countries traditionally have been very open to foreign trade; thus their business sectors have been exposed to competition from countries with significantly lower tax burdens - a fact which they have rarely missed an opportunity to point out. Thus, there would seem to be at least one channel of mobility that should limit the taxing powers of the state: The loss of jobs to lower taxed competitors. But this hasn't prevented those bleeding heart Nordic theme park social democrats from imposing the stiffest tax burden in the world on their constituents.

Come to think of it: The big rise in tax-and-spend welfare states in Europe came in the sixties and seventies (CalGal is right again, if that's what she means by 'recent European socialism'), a period which was characterized by the opening up of the economies. Of course, everything is easier during a period of frantic economic expansion than in more stagnant conditions.

341. stostosto - 10/25/1999 4:08:56 AM

minor correction:

In the above where I say "But, I concede that this mobility question probably bears on the ability of the state to tax and spend great proportions of GDP. It's not as straightforward as that", it should have said:

"[...] It's not as straightforward as that, though."

342. Amaxen@work - 10/25/1999 4:55:28 AM

Re the European mobility to low tax areas:

It's been a while since I read anything on the topic, but one of the biggest issues for anti-EU folks in Britian about 9 years ago was the fact that Britian would have to accept the 'social charter' of the Maastricht treaty. Basically, the social clause stipulated that all member countries have the same minimum labor, health & saftey, etc. conditions. In practice the social charter set minimum wage laws, mandated vacation hours, maximum work weeks, etc. All fine and good, so far. But, the anti-EU crowd (I studied one called the Bruges group) maintained that all of these were set at the levels of the most statist countries - France and Germany -, and so mandated, for example, 35 hour work weeks, relatively high wage levels, mandatory 1 month vacations, etc. Their point was that the EU was being used as a way to eliminate the competitive advantages of the poorer countries. It also would have had the effect of bringing to relatively free-market countries many of the root causes of "Eurosclerosis" -high structural unemployment. On a broader level, it represented to the anti-Brussels crowd a kind of creeping socialism - or "Socialism by the Back-Delors" (Delors was the then president of the EU Commission, and a former member of the French socialist party) Never kept up with the outcome ... Any of you EuroVolken know if the social charter stayed?

343. PelleNilsson - 10/25/1999 4:59:33 AM

sto

I know: you had to get it off your chest and I agree with what you say. But please note bene: Political Ideas.

I don't want a debate about tax policy or free trade here without reference to the ideological basis (and perhaps not even then, because our American friends may quickly turn it into current American politics while we are asleep).

344. stostosto - 10/25/1999 5:10:15 AM

Pelle
You are one tough host!

345. stostosto - 10/25/1999 5:15:31 AM

But, Pelle
I have wondered a bit over your 'political ideas' concept. Obviously such ideas don't come out of the blue (well, most of them don't). I think we were discussing the interesting difference between the sets of political ideas prevalent in America and Europe. And such a discussion will inevitably touch on economic, institutional and historical differences in the framework of these different societies. Where to draw the line? I don't know. And I will not quarrel with your right to draw it where you see fit - unless, that is, I feel a greater cause for quarrel than at present.

346. PelleNilsson - 10/25/1999 5:21:08 AM

sto

Hahaha! It is not that I'm against digressions and off-topicality per se. But our friends are so damned Americocentric and I would rather "stämma i bäcken" - is that a Danish saying too? And if you want to see a tough host in action go to PE's thread and note the gaps in the sequence of post nos.

amaxen

I don't know about the current status of the charter but I do know that the UK got the right to opt out.

347. Amaxen@work - 10/25/1999 5:43:11 AM

Your honor, I withdraw the question.

(how bout this way)

One of the biggest problems facing a centralized state is that it controls a large amount of resources. This encourages individuals & institutions to attempt to gain competitive advantages agaist each other by turning to the government for help, instead of producing more. The result is the formation of 'Distributional Coalitions' (DCs). These are groups that, once they have gained a govt subsidy, fight very hard to keep it, even if it is clearly not beneficial to 'the common good' (whatever that is) for them to have it. Both the Parliamentary and the Presidential systems develop these, but to my observation in different ways. Probably the most damaging and troublesome to an economy is the large, broad based variety -- like the Common Agricultural Policy in Europe and the Social Security system in the US. Those two large examples aside, however, I have noticed that the DCs for more centralized states tend to be much more systemic and intractable - because a democratic centralized state is able to rationalize it's pork and distribute it to broad swathes of the population. More fragmented democratic states, like the US, tend to have more fragmented pork distribution schemes. In the US, the relative power of individual congressmen/senators determines how much resources are distributed to their respective districts. In parliamentary systems, this still happens, but to a much smaller degree.

348. Amaxen@work - 10/25/1999 5:43:34 AM

Instead, very large distributional schemes tend to become the norm, like socia - er, 'free' medical services, inflated labor controls, etc. From the point of view of a govt. minimalist, a distributed state is much better than a centralised state, because while pork is always much more difficult to take away than to give, there is much more political pain involved in taking away govt largesse from a broad segment of the population than from a relatively tiny one. Thus, 'the common will' or whatever has much more ability to determine the 'correct' level of govt. largesse programs under a more distributed governmental system.
Under a centralized state, the choice tends to be between spending the same amount or more. Under a decentralized state it becomes possible (relatively) to contemplate spending less.

349. concerned - 10/25/1999 5:53:34 AM

Pellenilsson asks in post 5:

"Is the Constitution the glue that holds a diverse nation together? Or is it a mantra of some kind? If you find support in the Constitution for your argument any counter-argument is dead irrespective of its merits?"

Generally speaking, yes, to the first question. No, to the second and third questions.

One ought to remember that any provision of the US Constitution can be modified by the following process, and has already been done with 27 amendments:

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution.

Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

350. concerned - 10/25/1999 5:53:55 AM

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

351. stostosto - 10/25/1999 6:14:17 AM

Amaxen
This issue is actually fraught with paradox. You give a good representation of the British debate, especially the right-wing Eurosceptic position where the EU is portrayed as an evil socialist leviathan. In the Nordic countries, by contrast, the EU is frequently seen as a threat to our cherished welfare states. Left wingers stress the lower level of wages, labour protection, social transfers, and female labour market participation in central and southern EU, then point to the EU's provision for free movement of capital, and, presto, you wind up with a libertarian dream: A race to the bottom for social protection levels. Thus, in the Nordic countries the biggest anti-EU sentiment has traditionally been on the left end of the political spectrum. Of course, this sentiment at present is more and more being overlayed with a right wing xenophobic trend towards keeping out welfare shoppers (and people with odd surnames).

As to your question about the EU social charter: It is actually very weak at the moment. There are certainly no directives on mandatory minimum wages or maximum working hours. Which would also be either absurd, or fiendishly difficult to implement fairly, given all the different kinds of institutional setups of different EU countries.

But to some extend, the EU also has changed its agenda from the Delors White Book one of forging a single market (the liberal/conservative agenda - propelled by that hard core socialist Delors), and Maastricht EMU-treaty, to one of putting in institutional checks on the dreaded "race-to-the-bottom"; this agenda having been, rather timidly, initiated in the Amsterdam treaty of 1997-8.

Sorry if I am off-topic.

352. stostosto - 10/25/1999 6:14:32 AM

----
But actually, I think the EU as a phenomenon merits some discussion under the heading of "political ideas". The idea of sovereign states voluntarily relinquishing some of their (formal) sovereignty to a fledgling supra-national entity is rather unique, I think. It is tempting to compare the European Union with the United States - and the most ardent Europhiles nourish an idea of a United States of Europe. They see every integrating step of the EU as a step in a grand unifying process, ultimately leading to a US style form of union. Such visions have about as much public support as a North American Union of USA, Canada and Mexico would have (in either country). And even if it had, the process would still constantly bump into practical difficulties, i.e. conflicts of interests. So the EU as a political project will be something to be constantly redefined and invented along the way.

353. PelleNilsson - 10/25/1999 6:25:12 AM

sto

I just got back. I hope you realise that the laugh in my #346 was your #344, not #345.

354. concerned - 10/25/1999 6:38:44 AM

Re. 346 -

Checked aforesaid thread & noticed that over half the first 100 posts had been deleted.

355. Amaxen@work - 10/25/1999 7:06:24 AM

Sto,

But isn't the "bottom" being defined as the standard French levels of welfare provision? If there are no minimum restrictions on social policy, then why is the British right stirred up about it? And why does the UK have an opt-out clause? My impression was that the Social charter is on the high side of statist interference... altho I am not surprised at it still being lower than Scandinavian standards. My impression of the debate is that the real hurt would fall on the less-developed states of Europe: they do not have high enough productivity to justify such high real compensation rates, and as a result of signing on would see the larger part of their development rates going to the more industrialized, higher productivity states. I saw that the EU was aware of this, and institutionally plans on correcting this imbalance via income transfers, but I just don't see this being effective: goverment aid has almost never historically worked to stimulate a national economy, over the long run.

356. PelleNilsson - 10/25/1999 7:07:36 AM

sto

There is certainly a very high ideological content in the EU project, although this tends to be forgotten in the daily squabbles over beef and frog's legs and whatnot. And it is interesting how the left in our countries now have a nationalistic agenda playing on fears of 'international capital', just as the conservatives did a hundred years ago. A while ago I saw an article arguing that our resistance to EU goes back on a collective memory of the Kalmar Union, when Sweden was in effect ruled from Denmark whose rulers put in their own (foreign) tax collectors who sucked the honest Swedish farmer dry.

357. PelleNilsson - 10/25/1999 7:29:27 AM

Amaxen

Your observations on the centralised vs the decentralised state are good ones, but perhaps not generally applicable. Germany is also fairly decentralised. But the fact is that there is very little support for minimalist government in Europe. It is simply not on the agenda, except with the "lunatic right" as libertarians are known. "To pay taxes is cool" as a politician said here.

Talking about Germany. Most Americans seem to believe that their constitution is a Great Thing. The US virtually authored and imposed the post-war constitutions of Japan and Germany. Why are they not modelled on the Great Thing?

358. SpenceMirrlees - 10/25/1999 7:32:49 AM

Well Pelle, everyone knows the US is famous, especially so in that era, for taking local traditions and customs into account when foisting its will upon the unenlightened. Surely that's the reason.

359. PelleNilsson - 10/25/1999 7:36:10 AM

Ah, like missionaries allowing pagan customs to survive but in new Christian clothing?

360. stostosto - 10/25/1999 7:40:35 AM

Amaxen

You can get an idea of the weakness of the social charter from the Commission's website - this link is to the Commission's stand on what it dubs "fair pay arrangements". It explicitly says that there are no EU enforced minimum wage requirements, and emphasizes the commission's role in securing greater transparency in labour markets - not in setting up EU minimum standards.

"Guaranteeing equitable wages remains a priority concern. As labour markets fragment and new forms of working begin to predominate, the most realistic way of encouraging an equitable wage will be through the demonstration of good practice, principally at the level of the employer.

The Commission undeniably has a role to play in the dissemination of good practice on employment conditions in general and wages in particular, in monitoring the development of continuous training and its impact on earnings, in encouraging improvements in reliable and up-to-date information on wage determination, wage levels, etc., in all Member States and selected competitor countries, and in encouraging the development of national job vacancy information and access to this by all players in the labour market, in particular job seekers."

I believe the British opt-out is a precaution, based on a fear of where an EU mingling in this area might lead. And there is little doubt that socialist EU proponents harbour such ideas as the British euroskeptics use as scare images.

361. SpenceMirrlees - 10/25/1999 7:43:29 AM

359

Precisely. It's a storied tradition in the US; that's how Martin van Buren started parties as we know them today.

362. stostosto - 10/25/1999 7:46:44 AM

I believe the German federalism was actually an American preoccupation. As well as a French one. Hitler's first political project was to call for a centralized Great Germany; the western powers conceivably sought to minimize the possibility of that happening again, one action being the federalization of Germany. (West Germany, that is. East Germany was centralized in the extreme, modelled on Soviet patterns).

363. PelleNilsson - 10/25/1999 7:47:08 AM

sto

Is there a minumum wage in Denmark? We don't have one. I mean fixed by law, not by labour-industry contract.

364. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/1999 7:50:59 AM

#336

But the question remains how the power structure got like that in the first place. I acknowledge that, especially 210 years later, there is some feedback from institutions onto preferences.

Sure, but that's a historical question. My point is that American attitudes toward the state are precisely the case of "feedback from institutions onto preferences", from institutions which got locked in 210 years ago. If you changed institutions, you might eventually get different attitudes.

But something, possibly some structural factors, possibly preferences about statism, existed in the first place to make the institutions look like they do.

I agree. The patterns of English colonialism are surely the answer. Remember, most European states are a result of the military expansion and accumulation of territory. The USA resulted from a voluntary unification of the sovereign states. The difference in the attitude toward étatisme implied by the two histories is obvious.

365. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/1999 7:51:35 AM

#339

how is it that a dilution of the President's agenda would inevitably lead to lower taxes?

How many fucking times do I have to say this? I didn't say that a fullfillment or dilution of Presidential power leads to lower taxes! I said that ANY political agenda are more easily implemented with a unified, not a divided, government. So, if a president wishes to cut taxes, then it's better for him that both the presidency and the congress are controlled by his party. If a president wishes to RAISE taxes, then it's better for him that both the presidency and the congress are controlled by his party. I don't know what is so bloody difficult about it.

Apart from the fact that there actually has been frequently a majority in Congress corresponding to the party of the President (I believe the Congress majority was Democrat from FDR until 1994) - which you seem to assume never is the case -...I just don't see that logic. The President's name might be, say, Ronald Reagan.

You keep choosing examples which illustrate my arguments. For the greater part of USA history, Congress and Presidency have been controlled by different parties. Yet, the two prominent examples wherein the same party controlled both branches of the US govt (I believe) and central (1) some but not all terms of the FDR administration; and (2) the first two years of the Reagan Administration, where the Republicans controlled the Senate and had gained a huge number of seats in the House of Rep (without gaining an actual majority).

366. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/1999 7:52:10 AM

Would people and money invariably move to places with a lower tax, or would they also factor in such niceties as good public schooling, free and universal health care, low crime rates, low poverty rates, an equitable distribution of income, etc.

Of course there are other factors. It's obvious.

And over time, I have little doubt that mobility will be greater across intra-EU borders. Yet, at the moment mobility is actually very low in the EU, not just between countries but also within them. It is extremely difficult to get northern English people (Full Monty types) to move southwards for jobs, for example.

And that's why the EU is not an optimal currency area. I also seriously doubt that mobility within the EU would ever reach even half of the intra-USA proportions.

The heavily taxed Nordic countries traditionally have been very open to foreign trade; thus their business sectors have been exposed to competition from countries with significantly lower tax burdens - a fact which they have rarely missed an opportunity to point out. Thus, there would seem to be at least one channel of mobility that should limit the taxing powers of the state: The loss of jobs to lower taxed competitors. But this hasn't prevented those bleeding heart Nordic theme park social democrats from imposing the stiffest tax burden in the world on their constituents.

But you're working with the wrong prediction. In a common market with free trade, high volume of trade and high capital mobility, but little labour mobility, the result you should see is not a general reduction of the tax burden, but a shift in the tax burden away from corporate revenue to personal revenue. This has in fact been the story throughout the OECD.

367. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/1999 7:52:58 AM

Come to think of it: The big rise in tax-and-spend welfare states in Europe came in the sixties and seventies (CalGal is right again, if that's what she means by 'recent European socialism'), a period which was characterized by the opening up of the economies. Of course, everything is easier during a period of frantic economic expansion than in more stagnant conditions.

Intra-European trade was relatively high from the 1950s.

368. stostosto - 10/25/1999 7:54:50 AM

Pelle
I always feel it is silly to invoke such ancient phenomena as the 14th century Kalmar Union. Such an argument carries more weight in the case of Norway whose break-away from union with Sweden happened as recent as 1905 and still has the Norwegians behaving like a new-born nation state, complete with pompous nationalistic posturing and gloating at the slightest occasions (such as having given Sweden a good trouncing in cross-country skiing, or seeing the Norwegian krone soar past the Swedish krona, or enjoying all the Swedish guest workers dish-washing in posh Oslo restaurants because they couldn't find a job in Sweden).

In any case, Swedes are not afraid of Danes. (Who is?) It's Germany that is the big bogeyman, sometimes Britain, and, occasionally those arrogant Frenchmen.

369. stostosto - 10/25/1999 7:55:47 AM

Pelle:
No, there is no law based minimum wage in Denmark.

370. stostosto - 10/25/1999 7:56:11 AM

toy stop

371. PelleNilsson - 10/25/1999 7:58:41 AM

Toys, PE!

sto

Of course it's silly. Very silly. But as to Norway you are right. For some reason we have quite a few Norwegians in our company. They say that the ver word "Union" puts them off, because of the 1814-1905 experience.

372. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/1999 8:02:04 AM

Amaxen is obviously a libertarian.

373. PelleNilsson - 10/25/1999 8:14:31 AM

I have to log out now. I hope to be back later with some ideas that will steer the discussion closer to the center of the issue at hand. (Wasn't that beautifully and delicately put?)

374. Amaxen@work - 10/25/1999 8:30:15 AM

Sto,

Thanks for the site. Interesting. The essential paradox opens up a lot of questions about the future of the EU, to me at least. F'r instance: What will be the policy towards countries which wish to succeede from the EU once they have signed on, and been in for a while?

I'm going to use 'statist' to mean those countries which have relatively high mandated benefit levels in the following paragraphs.

I envision something like the following happening:
The more statist countries are going to feel strong pressures to increase the level of benefits Europe-wide. Much more powerful in W.Europe than here in the provinces, Unions in particular are going to be very vocal about seeing jobs move to places like, say Czechoslovakia where mandated labor costs are lower. Since the more statist countries are also the ones that have the most power, they will probably prevail in raising minimum labor laws to something considerably above the minimum. The less developed countries, like the poorer eastern and southern states, will then be caught in a development trap. The only asset they have relative to the rich countries is cheap labor. Everything else: infrastructure, capital, markets, etc. they lose on when compared to the rich countries. As a result, the south and east will be perpetually in a subordinate position to the richer founder members. In order to keep things from getting out of hand, the EU will provide these countries with substantial subsidies in an effort to both bind them closer to the Union and out of genuine altruistic feeling.

375. Amaxen@work - 10/25/1999 8:30:34 AM

Over the long term though, there will be bitterness on both sides of the rich/poor divide. The rich countries will be increasingly bitter about transferring wealth to the poor countries, and the poor countries will be increasingly bitter about 'economic imperialism' by the rich countries. The poor countries will probably be stuck w/in the Union, politically, since even though they might be better off by casting loose, there is little doubt that they would face popular uprisings if the transfer payments stop coming in. The rich countries, on the other hand, will have electorates increasingly unwilling to support what the voters will regard as freeloaders- it’s one thing to support a welfare state when some of the people are your countrymen, quite another when you mix transfer payments with nationalism. I can't really think of many alternate courses than succession. Which gives rise to my original question: How badly is the EU hurt, not now but 40 years from now, if/when a powerful country, or even a couple of poor countries, declare their succession from Europe? And what would the EU's response be?

376. Amaxen@work - 10/25/1999 8:34:25 AM

Psudo,

Yes, I am a libby wing nut,

However, I don't think that there is much debate over whether transfer payments encourage development. They do indisputably reduce income inequality, but they have a very poor record in affecting economic growth.

377. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/1999 8:36:32 AM

#362

Do you Herringistanis know about something outside Herringistan? German federalism is not a a legacy of allied occupation. The allies restored a status quo ante Hitler, in which the Länder maintained substantial autonomy. This is a legacy of the way in which Germany became a country -- forced unification under Bismarck, but under the pretence of voluntary union. (The King of Prussia was officially crowned Kaiser by the other kings & princes.)

378. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/1999 8:40:20 AM

# 376

However, I don't think that there is much debate over whether transfer payments encourage development. They do indisputably reduce income inequality, but they have a very poor record in affecting economic growth.

I have no idea what you mean by "transfer payments encourage development".

379. Amaxen@work - 10/25/1999 8:42:24 AM

#377,

I would argue it's not just how Germany was united that led to federalism, but the multiple centuries of being independent political states that made it necessary. I mean, Texas was an independent nation for only a decade or so and they'll never let the rest of us forget it.

380. PelleNilsson - 10/25/1999 8:42:47 AM

PE

Coming back for an instance. I know that. I know it very well indeed, and probably better than you do. But that was not the point of my post, which you would have discovered had you engaged brain before hitting keyboard.

381. Amaxen@work - 10/25/1999 8:43:54 AM

378,

Ok,

Economic aid has a very poor record of encouraging economic growth.

There is not much debate about this issue.

382. Amaxen@work - 10/25/1999 8:46:08 AM

Do you dispute either of the above statements?

383. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/1999 8:47:34 AM

#374

You assume unjustifiably that economic development in southern & eastern Europe depends primarily on getting factories moved there from the richer countries of Europe. A very silly assumption! The likes of Czech Republic and Poland have a world market they also cater to, plus a large enough domestic market.

#375 is pretty much nonsense given my comments above. But you probably do have a point that voters in rich countries will tire of transferring wealth to the poorer ones. But I contend that these transfers will naturally trail off with economic development in the east and the south. (Not that the south is so poor, Portugal and Spain have developed quite a bit, Spain in particular has a national internet programme which would put to shame most EU countries.)

384. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/1999 8:54:31 AM

#379
I would argue it's not just how Germany was united that led to federalism, but the multiple centuries of being independent political states that made it necessary.

The one is part & parcel of the other! How Germany became unified

But Italy has even a longer history of being multiple independent political states, without anything comparable to German federalism. The Italian state is much more centralised, despite vast cultural & regional differences.

#380
I was responding primarily to Sto's #362.

Coming back for an instance. I know that. I know it very well indeed, and probably better than you do.

Sorry, but no. What the hell do you know anyway.

#381
#382

Economic aid has a very poor record of encouraging economic growth in Third World countries. Yet economic aid clearly had something to do with post-war growth in Japan and Europe. I don't see why aid to the likes of Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and the Baltics can't have a similar effect. The other EE countries are a different matter.

385. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/1999 9:01:46 AM

#342
Their point was that the EU was being used as a way to eliminate the competitive advantages of the poorer countries. It also would have had the effect of bringing to relatively free-market countries many of the root causes of "Eurosclerosis" -high structural unemployment.

Except, of course, there is no evidence that high unemployment in Western Europea is "structural", unless by that you mean it's been around for a decade. (BTW, only five of them have high unemployment, not all of them.) I contend it is a result largely of the fiscal and monetary constraints of Maastricht, and only secondarily to do with labour market rigidities.

#347

While I agree with your comments about "distributional coalitions", you talk about the phenomenon in Europe as though it were Pakistan or Mexico. It's not that bad. And I think it's tendentious nonsense to say that the CAP in Europe and the SS in the USA constitute serious damages. The "damage" they cause, if any, is likely to be small.

386. Amaxen@work - 10/25/1999 9:04:35 AM

Psud,

I will defer to your knowledge of Spain & Portugal. Perhaps I overgeneralized.

However, altho I don't have the numbers available ( I am, after all, @work) I recall that something like 95% of the former socialist states trade is, first, with each other, and second, with W.Europe. Which brings to light a second source of embitterment in my hypothetical scenario: The E.Europeans are already facing quite a bit of discrimmination against their products from W.Europe. I recall that the CAP, becomes even more unworkable if/when E.European farmers become covered by it.

You assume unjustifiably that economic development in southern & eastern Europe depends primarily on getting factories moved there from the richer countries of Europe. Of course, this is true. However, you are overlooking the political perception of the EU's uniooons. They will see some jobs move there, and come to the usual uniooon wrong conclusion : that the 'slave labor' of E.Europe is going to 'deindustrialise' Europe, taking their jobs. To my mind inevitably, they are going to push for 'fair' labor laws across the EU, and I can't think of any reason why they won't succeed.

387. Amaxen@work - 10/25/1999 9:30:29 AM

#384
(LOL)
The Marshall plan was 50 years ago. And was not an example of ec.dev. aid. If you have questions, post in econ and ask spence to explain the difference to you.

#385
Well, I suppose there is (just barely) room for reasonable people to disagree about structural unemployment in Europe. However, even most of the respected left-wing (admittedly american) economists that I know of do agree that Europe does have a structural unemployment problem. And it has not been around for only a decade, when you count the various schemes by European governements to warehouse labor and otherwise hide the real unemployment rate.

388. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/1999 9:40:50 AM

#387
I know you're new to the forum, so perhaps you shoul ask around what I know and don't know when it comes to economic issues. I am quite familiar with the workings of the Marshall Plan, which was, for all intents & purposes, a currency support programme, a stabilisation plan similar to what the IMF does with its "structural adjustment programme". But so what? What's the difference? The funds allocated by the MP to take care of Europe's BOP problems freed other funds for reconstruction. Then there is the case with Japan -- where the USA did allocate quite a bit of reconstruction aid.

The point you seem to have missed in your ideological constipation is that southern & eastern Europe (by which I mean CR, Poland, Hungary, Baltics) are not Nigeria or Sri Lanka. In particular, many of the EE countries had substantial histories of economic development before the fall of communism. And all have a functioning economic system in which economic development takes place successfully. Aid to such countries is not and has not been like aid to Nigeria. And it's disingenous (or fatous) of you to take the record of economic aid to developing countries and apply that to European countries.

389. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/1999 9:48:15 AM

Re structural unemployment

Well, I suppose there is (just barely) room for reasonable people to disagree about structural unemployment in Europe.

Just barely? Nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.

However, even most of the respected left-wing (admittedly american) economists that I know of do agree that Europe does have a structural unemployment problem.

Yes, but whom you refer to as "left-wing" is a bit suspect. The fact remains that the stringenet fiscal & monetary criteria of Maastrict have been in effect for nearly a decade, and I don't see how someone can so easily dismiss this complicating factor and hone in on labour market rigidities as the primary cause -- except as a priori belief.

I'm not saying there isn't structural component -- the unemployment experience of Holland has shown there is. But I'm saying the structural component is exaggerated.

390. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/1999 9:50:55 AM

Amaxen, I just realised you're the dingbat who was babbling about bionomics! Hahahaha.

391. stostosto - 10/25/1999 9:51:06 AM

Pseud #377:
I do know that the federalist German constitution was modelled on the pre-Hitler arrangement; but where does that contradict what I said in
#362?

"I believe the German federalism was actually an American preoccupation. As well as a French one. Hitler's first political project was to call for a centralized Great Germany; the western powers conceivably sought to minimize the possibility of that happening again, one action being the federalization of Germany".

This was all the easier given the pre-Hitler precedent. If the pre-Hitler model had been seen as less benign, that is, more prone to German Aufwachung, it would hardly have been restored.

392. stostosto - 10/25/1999 10:02:07 AM

Amaxen:
You point to very real potential conflicts of interests. However, I think you underestimate the pragmatism of Europe, and overestimate the extent to which Germany and France can impose their preferences on the others - as well as the extent to which French and German unions can impose their agenda on their respective governments. Moreover, the Angst and préoccupation you see in those countries right now has much to do with their present employment situation - when this looks up (as it is on its way to do), concern will wane. This is not to say that everything will be fine and dandy for the European project. Only that the scenario may be considerably more dynamic than the one you paint - if also very muddled. It's often very disparaging to see how difficult it is to reform such a horribly idiotic construct as the CAP. Yet, it is being reformed. And there is a consensus that it is not going to be extended to the prospective members to the east. The same goes for the structural funds.

393. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/1999 10:32:05 AM

Well, unlike Stostosto, I can't find Amaxen's #374 particularly compelling because it depends on so many dubious assumptions. The three glaring ones are: (1) Compliance with EU directives will result in a development trap for the poorer countries, something which has clearly not happened for Spain, Portugal and Greece; and (2) the poorer European countries will fail to achieve significant econ development without the displacement of Western European factory jobs to their countries; and (3) EE countries will be admitted as full members of the EU before their human development converges more with Western European average.

394. stostosto - 10/25/1999 10:35:22 AM

So where are the political ideas in all this? How about this:

* The European Union is a new form of political organization. There are several competing visions as to how it should develop - some clearer than others.

* The libertarian vision: An integrated free market with a single currency, harmonized technical rules, free movements of products and factors of production so as to minimize barriers to competition.

* The 'social democratic' vision: The single market is checked by a 'social dimension', stipulating minimum standards in labour markets, and also e.g. putting a floor on taxation of business, so as to hinder "race-to-the-bottom" competition

* The Euro-federalist vision: The EU should become a player on the world stage, politically, and militarily; it's essentially a super power project.

* The French technocratic vision: The EU is a vehicle for fostering grand statist infrastructure projects, promoting scientific and industrial advance in high-tech sectors so as to enable Fra.. er, the EU to compete with Americans and Japanese, and greater employment. (A vision which has shown its limitations in France proper).

There are others.

And there are lots of permutations within each of those as to which set of institutions should prevail.

What the governments never got around to in Amsterdam at the last treaty revision was such an eminently necessary thing as how to allot votes and commissioners when the new members start to enter. Inevitably this will water down the influence of each of the present members as measured in voting leverage. But it's a Pandora's box to open: Expect Germany, which is significantly underrepresented in the present framework, to want votes to reflect population size, for instance. Expect the others to be very wary of this. And so on.

395. Seguine - 10/25/1999 11:05:22 AM

"what the general will is, and how it's to be discovered, well, I don't think Rousseau himself is quite clear on that, except to sweep the problem under the rug by introducing a notion of human nature that sort of makes the general will appear in an earnest assembly of people."

An assembly of earnest people with relatively similar interests and preferences, I would think.

Thomas Scanlon might also be Rousseau's heir; he begins to address the question of how we should treat one another by suggesting that ethical norms are established by a group (or maybe it's a majority) of "reasonable" people. IOW, ethics emerges just as consensus on objective phenomena emerges. Scanlon argues, I think, that certain precepts are, in fact, universal according to this formulation: would reasonable people object to being treated in a particular way? If so, then the treatment is ethically wrong. (It's the golden rule, of course, posed negatively.)

Rawls, incidentally, thought that individuals' duties to one another should be hemmed by national boundaries. His moralism was a form of civic duty, not a brand of universal brotherhood.

396. Seguine - 10/25/1999 11:34:57 AM

"One might argue that those people should stay in Omelas and do what they can to help that kid."

At what cost?

"How are they helped in any way by moving on? Because they will live in a different place? Do they move on because they morally object to countenancing that kind of suffering, and if so, is their moving on less objectionable? The kid is still suffering."

You're pointing out arguments concerning proximity, knowledge, and active vs. passive harm. The proximity issue isn't dealt with in the LeGuin story; Omelas is an isolated Utopia; leaving it absolves the leaver of complicity in the child's suffering, which we are to understand is a sacrifice. (Sort of like high unemployment.) Knowledge of suffering is not a persuasive thing on its own: one must have the means to do something about it, and if one does, again, the question becomes at what cost? That is, by how much is one obligated to reduce one's own well-being in order to help another? (These questions are always posed in terms of a zero sum game, which I guess is why they fall short of producing meaningful answers for all circumstances.) Then there's the active/passive issue, which is subject to the same constraints as above, plus a few more we needn't get bogged down in.

397. Seguine - 10/25/1999 11:36:27 AM

"Moving on won't help the kid, and can only hurt the movers-on, as they will, by assumption, not find a society that is more perfect in every other respect than Omelas. Nobody will be helped, and someone will be hurt if they move on; why do it?"

Well, LeGuin doesn't tell us what the leavers move on to, nor does she say what happens when they go. But your assumption that moving on won't help the kid is flawed. You can say that moving on may not help him, but you can't be sure that it will not. It might. And, if one's appreciation of Omelas' "perfection" is tarnished by the knowledge of the kid in the basement, then moving on to a less objectively perfect circumstance may be preferable. Thus, the cost to the leaver of opting out may be fairly small, or even nonexistent, all things considered.

Preferences are the issue--not the only one, but still? Once aversion to some concept of injustice becomes ingrained in a person or a culture, the notion of the "greater good" is colored by that aversion to some extent. So, then, can be the concept of individual benefit.

398. Seguine - 10/25/1999 11:40:26 AM

I should have said, "Thus, the cost to the leaver of opting out may be fairly small, or even nonexistent, relative to the possible benefit to the kid in the basement."

399. Schehezarade - 10/25/1999 12:35:51 PM

PelleNilsson


Thank you for the invitation to participate in here! I hope to catch up on all of the previous posts within the next day or so. Are you a fan of any particular social theorist? I may be writing my dissertation on Weber, but am having a difficult time finding any of his work regarding China, India, or ancient Judaism. I haven't read his _Economy and Society_ yet, should I look there?

400. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/1999 12:38:03 PM

#399

Weber -- The Religion of China and The Religion of India,

401. Schehezarade - 10/25/1999 12:51:54 PM

PseudoErasmus

Thank you ten-fold. One would think that their tutor would have Weberian titles memorised, but not here. Now I have to find an accommodating bookstore.

402. pseudoerasmus - 10/25/1999 12:53:41 PM

Schehezarade: Are you an American at a British university?

403. PelleNilsson - 10/25/1999 1:33:24 PM

Schehezarade

For Weber books in print check here (Amazon, US) or here (WHSmith, UK). Of course, any good reference library will have them.

404. PelleNilsson - 10/26/1999 6:47:57 AM

I would have liked to put together a well reasoned post in time for the Mote morning rush hour, but have been prevented by pressure of work (such as changing to studded winter tires).

The subject I wanted to bring up is the holiest of the Holy Cows - democracy. Brief notes:

• Is democracy always The Solution for all countries or is it a kneejerk mantra that the West resorts to because it's convenient and PC?
  
• Is universal franchise always preferable? Could the case be made that those who are directly dependent on government should not have a voice in electing it?
  
• Non-Americans wonder at the low participation over there in the political process. Is this seen as a problem?

405. ranheim - 10/26/1999 8:39:21 AM

In answer to Pelle's questions in #404

1) No - I envision the current Russia under a strongman more than a democracy.
2) No - Another way would be to make a citizen's vote worth more depending on - say - property tax paid.
3) Undecided - Low voter turnout can mean different things at different times. My wife and I consider our votes as worth more than 1 in elections with low voter turnout.

Keep in mind that I am no believer in 'democracy' to begin with.

406. Ronski - 10/26/1999 9:01:23 AM

1) Democracy does not always ensure personal freedom. Freedom is the preferred goal, so there are at least hypothetical arguments to be made against democracy as an absolute good. Still, democracy is preferable to other forms of government as a general rule.

2) Universal franchise is always preferable. All competent adults should be treated equally under the law, though this is a tenet that has rarely been practiced in reality (blacks and women were not enfranchised when the U.S. republic was founded, and since then the government has continued to pass out various favors to politically powerful interest groups).

3) Low voter turnout in the U.S. is ascribable to a distrust of the political process which settlers brought to these shores, and to a general satisfaction with the way the country is governed (opposing mindsets which have the same result). It is not a great problem.

407. MrSocko - 10/26/1999 9:14:13 AM

Ronski:

Why do you believe universal franchise is always preferable. And always preferable to what? I was talking with my wife about this the other day. I said: Why, say, does it logically or reasonably follow that, say, allowing women the vote necessarily improve the governance of a society. She gave all the usual sentimental reasons -- and I agreed with them, as far as they go. But taken from a strictly rational point of view, I see no reason why universal suffrage is such a wonderful thing, other than the commonplace that it provides for a less bad system than all of the others.

Which brings me back to my question, and an honest query. Can it be demonstrated that suffrage democracy can in any rational sense improve the lot of a society? I would be interested to hear your explanation.

408. Ronski - 10/26/1999 9:27:47 AM

I thought I had explained why when I said that all people should be treated equally under the law. Assuming for a moment that all preferences are value judgments to at least some degree, I value the absence of differences in status enforced by law, a tenet which gained widespread acceptance, in theory at least, during the Enlightenment and the period of classical liberalism which followed it. I don't think we've ever improved on that notion.

Now, whether suffrage can be proven to improve the lot of society is perhaps a slightly different question. But I think that on the whole, democratically elected governments have in practice allowed for less tyranny over individuals than have governments which seized power through force. This despite the tendency of voters to vote themselves the fruits of the labors of others (the idea of the state being, as Frederic Bastiat put it, "that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.")

Whether a society that permits only certain individuals the vote can be as good as a society that permits all adults the vote is probably the key question. I think that partial enfranchisement is always doomed to produce strife, as people have a natural tendency to want the same rights others have, and that in itself makes full enfranchisement preferable.

409. Seguine - 10/26/1999 12:01:37 PM

"Can it be demonstrated that suffrage democracy can in any rational sense improve the lot of a society?"

How do you define that improvement?

410. PelleNilsson - 10/26/1999 4:25:03 PM

But isn't it a problem that in a democracy, the majority can impose its will on the minority?

And isn't it a fact that in parts of Africa (Kenya and Zimbabwe come to mind) voting is almost exclusively along tribal lines, and, therefore, serves to cement the superiority of the largest tribe?

411. ranheim - 10/26/1999 8:14:22 PM

One of the ways to undo 135 years of history and to go back to a republic (which I favor) AND to reduce the campaign expenses of at least one race would be to return to the old way of sending senators to Washington.

I don't mind the concept of the 'smoke filled room'. By and large, the movers and shakers will be in that room; there will be opinion of all sorts. The type men/women who would make it to a smoke filled room ARE NOT rubber stamps.

Thus, a man like Clinton would be filtered out by the smoke filled room. The people of Arkansas knew more about Clinton than did we. In most cases, I would suspect, they would not have permitted him to run had there been an "Arkansas filter" in place. But, call in arky. That is her state.

Once the congress of the state picks the next senator, he goes to Washington. No campaign to finance.

Thus, one gets a senator filtered out by the vying interests of each state + the expense of the campaign is limited to money spent by the candidate on the congress of that state. Could there be hanky-panky? Of course!

What do you label the last 7 years with Clinton? (Don't talk to me about the economy - that has more to do with Alan Greenspan than Clinton).

412. PelleNilsson - 10/27/1999 5:46:02 AM

The topic of democracy does not seem to generate a lot of interest. I will put up one more point and let things stand for 24 hours. My original post was Message # 404.

But if you want to introduce some other topic, please feel free to so so.

Democracy can be used as a vehicle for tyranny. Nazism is a point in case. It came to power as a result of elections (simplified, I know, but essentially correct), and then proceeded to dismantle democracy by democracy's own tools - votes in parliament.

More recently we have seen the Islamists in Algeria fight an election on a programme to do away with parliamentary democracy, whereupon the election (which they won, it is thought) was declared void and a very ugly almost civil war broke out.

And even more recently, in Pakistan, we have seen democracy go disastrously wrong leading to misuse of power and corruption, and ultimately provoking a military coup.

So, democracy is vulnerable and can be said to carry the seeds of its own destruction.

413. Angel-Five - 10/27/1999 6:14:47 AM

Pelle:

That's the most obvious thing about democracy. It relies upon amateurs to decide who will be allowed to speak for the nation. The fitness of the nation's government, and its alignment with the true desire and needs of the people it represents, is therefore entirely dependent upon the fitness of the people to select that government. A good look around the States will verify this.

Aside from the question of economic fitness being a prerequisite for 'real' democracy -- which others are a lot more qualified to debate than I am -- the problem with applying democracy to any government is that it depends upon the ability of the voter to think critically about the issues facing the country and make an educated decision as to what they think is important, the ability for that voter to cleanse the government of elements harmful to good government, and the presence of leaders who will genuinely represent the people's will and needs.

414. Angel-Five - 10/27/1999 6:19:58 AM

Is it possible for good government to have the ability to act against the will of the people without being potentially abusive? I do not believe so, and that is the tragic flaw of democracy. There is no perfect information and it's doubtful that we will ever have education methods which will ensure a fully responsible, competent, farsighted and critically intelligent population.

415. Cellar Door - 10/27/1999 9:56:06 AM

What do you label the last 7 years with Clinton?

Premature Ejaculation.

416. 109109 - 10/27/1999 10:29:50 AM

Angel

"Aside from the question of economic fitness being a prerequisite for 'real' democracy -- which others are a lot more qualified to debate than I am -- the problem with applying democracy to any government is that it depends upon the ability of the voter to think critically about the issues facing the country and make an educated decision as to what they think is important, the ability for that voter to cleanse the government of elements harmful to good government, and the presence of leaders who will genuinely represent the people's will and needs."

I'm not sure this follows. Democracy is dependent upon voters, but voters who think critically abouts issues facing the country and making educated decisions?

What I think is true is that democracy requires a bit of a shell game, whereby those who think critically to make educated decisions have at their disposal the means to either mold the view of the average voter or to disenfranchise that voter.

The result is a political aristocracy, with access to more money, insider information, strong lineage to political processes, same views (with some superficial or negligible differences), a proven deftness at handing out the government cheese so the natives don't get restless, and the ability to adapt when the "voters" actually demand something that the aristocracy hasn't engendered for them (a very rare occurrence).

The voter is almost besides the point. The critically thinking, educated, good government voter is an anomaly.

The visage of democracy is maintained. After all, one man, one vote is in cement. But what comes out the sausage grinder on the other end is something more than a pig.

417. CalGal - 10/27/1999 12:26:21 PM

the ability to adapt when the "voters" actually demand something that the aristocracy hasn't engendered for them (a very rare occurrence).

Cable TV oversight, the Attorney General having an illegal alien for a nanny and--one could probably argue--their lamentable inability to condemn the president. Although the last took them a while to figure out.

As I said earlier--the Federalists did win. Sure, everyone is allowed to vote, but their options are limited. That being said, I think the populace does have a very small impact, over time, on what the options menu contains.

418. Schehezarade - 10/27/1999 2:22:32 PM

I would have more faith in democracy if the general populace was more educated.

419. Ronski - 10/27/1999 2:25:15 PM

Is the subjunctive dead?

420. pseudoerasmus - 10/27/1999 2:25:50 PM

"Some ideas are so preposterous that only educated people could believe them".

421. CalGal - 10/27/1999 3:29:40 PM

Pelle,

Back in Message # 125, I quoted a passage from the Age of Federalism on the American predilection for voluntary associations. The book describes this as uniquely American. Would you agree?

422. Raskolnikov - 10/27/1999 11:53:24 PM

"Is democracy always The Solution for all countries or is it a kneejerk mantra that the West resorts to because it's convenient and PC?"

Democracy usually wins out on merits, as well as ethics. But not always.

"Is universal franchise always preferable? Could the case be made that those who are directly dependent on government should not have a voice in electing it?"

"universal" is pushing it. I see little problem in depriving voting rights to criminals, the mentally ill, and the young. And I think everyone who lives in a country is directly dependent on it, so I can't see how you can use that as a criteria to eliminate voting rights. If you are referring to people on the dole, I can think of no justifiable reason to eliminate their voting rights, and can think of many reasons why they need those rights more than other people. Without the right to vote, it would be even easier to politically marginalize the poor.

423. Raskolnikov - 10/27/1999 11:54:34 PM

"Non-Americans wonder at the low participation over there in the political process. Is this seen as a problem?"

Its debated a bit. Some people pull their hair out in frustration over low election turnout. Others, like me, generally just don't give a damn about voter apathy. American politics is much less diverse than European politics, so a lot of voters just don't see a vast difference between the two parties. Additionally, the distribution of political power in the US is pretty spread out. You elect the President, your Senator, your Representative, your Governor, your state senator, your state representative, other state officials (in Minnesota the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and members of the state Supreme Court are elected), your city mayor, city council, school board, district attorney, water commissioner (at least in my state), sheriff, and many other posts which vary from state to state (in Wisconsin, the county coroner was elected). Not to mention referendums and constitutional amendments in some states.

Given the vast number of elections, and the diversity of power, there is a higher price paid in getting informed enough to vote. Raise the cost of voting, and you naturally get a lower turnout.

424. cmboyce - 10/28/1999 12:48:10 AM

I don't understand being distressed about low turnouts. They indicate that the electorate is reasonably satisfied. Rebellions and the like indicate serious dissatisfaction. In the '60s, enough people were dissatisfied that murmurment grew appreciably, and the "political aristocracy" got their shit together a little and changed things--ended the war, got tough on Tricky Dick, etc.

Given a prosperous country, turnout will be low, most people favoring the "if it aint broke, dont fix it" notion. And when or if it is broke in any degree (as it almost always is, in reality), why should we desire that people too lazy and/or uniformed to care, be contributing their "decisions" to the selection of repairmen?

425. CalGal - 10/28/1999 12:53:35 AM

I read about a study--I think it was a Samuelson column that mentioned it--that pointed out that the results of elections wouldn't have altered significantly if the entire eligible population voted. I had never worried much about low voter turnout before I read this--now I don't worry about it at all.

That same article also mentioned that voter turnout has always been relatively low in the US. If I understood correctly, it's not as if we used to have 100% participation and then suddenly dropped to 40%.

426. cmboyce - 10/28/1999 1:22:33 AM

Per Almanac:

Presidential elelction turnout as % of voting age population:

1932: 52.4
1936: 56.0
1940: 58.9
1944: 56.0
1948: 51.1
1952: 61.6
1956: 59.3
1960: 62.8
1964: 61.9
1968: 60.9
1972: 55.2*
1976: 53.5
1980: 54.0
1984: 53.1
1988: 50.2
1992: 55.9
1996: 49.0

*The sharp drop in 1972 follows the expansion of eligibility with the enfranchisement of 18-to-21-year-olds.

428. cmboyce - 10/28/1999 1:28:13 AM

Sharpest drop from one to the next: 1st to 2nd Clinton (gee).
Sharpest rise: Truman to Ike. (I think maybe the Repubs didn't come out in '48 and made damn sure they did in '52.)

Highest turnout: Kennedy-Nixon.
Then, Johnson-Goldwater (my first election).

Highest one since those shiftless teens were admitted to the electorate: Clinton-Bush-Perot.

I'll bet this coming one sets a new low.

429. PelleNilsson - 10/28/1999 2:40:01 AM

CalGal

Re your Message # 125 about voluntary associations. I don't know enough of American political history to give an answer but I think that the author's claim that their role in America "is unparalleled in any other national civilization" may well be an overstatement. Society here is permeated by voluntary associations of all kinds and has been so for the last 120-140 years. Whether their political influence matched those in America .....? But of course political parties and workers' unions are also voluntary associations of a kind.

My direct experience of the US is limited to a 10-day seminar in St. Petersburg, Florida, 15 years ago, so I guess my picture of society there is distorted. But if somebody would ask me about the greatest societal difference between here and there, I would say the role of the churches. Not so much in religious terms, but in terms of the neighbourhood church being a social focal point.

430. SpenceMirrlees - 10/28/1999 2:45:05 AM

The other thing one sometimes hears about low turnout is that it is a sign of satisfaction, of sorts.

I think it's a sign that Americans are more rational than their European brethren -- this many people shouldn't be voting in large elections anyway.

431. PelleNilsson - 10/28/1999 3:03:45 AM

About voter turn-out. The idea that people don't care to vote because they are generally happy with how the country is governed is no doubt a smug and comfortable one, but is it credible? Are there data to support such a claim? Isn't far more credible that people feel alienated from the political process and feel that their votes don't count?

An example from here. Voter turn-out is generally 80-85%. In early summer we had elections to the Europarliament. Turn-out fell to a stunning 38% sending shock-waves through the whole political establishment. And the explanation was the one I indicated above. People didn't think their vote would mean anything. Brussels is a far off place and Sweden doesn't have a great say there.

But if Americans don't worry about low turn-out, I guess I shouldn't either. But ultimately it can become a question of legitimacy. If, as cmboyce believes, turn-out will continue to fall, a president may be elected by 20% of eligible voters. To what extent can he or she claim to speak for America?

432. PelleNilsson - 10/28/1999 3:09:27 AM

Spence

I think it's a sign that Americans are more rational than their European brethren -- this many people shouldn't be voting in large elections anyway.

Sorry, but I don't get your point.

433. PelleNilsson - 10/28/1999 3:25:46 AM

Post #427 by PelleNilsson has been deleted due to violation of rules.

434. SpenceMirrlees - 10/28/1999 4:18:04 AM

Pelle, I was just funnin' you. An individual vote doesn't matter with extraordinarily high probability, and if you vote only because of an impact on the election, you're wasting your time. If there's any cost of voting and you only do it to impact the outcome, you're doing something wrong.

Don't really think most people see it that way.

435. PelleNilsson - 10/28/1999 4:34:39 AM

Spence

Check your thread.

436. stostosto - 10/28/1999 6:16:35 AM

Pelle #431:

"Brussels is a far off place and Sweden doesn't have a great say there. "

Yes, and the parliament isn't even in Brussels. It's in Strasbourg and Luxembourg.

437. RickNelson - 10/28/1999 8:03:21 AM

stostosto,
I've just read your comments in PE's travel thread. They do hit a chord, that should be much louder in my opinion. I, with you am without foreknowledge, only the movie Gandhi to thank for any knowledge of the partition. Then bits and pieces from National Geographic over the years. What I found striking is your willingness to mention it within the context of the BBC witholding this information, as you've described in your post.

Ethnocentric media gets to me, so I will be polite and restrain myself to just asking questions and leave my platitudes for myself.

There are those among us who have knowledge of this media phenomenon, no? Then, what is the opinion of those here? Is this ethnocentric media? Then define it, is it malicious(I doubt), is it ignorance(plausible, is it blatant propaganda(plausible), or is it just simple ethnocentrism(most likely)?

My current belief settles on the notion that the media makers, editors of the knowledge passed to the masses, bend the news toward that which will be specifically related to by the masses. Help me shape my opinion, give me your notions.

I then fault this style for lacking breadth and depth. Such narrow focus leaves ignorances in happy land. It doesn't stir thought. (glib)

Flipping my notions over completely, I ponder the media of closed nations. Perhaps Pakistan is an example. I'm just picking it. So, is the media, propaganda, more than information? I presume so but, based on what? It's to much presumption and I've crossed near platitudinal, so...


DONE.

438. RickNelson - 10/28/1999 8:15:15 AM

Continuing the notion a bit further,

I regularly read the Star online, Malaysia. It is filled in my opinion with one way prose. Sending messages which will have one sentence of information and twelve with propaganda.

This is a frustrating way to glean reality. I must always read the Sarawak Tribune to gather a bit more news which is hardly less than, so many words.

To get a better picture, if FEER has any news of Malaysia, I must traverse the pages of FEER and hope for a real bit of news. Then, FEER presenting the news a bit more intellectually, I may be lured to believe to much. What an irony of news, what can be truth, what can be propaganda, what, what?

Well, I'll end this with more negatitveness, I've not much time for news pursuits so, none of this much matters anyway.

Damn, I get more news here than I've ever found elsewhere! There, something positive!

439. PelleNilsson - 10/28/1999 8:20:32 AM

sto

Yes, and the parliament isn't even in Brussels. It's in Strasbourg and Luxembourg.

You great picker of nits!

440. PelleNilsson - 10/28/1999 8:22:33 AM

Rick

Pray explain why you felt that this thread was the right one for your two latest. If, on reflection, you feel they are better suited for, say, International, I'll move them for you.

441. RickNelson - 10/28/1999 8:32:17 AM

Pelle,

That's a tough one to answer. My first reason for picking this was I don't think International is better suited for this question. The second is a hope. You know my style somewhat. I don't intend to derail topics. I hope that my content will not be unpleasantly recieved, I want it to obtain answers. So, I tried here to use the word propaganda, which is a politically motivated idea, word and method. I wont argue with you, I just hope that this is near the border of political ideas enough, that it can be worked on here. However, I'm never far from being wrong, that companion has stayed close to me.

442. PelleNilsson - 10/28/1999 8:38:59 AM

Rick

I shall be lenient, not least because I may post a poem soon (the first I've ever written, not counting the Odin gigs), and a bit of reciprocity may never hurt.

443. stostosto - 10/28/1999 9:17:20 AM

Rick
Thank you for responding. I'd say more generally that the problem with Western media doesn't lie in what they report as much as with what they don't report. To relate it to 'political ideas': Inasmuch as the media forms the common perception of the reality, of which problems should be addressed politically and which kinds of political measures are available, they do to a large extent produce the framework for political ideas. They frequently even set the current political agenda (Howsabout the Monicalamity to name a blatant one - if not much related to political ideas. Such shambackles certainly shape people's ideas about what politics is all about).

444. Uzmakk - 10/28/1999 2:20:44 PM

Pelle:
I would like to participate in this thread but have not done so because I don't have time for serious Moting these days. My apologies.

445. Uzmakk - 10/28/1999 6:10:20 PM

stostosto:
This gets back to a fundamental question-- where does the real power lie? The media would never have covered the Monica story without the blessing of a significant political faction. Nothing is done without the blessing of the politicians.

446. Uzmakk - 10/28/1999 7:25:48 PM

George W. Bush unapologetically confident in his conservatism by George Will

"....But one of Bush's closest advisers, Karl Rove, is a history buff fascinated by William McKinley, the conservative Republican who helped pioneer the modern presidency by proclaiming his election in 1896 a personal mandate -- "the commanding verdict of the people." His Republican successor, Theodore Roosevelt, personalized the office by his riveting ebullience. TR's Republican successor, William Howard Taft, ratified the personalization by his then-novel reference to "the Roosevelt policies."
___________
4
"An Uncommonly Dangerous Politician"

To most of his contemporaries, William McKinley was an insoluable puzzle. Man never knew quite what to make of him either as a man or as a leader. What were his political intentions? Nobody could say for certain. Did he even have any intentions of his own? A good many people doubted it. McKinley's public utterances -- vague, windy, and oracular -- never disclosed his real aims. (continued)

447. Uzmakk - 10/28/1999 7:47:01 PM

His actions -- ambiguous and self-contradictory -- never quite revealed his policies. Those who visited him at the White House came away impressed with his sweetness of temper, his soothing disposition, his willingness to please, to placate, to agree, but they saw few signs of personal force or deeply held conviction. On the whole, men thought him amiably weak. It was the obvious conclusion to draw from cautious speeches, ambiguous actions, and the personal manner of the professional charmer who shrinks from giving offense. Since the President never sought to correct such impressions, men could well conclude that he was not only weak but supine. Few American Presidents were so widely regarded in their own time as the instrument of other men's visions, the tool of other men's ambitions, of the victim of sheer, inescapable circumstance.

448. Uzmakk - 10/28/1999 7:59:10 PM

A few men knew better. One of them was McKinley's future secretary of state, John Hay, who wrote to Henry Adams shortly after visiting McKinley during the 1896 election campaign: "I was more struck than ever by his mask. It is a genuine Italian ecclesiastical face of the fifteenth century. And there are idiots who think Mark Hanna will run him." Hay's physiognomical insight was particularly keen. The White House has rarely known a President more devious, crafty, or subtle than the amiable, mild-mannered McKinley and few so adept at getting what he wanted. He was, remarked Adams, "easily first in genius for manipulation." That was exactly the truth. McKinley was a political genius, and manipulation was the mode of his genius. Among American Presidents he is the supreme example of the political wirepuller, the leader who gets things done without ever seeming to lead." -- The Politics of War by Walter Karp

449. Uzmakk - 10/28/1999 8:15:21 PM

I say all of the above a preface to a simple phrase, "veil of vagueness" that I have come upon in The Autobiography of G.K.Chesterton . Chesterton says that it is the inexperienced ,young politicians who have a plan, who have a doctrine, whereas, almost to a man, a "veil of vagueness" is conjured by the seasoned politician. Chesterton's observation certainly seems to match Mr. Karp's account of President McKinley. And if we are to have a Bush adminestration modelled on the presidency of McKinley we are in for very interesting times indeed.

450. Cellar Door - 10/28/1999 9:13:02 PM

"Czolgosz,

Working man,

Born in the middle of Michigan,

Woke with a thought

And away he ran

To the Pan-American Exposition

In Buffalo,

In Buffalo.

Saw of a sudden

How things were run

Said 'Time's a-wasting,

It's nineteen-one.

Some men have everything

And some have none,

So rise and shine--

In the U.S.A.

You can work your way,

To the head of the line!' "

451. JonesAtLaw - 10/28/1999 10:02:04 PM

• Is democracy always The Solution for all countries or is it a kneejerk mantra that the West resorts to because it's convenient and PC?
  
  
• Is universal franchise always preferable? Could the case be made that those who are directly dependent on government should not have a voice in electing it?
  
  
• Non-Americans wonder at the low participation over there in the political process. Is this seen as a problem?
  
  Democracy is the best end result. It is possible that some form of semi-authoritarian government is needed for a transition period to democracy. The problem is finding a system that will hand over the reins when the populace is educated enough, and far enough away from starvation to have an interest in avoiding extremism. (And yet, there is India, which has a resilent democracy in the absence of either broad education in the populace, and a good deal of poverty. Is the Indian middle class so vibrant that it carries the burden?)
  
  Universal sufferage has the advantage of being logically consistant and related to equality under the rule of law. In an ideal world, I would like to see sufferage limited to those who would bear a price in civic knowledge and service for the right to vote. However, in the real world the temptation to skew this into a gerrymandering of the electorate is too great.
  
  

  452. JonesAtLaw - 10/28/1999 10:02:48 PM

  I do not see low turn out as a problem. If people are unwilling to even take the little effort it takes to vote in this country, I don't want their ignorance to weigh at the polls. It is probably more patriotic to not vote if you haven't bothered to think or educate yourself about the race.
  
  Finally, most Americans vote for too damn many offices. We vote for public defender and county attorney in my county along with the clerk of the district court, the surveyor, the register of deeds, the treasurer and the county clerk. People in a handful of professions know whether these folks are doing their job well or not. However, every shmoe who can hold a pencil weighs in with a vote on party, name, or yard signs. It's a terrible distraction, and ususally serves to make these positions minor league try outs for rising party stars. Couldn't we just let the damn parties appoint them?

453. JonesAtLaw - 10/28/1999 10:03:33 PM

Toys?

454. DaveM - 10/29/1999 3:25:44 AM

PelleNilsson, re: Message # 404

I think you ask some intriguing questions (reproduced by JonesAtLaw in Message # 451). I would like to contribute, but I think that the questions are simply too broad.

First, what exactly do you mean by democracy? Does democracy imply a market based economy? Does it imply certain visions of interpersonal relations? of legitimate state authority? Are you talking about proportional representaion of first past the post electoral systems? The term "democracy," by itself, is ambiguous.

I think that to the extent that the West attempts to export a rigid brand of American, free market, constitutional "democracy," its foreign policy suffers. I think that the primary goal of the West's foreign political development policy should be to encourage stable advances in personal self determination. This is a vague and indeterminate goal, but that's life.

If encouraging a free market system will result in what amounts to the exploitation and exportation of a country's human capital by non-indigenous corporations (bananas/oil/coffee), then I think that it needs to be reconsidered.

If democracy is seen as inextricably linked to equal opportunity approaches to interpersonal relations, I think that it needs to be reconsidered. It takes a substantial amount of time to change "false consciousness," to develop infrastructure, to improve education, health care services, gender relations, etc. In many instances, the imposition of a regime of "equal opportunity" will simply reify preexisting socio-economic inequities by allowing the "winners" to claim that their victories were fair.

I would like to go on, but it is 3:19 a.m. and I have to finish writing a memo for class tomorrow.

455. PelleNilsson - 10/29/1999 3:55:28 AM

DaveM

You have already contributed. I kept the question broad and somwhat wage in order to encourage a discussion of the complexity of 'democracy' as a term. Before you posted, I had only received bland commments of type 'there may be some problems with democracy but overall it is the best system'.

456. Spudboy - 10/29/1999 4:15:57 AM

Pelle:
I pulled together some information last week in response to your question in #149. Unfortunately, the day that I was ready to post it, the Mote was non-functioning. And for the following five days, I was out of town and unable to post it. Now it seems you have moved on to other topics, so I'm assuming it would be somewhat anachronistic at this point. Unless you inform me otherwise.

457. PelleNilsson - 10/29/1999 4:27:23 AM

Spudboy

Please post it. It seems that the democracy issue is not taking very well, so we could re-visit that issue (which I personally find interesting) before I close the thread.

458. Uzmakk - 10/29/1999 7:22:09 AM

450Cellar:
I rather like that. What is it?

459. stostosto - 10/29/1999 7:59:55 AM

Pelle:

The democracy question was solved by Fukuyama (according to Fukuyama)in The end of history and the last man. Democracy is history's choice.

Fukuyama's point might be said to be that democracy (or, as he calls it, liberal democracy) and market economy form a kind of social equilibrium towards which societies converge. After the end of the cold war, this question is settled once and for all. Therefore history has ended - as defined/perceived by Fukuyama as being the struggle between different ideas of society. Or, as it were, the struggle between diferent political ideas.

Which strikes me, personally, as a peculiarly narrow definition of history, and a peculiarly broad categorization of ideas.

What is anybody's take here on Fukuyama, btw? Is he a crank? Or a wise man? Or a goddamn son-of-a-bitch liberal/boneheaded one-eyed ractionary? A knowledgeable, genuinely original visionary? Or a pretentious, long-winded, failed academic who makes up for his profound lack of solid scholarly research by piling heaps of boring footnotes on the reader?

460. DaveM - 10/29/1999 7:01:06 PM

Responding to JJBiener's 2209 from Current Events (the relationship between security and freedom)

JJ argues that Security is not a necessary aspect of freedom:

Of course you can. One only lives in fear if they choose to. If one is free to interact with whoever and however one chooses, one can choose wisely and risk little.

The freedom "to interact with whoever and however one chooses" is vacuous without security from having the will of someone else imposed upon them. Having the freedom to select whom you would like to interact with is worthless without the ability to deny the same privilege in others.

People in the USSR lived for years without freedom but with security guaranteed by the state. You are providing a false correlation. You may prefer security and believe it is necessarily tied to freedom, but it isn't true.

If you don't mind, I would like to hear you give a brief definition of "security." Living in a state where you don't know if you will have food for dinner, where you don't know if you will get a knock by the KGB in the middle of the night, where a nuclear reactor could explode and annihilate your state, where you have no idea if you will have heat in the cold-ass winters doesn't sound very secure to me.

Give me an example of a person with freedom but not security.

461. CalGal - 10/29/1999 7:53:52 PM

Give me an example of a person with freedom but not security.

If you have the ability to fail, you don't have complete security.

In restricting our government's ability to prosecute wrongdoers by putting our individual freedom ahead of the safety of the community, we are sacrificing a measure of security for freedom from potential tyranny.

For starters.

462. CalGal - 10/29/1999 7:56:27 PM

Hmm. More than usually unclear, this was:

In restricting our government's ability to prosecute wrongdoers by putting our individual freedom ahead of the safety of the community, we are sacrificing a measure of security for freedom from potential tyranny.


We restrict our government's ability to prosecute crimes by putting certain individual rights ahead of the safety of the community. Thus, we sacrifice a measure of security in exchange for freedom from potential tyranny.

Still badly worded, but I'm tired. You get the general idea.

463. PincherMartin - 10/30/1999 3:15:37 AM

Sto --

The democracy question was solved by Fukuyama (according to Fukuyama)in The end of history and the last man. Democracy is history's choice.

Fukuyama also argued that democracy was not the best political system for a developing country that wanted to continue developing. A soft authoritarianism with state-guided development was preferable.

Fukuyama's point might be said to be that democracy (or, as he calls it, liberal democracy) and market economy form a kind of social equilibrium towards which societies converge. After the end of the cold war, this question is settled once and for all. Therefore history has ended - as defined/perceived by Fukuyama as being the struggle between different ideas of society. Or, as it were, the struggle between diferent political ideas.

Yes, this is a fair summary of his work, The End of History and the Last Man. I would add the reason developed societies tend towards this equilibrium you mention is due to the nature of the last man, which Fukuyama describes extensively.

Which strikes me, personally, as a peculiarly narrow definition of history, and a peculiarly broad categorization of ideas.

I think Fukuyama's thesis is well-developed, and even convincing when the full force of the book is behind it (as opposed to a person's summary of it, which always makes the thesis sound completely outlandish). It does fall apart, however, and Fukuyama himself has now backed away from it in a recent article of The National Interest, celebrating the tenth anniversery of the publication of the original article. He basically says that the recent advances in biotechnology have caused him to reconsider the final nature of the last man.


continued...

464. PincherMartin - 10/30/1999 3:17:59 AM

What is anybody's take here on Fukuyama, btw? Is he a crank? Or a wise man? Or a goddamn son-of-a-bitch liberal/boneheaded one-eyed ractionary? A knowledgeable, genuinely original visionary? Or a pretentious, long-winded, failed academic who makes up for his profound lack of solid scholarly research by piling heaps of boring footnotes on the reader?

Fukuyama is no crank, but a serious scholar who likes to write on epic subjects. His books, whether you agree with them or not, are always fun to read, and I think that his version of the future will have more prescience than either Huntington's visions of clashing civilizations or Kaplan's anarchy, to name two popular accounts of how things might be. The End of History and the Last Man is very readable as is Trust, his second book. I haven't read his third book, The Great Disruption yet.

By the way, Fukuyama writes for the conservative magazine Commentary, but always keeps a fair distance from the party line.

465. PelleNilsson - 10/30/1999 4:03:12 AM

sto

Democracy is history's choice.

Sounds hegelian to me. The Weltgeist has finally realised its destiny.

466. Spudboy - 10/30/1999 5:59:36 AM

Pelle:
You asked in #149 for me to describe the antecedents of the America First movement. I’m a little late, but I’ll do that and try to shed some light on the movement itself.

The America First movement of the 1930s-‘40s, a voice for isolationism, was the product of several American traditions, some dating back to the nation's origins.

U.S. isolationism had its roots in the American Revolution and the separation from Europe. Much of this had to do with the understandable insecurity of a young nation, particularly one with limited military capacity. Only military necessity forced the Continental Congress to sign a formal alliance with France in 1778. Early leaders endorsed commercial treaties and the expansion of trade, but they warned against long-term political and military commitments. President George Washington, in his farewell address (1796), advised Americans to steer clear of permanent alliances, and President Thomas Jefferson later added his warning against "entangling alliances."

From the very beginning the country had been built upon the desire to cast off the influences of the European world. Americans always considered themselves unique and above the turbulence, trickery, and decadence of European politics. The establishment of the Monroe Doctrine only served to strengthen these beliefs. If Europe stayed out of the New World then the United States would be more than happy to follow her already chosen path of staying out of Europe. For most of the 19th century, Americans developed the continent without interference; they viewed isolationism as a fixed principle. With the exception of harbingers like the Perry's mission to Japan, it was a central tenet of the American approach to foreign policy through the 19th century.

467. Spudboy - 10/30/1999 6:00:10 AM

Blended with early populist strains, though, it became internalized in the form of nativism in the 1840s -- that is, a kind of chauvinism that favors native-born Americans as essentially superior to foreigners. The most significant manifestation of nativism was the Know-Nothing Party. The Grolier Online entry on the Know-Nothings is actually quite accurate (and will spare me the task of recapping):

“The Know-Nothing party was an antiforeign, anti-Roman Catholic political organization that flourished in the United States between 1852 and 1856. Nativism had been growing since the mid-1840s in response to massive immigration, especially from Ireland and Germany. Many of these immigrants had become part of urban Democratic political machines, much to the resentment of non-Democratic old-stock Americans. In the early 1850s, various secret, anti-immigrant organizations joined to form a new political party. Officially called the American party, it was popularly known as the know-nothing party because members answered ‘I know nothing’ when asked about the exclusive, native-Protestant organization.

“Advocating exclusion of Catholics and foreigners from public office and seeking to increase the naturalization period from 5 to 21 years, the Know-Nothings won national prominence chiefly because the two major parties--Whigs and Democrats--were at that time breaking apart over the slavery issue. The party reached its zenith in 1854-55, but it too soon became factionalized over the slavery issue. In 1856 Millard Fillmore, the American party presidential candidate, received 21 percent of the popular vote, but the party rapidly disintegrated thereafter. Most of its Northern members joined the ranks of the newly formed Republican party.”

468. Spudboy - 10/30/1999 6:00:58 AM

After the Civil War, nativism remained alive and well in the form of the Ku Klux Klan. Though its most obvious targets were Reconstructionists and blacks, "Papists" and "foreigners" were also objects of loathing for the Klan, which billed itself as a quintessentially American organization. The original Klan officially disbanded in 1877, but on a grass-roots level it remained very much alive, in spirit if not in actuality. Lynchings, the hallmark of the Klan, continued apace, reaching a peak in the 1890s, when as many as 700 people a year were reported killed in this manner. [I have some fascinating supplemental material on this phenomenon, if anyone's interested.]

The vast majority of these lynchings were directed at blacks, particularly teachers and educators, labor organizers, and those who attempted to vote. A consistently expressed reason for them, though, was the supposed protection of white womanhood (many lynchings of teachers, for instance, were excused through allegations that they lusted after white women). But it was the lynching of a Jewish man, Leo Frank, in Marietta, Ga., in 1915, that helped bring the Klan back to life as an official organization. The Frank trial garnered almost as much attention at the time as the OJ trial in ours; Frank was a cause celebre for Jewish groups, and his peremptory lynching, after his death sentence had been commuted to life in prison, served as a stark reminder of the Southern style of justice (years later, an eyewitness to Mary Phagan's murder --a boy at the time -- testified that the chief witness against Frank had actually murdered the girl.) The members of the lynching party dubbed themselves "The Knights of Mary Phagan," and two months later, they climbed Stone Mountain outside of Atlanta and burned a gigantic cross.

469. Spudboy - 10/30/1999 6:01:55 AM

These events, as well as the release of D.W. Griffith's Klan-glorifying Birth of a Nation, inspired a Georgian named Col. William Joseph Simmons -- who made a living by organizing fraternal groups -- to reconstitute the Klan. Simmons decided that the public acclamation for the Knights of Mary Phagan and their cross burning meant that his Klan could be more than just another Moose or Elk lodge. After chartering a "purely benevolent" fraternal order with the state of Georgia, Simmons convened his new Klansmen (including members of the Knights of Mary Phagan), built an altar on Stone Mountain, and burned his own fiery cross. Later he would take advantage of the Atlanta premiere of Birth of a Nation to arrive at the theater shortly before curtain time with a cadre of robed and hooded Klansmen who fired rifle salutes over the heads of amazed theatergoers. Simmons had demonstrated his genius for organizing, and the Klan took off.

No longer purely a Southern phenomenon, the reconstituted Klan became a national power, manifesting its strength in elections in the Midwest (Ohio and Indiana particularly) as well as in the Northwest. Boasting between 3 and 5 million members by the mid-1920s, it was credited with electing seven governors, six U.S. senators, some 20 or so congressmen, and a multitude of state and local officials.

Likewise, the Klan no longer was focused on blacks and carpetbaggers. Instead, it came more to resemble the Know-Nothings, focused on Catholics and "foreigners," though Jews lurked in the background as a secondary boogeyman. It was strident in proclaiming its "100 percent Americanism," which included not only the protection of "pure womanhood" (that is, its opposition to suffrage and women's rights, a position that produced beatings and whippings for women who divorced and remarried or merely were caught riding in cars with young men) and isolationism.

470. Spudboy - 10/30/1999 6:02:32 AM

By the 1930s, though, the Klan had fallen precipitously from grace, largely because of the violence associated with it, and ceased being a major electoral force. Its membership, though, remained a potent force.

Isolationism, in the meantime, was no longer the dominant tenet of American foreign policy. The emergence of U.S. military might, which played out in Perry's mission to Japan and the Spanish-American War, came to fruition in the 1916 Dick Act, which established a standing army for the first time, and in short order ended the nation's traditional isolationism by its entry into World War I.

However, isolationism shortly returned in force under the aegis of Republican senators William Borah, Robert Taft and Arthur Vandenberg. They led the vote against the Treaty of Versailles that in turn caused the demise of Wilson's proposed League of Nations. Their principled opposition to "foreign entanglements" again became a cornerstone of American policy. The largely patrician Republicans found common cause with the populists of the Klan and similar factions in building a powerful electoral base for their position. However, it was a policy that came under increasing fire during the 1930s, especially with the election of FDR, who was decidedly more internationalist in temperament.

By September 1940, frustrated by FDR's policies, the isolationists focused their agenda through the America First Committee. The Committee, which would claim 800,000 members, cited as its main goal keeping the United States neutral. It was organized by R. Douglas Stuart of Yale University Law School, heir to the Quaker Oats fortune. Chief among its principles, the group made it clear that its membership would "not include Nazis, Fascists, Communists, or members of other groups that place the interests of any other nation above those of our own."

471. Spudboy - 10/30/1999 6:03:21 AM

At times the group strove to keep out obviously fascist elements; among the national committee members who were ousted were builder and American Olympic Association president Avery Brundage, who was suspected of having Nazi sympathies, and Henry Ford, who had previously authored a noted anti-Semitic tome and had been awarded an Iron Cross by the Nazis.

However, it couldn't escape the facts of its popular base, which included a wide range of followers from left-leaning pacifists to members of the now-dethroned Klan, but it was these latter anti-Semitic elements that came to dominate its membership. The committee allied itself with the German-American Bund (secretly financed by the Nazis), and such noted anti-Semites as Father Coughlin and Gerald L.K. Smith (you can see him here leading an America First rally) were notably at the forefront of the organization's rallies.

This wasn't entirely an accident. General Robert Wood, then Chairman of Sears Roebuck, was the group's chairman, and Wood was known to subscribe to Ford's anti-Semitic views. Moreover, the organization began slipping in its pledge to be purely American in orientation. A 1942 FBI report indicated that the group had "been called upon to accept financial assistance from pro-Nazi sources."

472. Spudboy - 10/30/1999 6:04:16 AM

Here's what Russ Bellant, who dug up the FBI files on the group, reports:

"After Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the United States, the America First Committee didn't go out of business as it officially declared on December 12, 1941. Five days later, a secret meeting of certain key leaders of America First took place in New York to plan for what they assumed (and hoped) would be the Axis victory in Europe and the Far East. '[T]he Committee has in reality gone underground,' FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover reported to the White House. It began planning for the day when they would be the Americans with whom the victorious Nazis would negotiate a surrender. Finally, when the defeat of the Nazis by Allied powers was a foregone conclusion, the America First Committee secretly dissolved itself in 1944.

"William Regnery, an incorporator and early leader of the Committee with Robert Wood, helped Wood to found the [American Security Council, a postwar outgrowth of America First]. His son, Henry Regnery, replaced him at their book publishing company and at the ASC. The younger Regnery told an interviewer several years ago that 'I was very much opposed to our getting into the war; and I published this book, which was highly critical of Roosevelt and of the whole realm of American policies involving World War II. Very gladly, I must say.' Regnery said that the book, published in the early 1950s, reflected his 'personal tastes.' "

Apparently, Pat Buchanan acquired that taste as well.

473. Uzmakk - 10/30/1999 8:49:29 AM

Ah, Spuds, great stuff.

474. Uzmakk - 10/30/1999 8:51:23 AM

#450,458:
Cellar:
Are you going to answer my question?

475. PelleNilsson - 10/30/1999 12:44:05 PM

Spudboy

Thank you! Very illuminating.

476. stostosto - 10/30/1999 1:03:19 PM

PincherMartin

Thank you for responding. I didn't find The End of History and the last man fun to read. In fact I found it increasingly boring since - as I remember - all the points were laid out at the beginning of the book and then repeated ad nauseam. I was a bit provocative in my above post, though. I was actually more than commonly intrigued by the idea of the ending of history. Also the idea of "the last man" is interesting to contemplate. Can the thymos of man be tamed, or civilized, so that he doesn't have the need to express it, or conquer it, by defeating, killing and/or subjugating other men? Or is this trait a constant in the make-up of human nature?

Pelle:
Fukuyama is in fact an explicit Hegelian in The end of history.

477. PincherMartin - 10/31/1999 1:03:44 AM

Sto --

In fact I found it increasingly boring since - as I remember - all the points were laid out at the beginning of the book and then repeated ad nauseam. I was a bit provocative in my above post, though. I was actually more than commonly intrigued by the idea of the ending of history. Also the idea of "the last man" is interesting to contemplate. Can the thymos of man be tamed, or civilized, so that he doesn't have the need to express it, or conquer it, by defeating, killing and/or subjugating other men? Or is this trait a constant in the make-up of human nature?

I disagree that Fukuyama simply repeats his points ad nauseam, although he does try to keep the reader oriented as to why his current subject in the book is relevant to his larger thesis. I didn't find this distracting. There are many examples and points that he illustrates in the second half of the book that he mentions not at all in the first section or the introduction. An example of this is his chapters on the "The Unreality of Realism" and "The Power of the Powerless," which are interesting for exposing some of the weaknesses of the international relations theory.

I think a fairer criticism of Fukuyama is that nothing in his book is original. He simply updates Hegel (through Hegel's interpreter, Kojeve) and Nietsche, and then adds in numerous references to Rousseau, Hobbes, Tocqueville, etc. to strengthen his case. Fukuyama's easy reading style and gift for concise explanations of difficult and abstruse philosophies is his only contribution. But I found that enough.

478. PincherMartin - 10/31/1999 1:08:22 AM

By the way, you might be interested to know that Fukuyama was a student of Allan Bloom at the University of Chicago.

479. stostosto - 10/31/1999 5:01:28 AM

Allan Bloom? Why would that interest me?

I just checked The End of History... I don't understand how you can find Fukuyama's reading style (writing style?) "easy". It reads like a text book, even when it doesn't have to. ("We have stated earlier..."; "It was with this objective in mind that we examined Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Hegel.."; "An analysis of the ways in which thymos is satisfied and not satisfied in modern society would probably yield a greater insight in the success of liberal democracy than an analysis of desire" (my translation from the Danish translation)). He affects to be a SCIENTIST who disaffectionately "analyzes" things to yield insights. Yet his real method is that of proposing an intuitive grand thesis and then dusting off a pearl string of philosophers, and all sorts of circumstantial anecdote to underpin it. I find his cumbersome pseudo-scientific way of writing annoying to the point of losing interest in what he actually has to say - even despite the considerable merits of the latter.

480. ranheim - 10/31/1999 9:57:09 AM

Does Spudboy's link to Grolier in #467 work for anyone else?
I get an error message.

481. Cellar Door - 10/31/1999 11:03:01 AM

It's from "Assassins" by Stephen Sondheim -- a very underrated work. Get the CD. Very useful for "Mote" discussions.

482. ranheim - 10/31/1999 11:22:31 AM

It is interesting reading (Spudboy's). But, growing up in rural Minnesota in the 30s, 40s, and 50s the emphasis was different.

The murder of Mary Phagan/lynching of Leo Frank was never mentioned to the best of my recollection. If I read about this later, it made no lasting impression. When I read this link, I was reading material that was 'new' to me (at age 64).

I don't recall growing up hating Woodrow Wilson; he was just no good! Wilson's policies, as carried out by his local bully boys, made the Democratic Party very unpopular in the family. The manner in which German-Americans were treated in WW I was a disgrace. With a name like mine, my grandfather suffered financially under the Wilson regime!

Henry Cabot Lodge was a minor hero as he was the senator who led the attack on Wilson and the defeat of the acceptance of the Treaty of Versailles.

Between war politics in rural MN were anti-FDR. He was "that man!" My father - a school teacher - never used his name! Charles Lindberg was a hero; his father was a Representative in Wahington for a rural MN district. Father Coughlin's radio program was tremendously popular.

FDR and the internationalist cabal surrounding him were of far more danger than Lindberg and the America First Committee. Following Dec.7,1941 my portion of rural MN became extreme patriots.

I can give no direct reason why, but, I have never trusted J. Edgar Hoover. And put little credence in what he said/wrote. I would be a skeptic of anything coming out of the Hoover FBI files.

That is another slant on the same events.

483. RickNelson - 10/31/1999 12:23:39 PM

Ranheim,

Do you think the name Kisor in rural Minnesota would have also met some disapproval? I will have to ask my relatives.

I have a family name which includes Kisor. I am also from Minnesota and still reside here, which I think you knew. I didn't know you were once a Minnesotan.



If political ideas extended to ostracizing persons for their names, as well as there visual nationality, then it's part of this threads discussion to me and I'm curious of your input with that regard.

484. Cellar Door - 10/31/1999 12:26:16 PM

You're right about the use of "Tha Man" for Roosevelt, ranheim. it was quite widespread. Marc Blizstein makes satirical use of it in "The Cradle Will Rock."

485. PincherMartin - 10/31/1999 1:27:36 PM

Allan Bloom? Why would that interest me?

Just interesting trivia.

I just checked The End of History... I don't understand how you can find Fukuyama's reading style (writing style?) "easy". It reads like a text book, even when it doesn't have to. ("We have stated earlier..."; "It was with this objective in mind that we examined Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Hegel.."; "An analysis of the ways in which thymos is satisfied and not satisfied in modern society would probably yield a greater insight in the success of liberal democracy than an analysis of desire" (my translation from the Danish translation)). He affects to be a SCIENTIST who disaffectionately "analyzes" things to yield insights. Yet his real method is that of proposing an intuitive grand thesis and then dusting off a pearl string of philosophers, and all sorts of circumstantial anecdote to underpin it. I find his cumbersome pseudo-scientific way of writing annoying to the point of losing interest in what he actually has to say - even despite the considerable merits of the latter.

Fukuyama's style is objective and somewhat distant, but what tone would you have him affect when presenting this thesis -- passionate advocacy? He makes clear this is only a tendency in history he sees, and that it could be provisional. Unlike numerous scholars who have argued a certain position, Fukuyama is willing to consider his thesis doesn't work. His tone fits with how he looks at the thesis -- as a possibility that may explain why the nature of the most developed states are like they are.

continued...

486. PincherMartin - 10/31/1999 1:28:10 PM

Claiming Fukuyama reads like a text book is just silly. No text book (or book that reads like a text book) would have started a debate that has lasted over ten years. Every event in this decade has been interpreted through the book's perspective. This was especially true of the Asian financial crisis, but I have also seen it applied to the rise of the militias in the U.S. and the evident spread of anarchy through sub-saharan Africa. It has now entered the language where journalists refer to the concept of The End of History without having read the book.

487. PincherMartin - 10/31/1999 2:04:52 PM

Here is an example of Fukuyama's style, which uses most of the techniques found in the rest of the book: constant references to philosophers; contemporary anecdotal evidence to support these references; and, a bit of Fukuyama's own gloss.

Tocqueville anticipated Nietzsche in being all too aware of what was lost when societies passed from aristocracy to democracy. The latter, he noted, produced fewer of the beautiful but useless things that are typical of aristocratic societies, from poems and theories of metaphysics to Faberge eggs; on the other hand, they produced vastly greater quantities of things that are useful but ugly: machine tools, freeways, Toyota Camrys, and prefabricated houses. (Modern-day America has managed to contrive it so that its brightest and most privileged young people produce things that are neither beautiful nor useful, such as mountains of litigation produced by lawyers every year.) But the loss of fine craftmanship is a trivial concern when compared to the loss of certain human possibilities in the moral and theoretical sphere, possibilities that were nutured by the leisured and deliberately anti-utilitarian ethos of aristocratic societies. In a famous passage referring to the mathematician and religious writer Pascal, Tocqueville says: If Pascal had nothing in view but some large gain, or even if he had been stimulated by the love of fame alone, I cannot conceive that he would ever have been able to rally all the powers of his mind, as he did, for the better discovery of the most hidden things of the Creator. When I see him, as it were, tear his soul from all the cares of life to devote it wholly to these researches and, prematurely sanpping the links that bind the body to life, de of old age before forty, I stand amazed and perceive that no ordinary cause it at work to produce efforts so extraordinary.

continued...

488. PincherMartin - 10/31/1999 2:05:55 PM

Pascal, who as child, dicovered the propositions of Euclid on his own, went into seclusion in a monastery at the age of thirty-one. He had a belt of nails strapped to his chair that he sat on when people came to talk to him to seek advice, and when he felt himself taking any pleasure from the conversation, he would push himself down into this seat in order to mortify his flesh. Pascal, like Nietzsche himself, was sickly throughout his entire adult life, and in his last four years lost completely the ability to communicate with others. He did not jog or worry about the effects of secondary smoke on his health, and yet he was able to scratch out in the years before his death some of the most profound spiritual meditations in the Western tradition. The fact that so promising a career in a useful field like mathematics could be sacrificed to religious contemplation was particularly infuriating to one American biographer, who suggested that if Pascal had only allowed himself to "cut loose...he might have lived out everything that was in him, instead of smothering the better half of it under a mass of meaningless mysticism and platitudinous observations on the misery and dignity of man."

"Formerly, all the world was mad," say the most subtle of the last men.

489. CalGal - 10/31/1999 2:54:29 PM

I am not sure I agree with Spudboy's linking of isolationism and racism. The first has always been of a nature that is rather uniquely American--caused, I suppose, by our location, our peaceable neighbors, and our wealth. Our racism, on the other hand, is not particularly different from that found in other countries--in fact, given the influx of foreigners that we have always had, I think we do rather well.

So I don't see any real link between the two. I'm not disputing his history of America First--just his analysis of its roots.

490. Cellar Door - 10/31/1999 3:07:32 PM

Our racism is quite different from that of other countries. I am always amazed at the degree to which blacks, Indians and Pakistanis have been assimilated into British culture. African-Americans remain at some distance from the culture that surrounds them. And this is largely by design. Blacks can't fulfill their role as exotic yet familiar otherany other way. Chris Rock si someone who's managed to ring some new changes on this recently.

491. CalGal - 10/31/1999 3:26:03 PM

There is more to racism than black vs. white. There is also more to racism than how nice the police are to minorities.

That being said, I'll agree that probably every country has its own peculiar type of racism, so it is probably incorrect to say that American racism is not particularly different from other countries. I should have said it's not particularly worse than that found in other countries.

And I was doing a few things at once, so I'm not sure any more why I mentioned the type or degree of racism at all. I hate it when that happens.

The thrust of my point was that Spud seems to be linking the roots of isolationism and racism. I think they are entirely separate. Racist organizations probably adopt isolationism because it adds to their appeal, but that's a different thing.

492. stostosto - 10/31/1999 4:10:03 PM

"No text book (or book that reads like a text book) would have started a debate that has lasted over ten years. Every event in this decade has been interpreted through the book's perspective. "

Actually, it wasn't the book that started the debate. It was Fukuyama's article in The National Interest in 1989. From there it went straight into the media ciruit, and right away reached the state you describe here:

"It has now entered the language where journalists refer to the concept of The End of History without having read the book."

493. stostosto - 10/31/1999 4:11:36 PM

The explanation for its success as a media phenomenon is simple: Timing. The communist empire was at its death bed - Poland had already gotten a non-communist government in 1988 and had initiated its "Big Bang" economic reforms. And 1989 was the year of the dreaded domino theory in reverse: Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, GDR, and Romania all revolted against the communist regimes; The Soviet Union was stirring; the call was for democracy and market economy everywhere. It was a perfect time for a grand thesis, and Fukuyama rose to the occasion.

The book came out in 1992 and added next to nothing to the public debate. But it was probably a good sell given the hype it had received - heck, I bought it myself to see what all the fuzz had been all about. I even read it. I won't say I was disappointed. But I had great difficulty going through with it due to its annoying style. I stand by what I said above. Though I have read several text books that were better written than this tome.

And yes, I would certainly have liked Fukuyama to be more openly passionate. Because he is passionate for heaven's sake - a passionate speculator. And his subject is highly speculative, everybody knows that, no one would fault him for cutting down on caveats, footnotes, references, learned names dropping, and "we shall examine each of these positions". It's too much affectation; especially for a book of 350+ pages.

494. PelleNilsson - 10/31/1999 4:42:41 PM

The one thing sto^3 and Pincher seem to agree upon is that Fukuyama is an Hegelian and that is enough to put me off. I reject historical determinism. No doubt Fukuyama is brilliant; another Hegelian, Marx, was brilliant too. So?

495. PincherMartin - 10/31/1999 4:54:35 PM

Sto --

Actually, it wasn't the book that started the debate. It was Fukuyama's article in The National Interest in 1989. From there it went straight into the media ciruit, and right away reached the state you describe here

Yes, I know. As I mentioned above, The National Interest had a ten year anniversary edition of the The End of History with Fukuyama writing an article called "Second Thoughts" and several other writers -- including Joesph Nye, E.O. Wilson, Harvey Mansfeld, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Robin Fox, and Robert J. Samuelson -- writing responses to Fukuyama.

The explanation for its success as a media phenomenon is simple: Timing. The communist empire was at its death bed - Poland had already gotten a non-communist government in 1988 and had initiated its "Big Bang" economic reforms. And 1989 was the year of the dreaded domino theory in reverse: Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, GDR, and Romania all revolted against the communist regimes; The Soviet Union was stirring; the call was for democracy and market economy everywhere. It was a perfect time for a grand thesis, and Fukuyama rose to the occasion.

That only explains part of the success. As even you have said, Fukuyama's thesis has a good deal of merit, and it is hard to believe that the article/book would have stirred the response it did had the thesis not been compelling. There are a thousand books a year that deal with the next new idea based on the most recent changes in the international arena. Most of them die quickly after publication.

Though I have read several text books that were better written than this tome.

Name a couple.

496. PelleNilsson - 10/31/1999 5:04:22 PM

Now, guys, if you want to discuss the ideas of Fukuyama, this is the place. If you want to discuss the book as such, its style and so on, there is an excellent thread called "Books".

497. PincherMartin - 10/31/1999 5:08:32 PM

Pelle --

The one thing sto^3 and Pincher seem to agree upon is that Fukuyama is an Hegelian and that is enough to put me off. I reject historical determinism. No doubt Fukuyama is brilliant; another Hegelian, Marx, was brilliant too. So?

I'm not sure what Fukuyama is. One part of The End of History that Sto complains about and I admire is the distance that Fukuyama keeps from the argument -- what Sto calls Fukuyama's affectation of objectivity. Based on the book and subsequent articles Fukuyama has written, I don't think he embraces Hegelism as he is quick in considering evidence that refutes the thesis of The End of History.

By the way, you say you reject historical determinism. While Jared Diamond is not a historical determinist in the same sense as Marx or Hegel, his arguments are a form of determinism, and yet I seem to remember you enjoyed his book.

498. PincherMartin - 10/31/1999 5:10:20 PM

Now, guys, if you want to discuss the ideas of Fukuyama, this is the place. If you want to discuss the book as such, its style and so on, there is an excellent thread called "Books".

Is yet another dialogue going to be railroaded by an anal-retentive host?

499. PelleNilsson - 10/31/1999 5:16:39 PM

Not at all. I'm suggesting that if you want to move from Fukuyama's ideas to his style of presentation, there is another thread that is moe suitable.

Do you disagree with that?

500. PincherMartin - 10/31/1999 5:30:23 PM

Not at all. I'm suggesting that if you want to move from Fukuyama's ideas to his style of presentation, there is another thread that is moe suitable.

Do you disagree with that?

Yes, how much space can a discussion of the style of Fukuyama take before it exhausts itself? Have we hijacked this thread? Must I dash between threads every time the discussion takes a slight turn? Can a discussion of style be woven in -- as this one is --with an evaluation of how effective it presents these political ideas we are discussing? I fully expect this discussion will make its way back to Fukuyama's political ideas soon enough, but even if another twenty posts were spent discussing the relative prose styles of the political theorists (Is Hume Better than Rousseau? Are both better than Fukuyama?), I think that both The Mote and this thread would survive.

501. PelleNilsson - 10/31/1999 5:31:50 PM

Carry on then.

502. stostosto - 10/31/1999 5:42:31 PM

I was waiting for that, Pelle!

(To be honest, I was thinking it myself).

So, I will not mention which better-writen text books I have read which is probably just as well, since such things are ultimately a matter of opinion.

On topic (Political Ideas): Yes, Pincher, I ("even I") agree that the concept of the "ending of history" is intriguing, as I said, and, after having given it a little thought, I'd even say compelling. I have a hard time imagining other, more robust ways of organizing economies and government than market and democracy. If they do indeed form the most robust compact, human social development seems bound to gravitate towards them.

But market and democracy are extremely broad categories which can take on myriad different forms which will be the focus of a (probably) never-ending political and social dispute. So, as I said at the outset, Fukuyama's (/Hegel's/Kojève's) definition of history is by necessity quite narrow.

I'll mention one thing it doesn't seem to encompass: What will be the political units of the future? Fukuyama's assumptions of democracy and markets take place within the framework of the nation state. But what constitutes a state? What makes given states acceptable to their denizens? To other states? And how are relations within states to be determined - territories, cities, federal states, municipalities? And between states to be regulated? Suprastatist structures? Will the true end of history encompass a United States of the World? If not, why?

It seems to me that these kinds of questions have come powerfully to the fore since 1989.

503. ranheim - 10/31/1999 5:52:52 PM

In 1918 bully boys, said to be in the employ of the banking interests in Minneapolis, ran roughshod in my grandfather's area of southern MN. His barn and other outbuildings were splashed with yellow paint. There were a few fires as well. My grandfather did not lose his farm. Several of his neighbors did.

For Rick : this near Pipestone, MN.

There were a few Germans in the area; but, it was mainly Scandanavian. The bully boys did not make careful checks of background. If the name sounded 'germanic', there were attemps at intimidation.

504. dusty - 10/31/1999 9:02:00 PM

In Politics I said:
It may be the ideal of democracy, but democracy is hardly an ideal.

Pelle asked me to elaborate:

The term "democracy" can be used in many ways. In its pure form, it describes a form of government where every member (of majority age) has the right to vote, and virtually all issues are decided by majority vote. This pure form is rarely observed, although I have seen it in action in small New England towns. Apocryphally, it occurs in some families, but usually in TV sitcoms as a device for overriding the wishes of the hapless father.

This form of government is exceedingly unwieldy for large groups, hence, to the extent that it occurs, it is found in relatively small groups. I would expect that pure democracy would be terrible for inhomogeneous groups, because of the potential of tyranny of the majority. Or to put it differently, pure democracy is very inhospitable to minorities. (One can imagine ways in which the wishes of the minority are reflected, but usually, by definition, this operates by a mechanism other than pure democracy.

It was in this sense that I said democracy is hardly an ideal. It can run roughshod over the interests of minorities—hardly an ideal situation.

505. dusty - 10/31/1999 9:02:28 PM

Continued

People also use the term to refer to representative democracy. This attempts to react to the logistical impossibility of pure democracy in large groups, by allowing for elected representatives to make rules. The representatives could be chosen in a number of ways, but a first past the post or majority rule would qualify as representative democracy in my mind. (I'm not a student of political science, so there may well be examples of this in real life, but I cannot think of one.) The main goal of representative democracy is logistics, not any increase in fairness. In fact, it is easy to imagine situations where laws could be passed by a majority of representatives, but these positions could be supported by well under a majority of the populace. So the potential for tyranny of the majority is even worse.

In either definition of democracy, potential for abuse of minorities occurs. The classic way that protection of minorities occurs is via Constitutional rules, giving absolute power to minorities on some issues (in theory, but close to it, in practice), and subject to revision only by supermajorities and elaborate mechanisms designed to made changes difficult.

The US has such Constitutional protection of minorities, and a modified form of representative democracy. Some people loosely refer to the US as a democracy, but this is true only in comparison to a very high level of categorization, i.e., democracy versus dictatorship.

506. PincherMartin - 10/31/1999 10:18:46 PM

Sto --

So, I will not mention which better-writen text books I have read which is probably just as well, since such things are ultimately a matter of opinion.

Answer it in the Books thread, then. And I promise I won't make anything out of it except to note it as your humble opinion.

But market and democracy are extremely broad categories which can take on myriad different forms which will be the focus of a (probably) never-ending political and social dispute. So, as I said at the outset, Fukuyama's (/Hegel's/Kojève's) definition of history is by necessity quite narrow.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Fukuyama's point is that ideological differences in history are over. The technical differences of one democracy over another can still be hashed out, but ultimately these will be left to people like Spence, who will then dispense his expertise to the rest of us.

continued...

507. PincherMartin - 10/31/1999 10:22:16 PM

I'll mention one thing it doesn't seem to encompass: What will be the political units of the future? Fukuyama's assumptions of democracy and markets take place within the framework of the nation state. But what constitutes a state? What makes given states acceptable to their denizens? To other states? And how are relations within states to be determined - territories, cities, federal states, municipalities? And between states to be regulated? Suprastatist structures? Will the true end of history encompass a United States of the World? If not, why?

Fukuyama does deal with some of these questions. As to your question, for example, "what makes given states acceptable...to other states?": Fukuyama takes a Kantian approach, saying that only liberal democracies view each other as legitimate, and only these states could serve as the basis for an international forum. Something along the lines of NATO or any one of the many organizations that represent the western states, and in general work smoothly.

Frankly, many of your questions suggest you didn't understand what Fukuyama was talking about. The exact balance of power and relations between the cities, states, and the federal government is a technocrat's question. Who cares? So long as the thymos of man is satisfied, through both democracy -- which will level the worse tendencies of capitalism -- and the marketplace -- which will allow people to strive to satisfy their megalothymia -- then some sort of balance is achieved and the end of history is maintained. The differences in the balance between the two will be left up to those individual states.

Could a state re-enter history because it neglects one of the two sides? Fukuyama doesn't seem to think so.

508. PincherMartin - 10/31/1999 10:46:14 PM

Sto --

Fukuyama deals with many of your questions in three consecutive chapters: "National Interests," "Toward A Pacific Union," and "In the Realm of Freedom."

509. Spudboy - 11/1/1999 3:47:26 AM

CalGal:
The thrust of my point was that Spud seems to be linking the roots of isolationism and racism. I think they are entirely separate. Racist organizations probably adopt isolationism because it adds to their appeal, but that's a different thing.

I agree that, intellectually speaking, isolationism and racism (or in this case, more specifically, nativism) are separate or at least discrete. As ideas, they seem unrelated, outside of the suggestion (made by several historians) that nativism is an internalized expression of the anti-foreign attitudes latent in isolationism. Moreover, it's obvious it's entirely possible to be isolationist without being nativist, racist or anti-Semitic. Borah and Vandenberg provide stark instances that this was the case, since neither man has a trace of nativism or racism in his background.

What's difficult to dispute, though, is that much of isolationism's popular support historically (especially in the 20th century) has come from nativist elements. No doubt this is due in large part to the fact that nativists have almost universally been isolationist in outlook. This stems more, I would argue, from their essential anti-foreignist philosophy than from any attempt to "add to their appeal." It's far more reflexive than calculated. The Know-Nothings and the Klan were secondarily isolationist more out of their primary desire to project themselves as promoting "pure Americanism."

510. stostosto - 11/1/1999 4:01:15 AM

Pincher

"Fukuyama's point is that ideological differences in history are over. The technical differences of one democracy over another can still be hashed out, but ultimately these will be left to people like Spence, who will then dispense his expertise to the rest of us. "

Well, that's what I mean when I say he works with a narrow definition of history. I didn't say he doesn't say so himself.

"Frankly, many of your questions suggest you didn't understand what Fukuyama was talking about. The exact balance of power and relations between the cities, states, and the federal government is a technocrat's question. Who cares? "

That's rather sweepingly broad issues to leave to technocrats. Since Fukuyama's original article, we have seen the reunification of Germany, the split up of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union, the Rwanda tragedy, the forming of EU's monetary Union and fledgling common defence and foreign policies, the Kosovo atrocities and NATO bombing campaign, the shambackle in East Timor. All in some way or other have to do with the question of what constitutes a legitimate state. But who cares? These are only technical questions.

Yet, I can't help but wonder: Might some technical questions be too important to leave to technocrats?

511. Spudboy - 11/1/1999 4:07:20 AM

This was the dilemma the America Firsters faced. In order to have political impact, they needed to have a popular base. The creation of patrician Republicans from the Ivy League, the AFC needed to attract elements from more, shall we say, coarse electoral backgrounds. This meant getting people like Coughlin and Smith behind them. It was a simple matter to later chase out those with actual ties to the Nazis, like Ford and Brundage. And as I suggested, this influence wound up creeping upward; it's quite clear that the AFC gradually transmutated into an organization that was secretly financed by the Nazis and intended to be their American representatives when the Axis won the war.

[Another way of thinking about this is that Americans were almost unanimous during the 19th century an outlook I think is best described as "white American nationalist." It was a worldview that bred both isolationism and nativism; I think its most obvious manifestation was Manifest Destiny. And it clearly remained with us well into the 20th century.]

Incidentally, I have no comment on Ranheim's simultaneous expressions of nostalgia for Father Coughlin's views and his suggestion that the FBI's intelligence was unreliable. They speak for themselves. (And FWIW, my family, being recently emigrated Germans at the time, also suffered considerably during WWI, which no doubt was related to their devout Republicanism. As I was raised too. But having been the objects of prejudice made us somewhat more sensitive to that faced by others as well. I left the party in the late 1970s over their abandonment of civil rights and adoption of the Southern Strategy.)

512. SpenceMirrlees - 11/1/1999 4:13:21 AM

Dusty Message # 505

You characterize the function of representation in democracy primarily as a logistical one -- referring essentially to what I mentioned earlier as the "transaction cost" motivation for representative as opposed to direct governance.

This is not the only justification of republican government offered by its supporters. Another is that a representative assembly is a better tool for discovering the true public interest, for separating passion from reason. The representatives, sages that they are, can tell the difference. Representation is not just a mirror, but also a filter. This justification underlies some of the defense of the republican government presented in the Federalist Papers, for example.

Also, democracy does historically give special significance to a simple majority rule scheme, but I don't think they must be identified with each other. Democracy is consistent with a large family of cutoff rules (a continuum of measure 1, specifically) --if the proportion in support is larger than p, the measure carries. p = 1/2 isn't the only rule. Plurality rule is simply a special case in which p is determined by the number of alternatives under consideration. Many countries, including the US, have 1st past the post democratic elections by this standard.

513. PelleNilsson - 11/1/1999 5:14:32 AM

spudboy

I have posted a leader from The Economist here in International. It deals with America's role in the world. The point is made that it is no longer possible to hold to an isolationist view in the traditional sense. The leader uses the term "unilateralist" to describe those who feel that the US should avoid any multi-lateral agreements (the CTBT being a case in point) which restricts it sovereignty to act. It seems to me that, in the face of globalisation, this is the logical continuation of the political tradition you have described for us.

514. stostosto - 11/1/1999 5:14:49 AM

CalGal, Spudd:

Re: Isolationalism and racism/nativism.

There certainly is an affinity. The racist or nativist mindset is that of strengthening a collective identity by stressing differences with other groups, frequently in terms of one's own superiority vs. the other's inferiority (culturally, biologically, morally).

You construct stereotypical self-images of glory, heroism, or goodness, often complete with historical and/or religious myths, and you conjure up equally stereotypical counter-images of evil and/or inferior outsiders.

In short, you are in a state of conflict, open or latent, with other groups. And you are persecuting members of your own group if they do not conform to the defined stereotype; this strengthens the group's sense of identity and keeps the members aligned, lest they fall victim of persecution, typically in the form of being accused of being friendly to the enemy or a downright traitor.

Of course, instead of fighting it out with other groups, you can in some instances choose to cut off contact with them - it has the advantage of avoiding their evil influence which might creep in on you and recruit some of the weakly aligned members of your group, making it impure.

Isolationism would thus be an attractive choice for American nativists and racists. Which is not to say it can't also be a foreign policy option independent of racism or nativism.

Here in Europe, there is a similar affinity between right wing xenophobic partys and isolationism, typically in the form of being wary of the EU as well as other international arrangements.

515. stostosto - 11/1/1999 5:15:15 AM

(cont.)

Asylum seekers have no business coming here, to say nothing of illegal immigrants. They are evil Muslims scheming to take over the country; they have no respect or knowledge of what it means to be truly Danish/Norwegian/Swedish/French/German/Austrian/Swiss/Belgian. They are smearing our great heritage, trampling on our cherished national symbols, etc., etc., etc.

And the EU is a machine that furthers the impurification by allowing people to move freely within its borders. Besides, who can trust those corrupt Italians to keep out the hordes of illegal immigrants from the EU's soft under-belly?

Did I mention our stance on development assistance to poor countries?

516. PelleNilsson - 11/1/1999 5:19:26 AM

Interesting crosspost, sto!

517. Spudboy - 11/1/1999 5:43:48 AM

Pelle: Yes, I read the Economist piece. Quite sound, I thought. It aptly describes the approach to internationalism of the Jesse Helms set. Both William Borah and Frank Church are whirling in their graves at the thought of that Carolina boob occupying their once-esteemed seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I have to give more thought to just how isolationism begat unilateralism. I'm revisiting my "white American nationalist" theme. Any thoughts of your own?

Stostosto: Thanks for the enlightening treatise on nativism. I gather that you may also agree with my assessment that isolationism need not reflect nativism, while nativists almost always are isolationist.

I recently was debriefed on how dire the situation is becoming in East Germany currently. I understand that entire towns and small cities are essentially now in the control of neo-Nazi factions. So I know that this is not merely an abstract discussion for Europeans, as Americans (who remain willfully ignorant of conditions in rural areas) seem to consider it here.

However, I have at least seen some signs for hope from France. I understand that the government has recently relaxed standards for citizenship, making it more possible for immigrants to become Frenchmen. And I see that LePen's National Front has split in two and lost membership in the past year, which is certainly a positive development.

518. stostosto - 11/1/1999 6:28:18 AM

Spuds

Yes, I agree entirely with your contention that isolationism isn't necessarily related to racism, but that it's nearly always a concomitant to racism.

And no, it's not an abstract discussion in Europe. I fear it's only just beginning. Americans have had two centuries of multiracial, multiethnic, immigrant-absorbing society. The debate over this ought to have played itself out pretty much. Here, it's a very recent phenomenon. Europe didn't have net immigration until the latter half of the sixties (bar, perhaps, the colonial powers the UK and France).

The EU is neighbour to a disintegrating, crime-ridden, poor, colossus to the east which, to boot, is engaging in internal warring and terrorism. To the south we have a range of poor nations with more or less oppressive regimes, rapidly expanding populations, and bleak prospects for large segments of the population. On Balkan we have, well, Balkan.

The EU, understandably, is a magnet for all kinds of people, and the pressure on its borders is likelier to increase than wane in the foreseeable future.

At the same time it is preparing to take in new members such as Hungary, the Czech Rep., and - very populous and comparatively poor - Poland. Future challenges galore. The xenophobes will not be short of targets.

519. PelleNilsson - 11/1/1999 6:41:22 AM

Good post, sto.

520. Spudboy - 11/1/1999 7:27:01 AM

Thanks, sto. Pelle, your thoughts? I'll check back in later today (much later... I'm going to bed now) with some more thoughts on white nationalism.

521. ranheim - 11/1/1999 2:45:14 PM

#511

Wayne S. Cole has written a few books about the treatment of German-Americans during WW I. It is not a subject that most americans know anything about. Reading what happened to other families - in addition to my own - during WW I heightened my dislike for central power.

I also commented on Hoover's FBI. This topic, too, has come under some scrutiny lately. Most of it unfavorable to Hoover. The actions of the current FBI at Ruby Ridge and Waco have no caused me to reconsider my already low opinion of the FBI.

522. Spudboy - 11/1/1999 3:17:19 PM

Ranheim:
Somehow, though, it wouldn't surprise me if you believed Hoover's theory that Martin Luther King was a communist. Or any of the rest of Hoover's long and colorful history as a Red-hunter.

FBI data, however, is generally quite reliable (and I don't think many people even doubt the factuality of some of the personal dirt he dug up on MLK... the problem there was spying into people's private lives). The FBI's record for being accurate, especially for its domestic intelligence during World War II and its intelligence on organized crime, is really pretty remarkable. I've got a FOIA request in now on their America First files, just for my own info. I'll let you know what's contained therein from my firsthand examination rather than relying on secondhand accounts.

And Father Coughlin -- is he still just peachy in your book?

523. PelleNilsson - 11/1/1999 4:00:58 PM

spudboy

I owe you a post. I have not forgotten, but I wasted the afternoon and early evening working. And now it's getting late at this end.

524. ranheim - 11/1/1999 6:52:00 PM

Spudboy

You are possibly aware that I am a minimalist when it comes to government. I suppose a national police force is inevitable; but, I wish we didn't have one. It is just another set of computers keeping track of everything it can on all of us. I don't have any use for Hoover; I have long ago discounted his "little black book". Too much is hearsay. I have often wondered at the guts/lack thereof of the politicians in Hoover's day. Why didn't they just say to him "Go do your best boyo! But, I am not going to be muzzled by the likes of you".

Father Coughlin is easy. I was raised as a Lutheran; Coughlin was a Catholic priest. My parents would not have listened to him. From reading of that era, I knew he was very popular in the '30s. I am trying to recall something I read a great many years ago. Didn't the Church force him off the air once the war started. I was 6 in 1941. And I surely haven't looked up his radio addresses; if indeed, they are available.

525. Spudboy - 11/2/1999 3:32:49 AM

ranheim:
orgive me for misreading your #482: Between war politics in rural MN were anti-FDR. He was "that man!" My father -- a school teacher --never used his name! Charles Lindberg was a hero; his father was a Representative in Wahington for a rural MN district. Father Coughlin's radio program was tremendously popular. Though your tone is rather approving, I can see that you were not necessarily saying you or your family were among the good priest’s audience.

Actually, by the end of Coughlin’s radio career, he was one of the most strident anti-Semites in the land. In addition to his America First work, he helped cobble together the Union party with Gerald L.K. Smith (who was pictured at an America First rally in one of my previous links). The Union party, with Coughlin as its chief spokesman, ran a fellow named William Lemke as a third-party candidate in 1936, but he polled fewer than a million votes.

(Smith, a former aide to Huey Long, was even more outspoken in his anti-Semitism than Coughlin. He laid the foundation for much of what is now the Christian Identity movement.)

526. Spudboy - 11/2/1999 3:33:53 AM

First, here is a fairly dispassionate and accurate mini-bio: Father Charles E. Coughlin

If you wish for evidence of his anti-Semitism, I can direct you to a couple of neo-Nazi sites that feature his material, like this one from Stormfront: Father Coughlin answers his critics

However, if you don’t wish to give Stormfront a hit on their Web site, this is the text you’ll find there (along with ordering information):

Father Coughlin Answers His Critics

Father Coughlin has been criticized as being "anti-Semitic." Here, he replies, point by point, showing that Jews organized the U.S. Communist Party and that their front, "The Jewish Peoples Committee" had 400,000 members, that Jewish bankers financed the Communist revolution in Russia. He backs it up with secret British documents. 110 pages, 10 photos, new introduction by Dr. Fields. $4.50

----------------------------------------
Money, Questions and Answers, by Father Charles Coughlin, the famed "radio priest of the 1930's. In down to earth terms Father Coughlin explains how our money system works to the advantage of the big Jewish owned banks and to the detriment of ordinary people. 188 pages. $6.95

527. Spudboy - 11/2/1999 3:34:24 AM

Draw your own conclusions.

Also, you can listen to his radio speeches on the Web at another white-supremacist site: Father Coughlin Files Index

528. PelleNilsson - 11/2/1999 4:34:15 AM

spudboy

About unilateralism. Now, I'm not clear about the details of the isolationist doctrine, but I imagine it is to stay out of the world outside the Americas both politically and economically. Considering economics this was perhaps possible in the decades before and after WW2. America is a continent, a market in its own right. I don't have figures, but I would suppose that international trade as ratio of GDP has risen quite substantially since, say, the 60's. Also, the US is now dependent on trade. For imports, oil is the obvious example. For exports we may consider farm products and the entertainment industry.

So, isolationism in economic terms is no longer possible, and because trade is tied to politics, political isolationism must go too.

As I understand unilateralists, they recognise this situation, but they reject US participation in any supra-national institution, such as the WTO, which can limit US freedom to act, for example by having its own tariff policies aimed at protecting certain sectors, such as textiles.

The same goes for international politics. No membership in organisations that could bind the US to a certain course of action. No ratification of treaties that could limit the freedom of the US, or which could censor the US as the International Court in Hague did about the mining of harbours in Nicaragua.

What I think then is that unilateralism is a logical evolution from non-participation - which is no longer tenable - to grudging participation on America's own terms.

(I see that there is some mangled grammar above which will hurt a journalist's eye, but I don't have the energy ....)

529. ranheim - 11/2/1999 8:33:50 AM

Resignation, I think, best describes my feelings toward our international trade and our military.

There is no way that the eastern, internationalist elite nor the corporation's involved in international trade are going to reduce their quest for still more international contacts/business.

Therefore, I know that what I would wish for - self sufficiency; trading with Canada, Mexico, Central, & South America - is doomed. I am a member of the 'loyal opposition'; destined to remain as such.

The one thing that I would wish for in future USA presidents is military experience. Those of us who have been in the military - exposed to combat or not - have a greater 'feel' for the downside of battle. The current president has no idea what he is foisting on the soldiers that he sends to Bosnia/Kosovo etc.

530. Cellar Door - 11/2/1999 10:39:48 AM

"The FBI's record for being accurate, especially for its domestic intelligence during World War II and its intelligence on organized crime, is really pretty remarkable."

But their "information" on gays and lesbians is laughable in the extreme -- the recent revelations re John Chancellor being a perfect example. This was doubtless due to the bind Hoover was in resulting from his fear of being seen as "a homosexual," yet at the same time being driven to use his organization to find out more about people whose lives related to his own. I say related because few gay men outside of the very, very wealthy could move through the world with the ease of J. Edgar and Clyde.

531. Spudboy - 11/2/1999 1:17:18 PM

ranheim:
The one thing that I would wish for in future USA presidents is military experience. Those of us who have been in the military - exposed to combat or not - have a greater 'feel' for the downside of battle.

Following this logic, of course, Lincoln should never have been president.

And I gather that -- again following the same lines of logic -- you would agree then that Al Gore and John McCain are better equipped to be president than George W. Bush. Gore and McCain in fact have seen combat, while Bush only flew a few planes around Texas.

I also see that you have no further comment on Father Coughlin. Are you perhaps convinced, then, that the America First Committee was a hotbed of anti-Semitism?

532. Spudboy - 11/2/1999 1:39:51 PM

Pelle:
You analysis sounds right to me. And, given that the unilateralists are also white nationalists, "America's own terms" are this: We call all the shots. We don't do business with commies, but right-wing dictatorships are just dandy. Every agreement into which we enter must be wholly to our advantage, even at the expense of other co-signees. And we certainly don't care is another Holocaust or big war breaks out in Europe or elsewhere.

Cellar Door: Well, note that I said "generally." I think it's clear that Hoover stepped over into snooping on people's personal lives and targeting groups by their ideologies, beginning really in the 1950s during his Red Hunter phase and then going wildly overboard in the '60s. And much of that information has turned out not to be terribly reliable. But that's why Congress passed restraints on domestic intelligence in the 1970s, which is why the FBI can't investigate, say, the folks behind Christian Identity and neo-Nazism, at least not until there's evidence that they're involved in criminal activity.

533. ranheim - 11/2/1999 1:49:03 PM

I'll probably vote for Harry Browne; and would be shocked had spent any significant time in the military. Can you suggest a better way to vote 'None Of The Above'; I am told that NOTA is on the ballot in only one state.

McCain fits the bill as an ex-fighting man. Wasn't Gore's 1 or 2 day trip to Viet Nam as a correspondant - or something similar.

If you have read anything that I have previously posted in the Mote or that other place, you will know that two of my most dis-liked presidents are FDR and Lincoln; Wilson, LBJ, JFK, and TR are high on that list also. All of them caused power to be shifted from the local and/or state governments to Washington D.C. For me, Washington is the cloaca of the world.

534. Ronski - 11/2/1999 2:51:28 PM

Cellar,

What revelations about John Chancellor?

535. Cellar Door - 11/2/1999 5:00:37 PM

That the FBI claimed its "informants"
had identified the late newsman as a "rectal sodomist."

See if this link to the APB story from October 26 still works

536. Cellar Door - 11/2/1999 5:02:23 PM

Apparently not. Oh well.

The short version is that because of Hoover's "outing" of him, Chancellor was deemed unfit to head the Voice of America.

537. PelleNilsson - 11/2/1999 5:22:32 PM

spudboy

An interesting snippet from Safire's latest language column where he looks at the expression "on the backs of the poor".

The earliest use I can find about the poor's burdened back came from a far-left group led by Rep. Vito Marcantonio, the Committee to Defend America by Keeping Out of War.

So isolationism was not, apparently, reserved for conservtives. Have you come across that group in your research?

538. alistairconnor - 11/2/1999 7:50:00 PM

Message # 518Sto:
Europe didn't have net immigration until the latter half of the sixties (bar, perhaps, the colonial powers the UK and France).

I'm pretty sure France has had net immigration for all of the twentieth century, at least. Not even empire-related: mostly Poles and Italians in the first half of the century.

Just a random comment. I really wish I had time to participate in this thread.

539. alistairconnor - 11/2/1999 7:56:06 PM

cllr: A "Rectal sodomist"! What a shocking contrast with Hoover's own moral rectitude!

540. pseudoerasmus - 11/2/1999 8:05:32 PM

# 538

Yes, not only did France have net immigration in the 20th century, but also in the latter half of the 19th century. The immigrants included Poles, Italians and semi-Germans like Saarlanders and Alsatians who didn't want to stay in Germany after the Franco-Prussian War. By the way, the Vichy government actually deported many of these immigrants, the Italians back to Italy, and the Poles (!) to the Germans.

542. PelleNilsson - 11/3/1999 1:39:54 AM

I wonder about Australia, like the US entirely made up by immigrants who suppressed the original inhabitants, although the immigration started much later there. One wonders about parallels. I seem to remember a lady politician who scored some success with a rather xenophobic programme. Maybe it was isolationist as well?

543. Adrianne - 11/3/1999 7:02:51 AM

A timely piece from Salon, ranheim

544. ranheim - 11/3/1999 8:05:32 AM

#543 Adrianne

Salon leans toward the left; as does Wills. But, that was interesting reading. Thanks for the link.

Do I have the right man? Is Wills an ex-Catholic priest?

545. PelleNilsson - 11/3/1999 8:09:15 AM

Now, now, friends. We are getting perilously close to current political events for which there is a dedicated thread.

546. Adrianne - 11/3/1999 8:11:32 AM

No, he went to a Jesuit seminary but was never a priest.

547. Adrianne - 11/3/1999 8:13:10 AM

Duh, by "went to" I meant "studied at".

548. Adrianne - 11/3/1999 8:13:49 AM

Pelle

The article I posted is about Political Ideas.

555. PelleNilsson - 11/3/1999 11:45:20 AM

Adrianne

Yes, and an interesting one too.

All

The missing posts have been moved to the Playpen.

556. rosettastone - 11/3/1999 12:40:51 PM

Sounds like you have to much time on your hands, Pelle, playing the censor to what are political ideas and what aren't.

And if you move the posts, do the whole sequence.

Idiot!

557. PelleNilsson - 11/3/1999 1:02:52 PM

rosetta

It has long been established that hosts set the rules for their threads. You can read mine if you click appropriately in the butterscotch bar.

I was lenient. I could just as well have deleted those posts. As it is they are, perhaps undeservedly , immortalised in the Pen.

If you have further complaints you may care to look up Suggestions and e-mail the Moderator.

558. rosettastone - 11/3/1999 1:13:30 PM

Remove them all, starting with 541, mr. deleter.

559. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 1:45:07 PM

Pelle: Careful. Rosetta might sic his lawyer on you.

560. Spudboy - 11/3/1999 1:47:10 PM

BTW, Pelle: Yes, there most certainly were liberal opponents to the war. They were part of the early America First coalition. They were overwhelmed by the flood of ex-Klansmen and Silvershirts who joined the movement.

561. PelleNilsson - 11/3/1999 3:40:51 PM

rosetta

As per your request #541 has been removed.

Always at your service,

Your Humble Host

562. RosettaStone - 11/3/1999 4:10:08 PM

Good golly, Miss Molly! The Bitter Pill called my bluff and did it.

I'll have to remember that about Europeans (g).

To stay on topic, to keep this from being destroyed: It reminds me of Clinton and the Senate Democrats demanding that the Senate vote on CTBT.

When Senator Lott and the other Republicans did so, they squealed that the Republicans were "isolationalists" because they wouldn't rubber stamp Clinton's flawed nuclear ban treaty.

BETTER RED THAN DEAD!

563. Cellar Door - 11/3/1999 4:30:50 PM

Better Read Than Dead.

564. glendajean - 11/3/1999 4:44:58 PM

Celler, or as WC Fields once said, all things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia.

565. RosettaStone - 11/3/1999 4:46:03 PM

Very good, CD. Why didn't I think of that?! Touche, author!!

566. Cellar Door - 11/4/1999 9:38:29 AM

Actually it's a quote from Edie Sedgewick in conversation with Alger Hiss.

567. PelleNilsson - 11/6/1999 5:17:07 AM

I feel that this thread is approaching its best-before date. Let me bring up one more subject for discussion.

I noted earlier that the democratic process can be used to destroy democracy. It happened in Germany, and it almost happened in Algeria a few years ago.

In a recent discussion about the 2nd Amendment in one of the twin threads, the argument was made that it provides a means for the people to cast off an oppressive government; sort of a last resort solution.

Now, is it reasonable to assume that the framers, after having devised a constitution with elaborate checks and balances, foresaw that it might be destroyed from within?

568. cmboyce - 11/6/1999 1:20:46 PM

Of course they foresaw that it might be destroyed from within; that's why they created elaborate checks and balances. What doesn't follow is that the second amendment was written to justify rebellion. Among the first important events within the new country under the Constitution were Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. I don't think there was any Founding-Fatherly support for the legitimacy of this taking up of arms.

569. cmboyce - 11/6/1999 1:21:34 PM

these takings up of arms

570. CalGal - 11/6/1999 2:03:02 PM

I agree with CMBoyce that the FF did not write the Second Amendment to justify rebellion. They did, however, write the Second Amendment in part because they wanted to make sure that the people had the means to defend themselves against an oppressive government.

It wasn't just the Americans, either. Remember, the basis for the second amendment came from English law. From Blacksone's Commentaries on the Laws of England:

But in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment. IT has therefore established certain other auxiliary rights of the subject, which serve principally as outworks or barriers, to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property.

Blackstone then defines five auxiliary rights, the last of which being the right of people to have arms.

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law...and is, indeed, a publick allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

571. CalGal - 11/6/1999 2:27:33 PM

I believe that Blackstone's Commentaries were the authority on English common law in both England and America, yes?

Did England take these tenets seriously? In Joyce Lee Malcom's book, To Keep and Bear Arms, a history of this right, she refers to the Gordon Riots, the most violent riots of the 18th century, in London. A peaceful protest turned violent, the army restored order with the help of the militia, but 450 people were killed. After it was over, a formal inquiry was held to investigate a lieutenant colonel Amherst's decision to forcibly disarm city residents. This was contrary to the orders to arm all the inhabitants given by the Lord Mayor. The matter was heavily debated and the call to censure the colonel was finally defeated.

Mind you, the Gordon riots were an incredibly difficult case and yes, the English didn't censure the forcible disarmament of its citizens. But nonetheless, the measures taken were acknowledged by all concerned to be extraordinary, and the extensive debate ensured that it was not drawn into precedent or that this be seen to detract from the constitutional right of the individual.

The Americans started from that point and very carefully removed all of the constraints that the English had put on the right to own guns. The English specified what types of guns--the Americans did not. The English said that Parliament could restrict or change this right. The Americans built it into their constitution. There was, incidentally, one draft of the Second Amendment that did not include the people's right to bear arms, but focused on the militia. It was rejected.

So yes, the Second Amendment was framed in large part to provide the individual protection against the government; the intent was to provide and expand the right guaranteed the English at the time.

572. CalGal - 11/6/1999 2:28:00 PM

One thing that has always amused me is any reference to the FF's objection to various rebellions as some sort of proof about their second amendment intentions. So what? One has nothing to do with the other. It is unquestionable that they considered the people's right to bear arms an essential protection against an oppressive government. They just didn't happen to think their government was oppressive.

I think it was Franklin who mentioned that actions against the government are never described the same way in the first and third person. "Our revolution against the government oppression" = "their rebellion against a lawful government."

That being said, it's important to note that they weren't particularly harsh in their use of force to put down the rebellions.

573. PelleNilsson - 11/6/1999 2:33:27 PM

CalGal

a publick allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

To me this does not read as being directed towards oppressive central government, but rather against local strongmen who have set themselves above the law through corruption and intimidation.

And who is issuing the "due restrictions" if not government? I find it implausible that government - any government - would enact laws which would make its overthrow by armed rebellion a lawful undertaking.

And we must not become anachronistice here. The slaves were oppressed. Need I say more?

574. CalGal - 11/6/1999 2:49:33 PM

Pelle,

To me this does not read as being directed towards oppressive central government, but rather against local strongmen who have set themselves above the law through corruption and intimidation.

There are any number of ways in which a government can be oppressive. For example, the Randy Weaver case brought to light an astounding array of government abuses by a central government agency. That, I suppose, could be the equivalent to a local strongman of 300 years ago.

But you do seem to be reading a lot into Blackstone.

"Due restrictions"--as I clearly stated, the English right to arms had always depended on what was allowed by law. The Americans deliberately removed that restriction.

I find it implausible that government - any government - would enact laws which would make its overthrow by armed rebellion a lawful undertaking.

Since I have agreed with CMBoyce that the Second Amendment was not intended to justify rebellion, I'm not sure what your point is.

575. CalGal - 11/6/1999 2:53:56 PM

Pelle,

And we must not become anachronistice here.

???

You asked a question about the FF and their intent. You are, in fact, still arguing about their intent. It seems a tad odd to then complain that an answer about their intent and the accepted civil liberties thinking of the time is anachronistic.

If you wish to discuss whether this thinking applies to the current day, you are most welcome. That would be, however, a change of subject. Right now, anachronism is required in order to answer the question you yourself posed.

576. PelleNilsson - 11/8/1999 4:03:56 PM

Democracy comes in many shapes and hues. It is something more that constitutional arrangements and voting procedures. Consider the US and the UK. Two stable, democratic countries; yet they represent two extremes.

The US has a venerable constitution which is difficult to change. There is a separation between the legislative and executive branches of government. There is a constitutional watchdog in the form of the Supreme Court.

The UK does not have a constitution. The parliament is sovereign to act as it deems fit. Government is formed from the parliamentary majority. When that majority is large - as it is now - there are no formal checks and balances on what government can do or cannot do.

But, as I said, both countries are stable democracies.

Question: "What is democracy?"

My answer: "A state of mind."

577. JonesAtLaw - 11/8/1999 5:10:42 PM

CalGal- We agree to disagree on the proper state of current constitutional jurisprudence on the second amendment. That being said, I still think your analysis of the founding fathers intent regarding the second amendment is deeply flawed.

You still attempt to separate the militia from the general thrust of the amendment as if it were superfluous. However, I argue that it is inherent in the intent of the framers that the second amendment applies to the right of the states to maintain a militia subject to federal control in times of rebellion or national emergency.

578. CalGal - 11/8/1999 5:18:14 PM

I'm not separating out the militia as superfluous--although I think their attempts to combine the two concepts (right to bear arms and forming a militia) were ill-advised. I was answering Pelle's question, which had nothing to do with militias.

579. JonesAtLaw - 11/8/1999 5:20:14 PM

Federalist No. 29 (Hamilton)
If a well regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and efficacious power over the militia in the same body ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and pretext for such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force.

...The same persons who tell us in one breath that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited inform us in the next that it has not the authority sufficent to call out the posse comitatus. The latter is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it.

580. CalGal - 11/8/1999 5:24:17 PM

???

What's your point? I just agreed with you.

581. JonesAtLaw - 11/8/1999 5:25:07 PM

Pelle- the framers never thought that democracy would need to be destroyed from within. They believed that the disparate forces in government would be forced back into equilibrium by the shift of the people favoring central power in attempts at usurpation by the states, and the states against usurpations by the central power. Thus Hamilton above on the militia and standing armies. Popular support of various segments of legitimate power would right the situtation.

582. Aldavis - 11/8/1999 5:46:41 PM

"BTW, Pelle: Yes, there most certainly were liberal opponents to the war. They were part of the early America First coalition. They were overwhelmed by the flood of ex-Klansmen and Silvershirts who joined the movement."

Spudboy
Perhaps I do not understand the point you were making for Pelle, but one should keep in mind that it was not just the American Firsters who opposed war in Europe. Roosevelt was very much opposed to war, or so he said, until the USSR was attacked. Also, the Communist Party and all sympathisers cared little about Hitler and did not come out for war until the USSR was attacked. In fact, they were mightily opposed to war after Hitler and Stalin signed a pact. It is also true that during the War Stalin tried to negotiate a peace with Hitler and was rebuffed.

583. ranheim - 11/8/1999 5:56:57 PM

It may not be germane to this thread - but, I am always amazed at liberals/progressives/people on the left. They always have a very difficult time with communism due to the fact that the political ideations are very similar.

Communism is socialism with an ugly face - I don't think I botched that saying too much. Wish I had been the one to first say it.

584. JayAckroyd - 11/8/1999 6:00:09 PM

And libertarians are collectivists. Big deal.

585. JonesAtLaw - 11/8/1999 6:05:38 PM

Aldavis- FDR had supported the allied indirectly through lend lease far before Barbarosa in 1941. He entered the war not because of the attack on the USSR which came months before Pearl Harbor, but because of Pearl. BTW December 5, 1941 USSR signed a neutrality pact with Japan to free troops for Zhukov on the western front.

586. Aldavis - 11/9/1999 1:52:42 AM

JonesatLaw
Are you implying that Roosevelt was a liar? His statements prior to the election in 1940 were anti-war, and even after the election up until Hitler attacked Russia, he claimed he would not get America envolved in a war in Europe. Of course, by then we know he was lying and that he manipulated things so that Japan would attack, not Hawaii but he thought perhaps the Phillipines. However, there is some evidence that he was not really surprised by Pearl Harbor.

The more I study, the more I lose respect for FDR. Yes, America was against war, but the mark of a great leader is to bring the country along with what he knows is the right thing to do. When Reagan called the USSR the evil Empire, he was ridiculed by intellectuals, probably by you, as an old fool. For God sake, if the USSR was not an evil Empire, please tell me what would be? And yet, there is still very little realization in the west of just how evil the Soviets and Communism were and are. I have started reading "The Black Book of Communism" by Stephane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panne, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin. I would reccomend it to anyone interested in discovering just how evil communism is.

587. CalGal - 11/9/1999 4:41:24 AM

However, I argue that it is inherent in the intent of the framers that the second amendment applies to the right of the states to maintain a militia subject to federal control in times of rebellion or national emergency.


"The Second Amendment was meant to accomplish two distinct goals, each perceived as crucial to the maintenance of liberty. First, it was meant to guarantee the individual's right to have arms for self-defence and self-preservation. Such an individual right was the legacy of the English Bill of Rights. This is also plain from American colonial practice, the debates over the Consitution, and state proposals for what was to become the Second Amendment. In keeping with the colonial precedent, the American article broadened the English protection. English restrictions had limited the right to have arms to Protestants and made the type and quantity of such weapons dependent upon what was deemed 'suitable' to a person's 'condition'. The English also included the provisio that the right to have arms was to be 'as allowed by law'. Americans swept aside these limitations and forbade any 'infringement' upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

...

"The second and related objective concerned the militia, and it is the coupling of these two objectives that has caused the most confusion. The customary American militia necessitated an armed public, and Madison's original version of the amendment, as well as those suggested by the states, described the militia as either 'composed of' or 'including' the body of the people. A select militia was regarded as little better than a standing army. The argument that today's National Guardsmen, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation. Indeed, it would seem redundant to specify that members of a militia had the right to be armed. A militia could scarcely function otherwise. "

588. CalGal - 11/9/1999 4:42:06 AM

cont'd.

"But the argument that this constitutional right to have eweapons was exclusively for members of a militia falters on another ground. The House committee eliminated the stipulation that the militia be 'well-armed', and the Senate, in what became the final version of the amendment, eliminated the description of the militia as composed of the 'body of the people'. These changes left open the possibility of a poorly armed and narrowly based militia that many Americans feared might be the result of federal control. Yet the amendment guaranteed that the right of 'the people' to have arms not be infringed. Whatever the future composition of the militia, therefore, however well or ill armed, was not crucial because the people's right to have weapons was sacrosanct. As was the case in the English tradition, the arms in the hands of the people, not the militia, are relied upon 'to restrain the violence of oppression'."

To Keep and Bear Arms, by Joyce Lee Malcolm

589. marjoribanks - 11/9/1999 10:59:17 AM

The idea of India.

590. Schehezarade - 11/9/1999 12:19:14 PM

Speaking of political ideas, is anyone else amused by the contradiction in Australia's mandatory vote to demonstrate democracy in order to keep the monarchy?

Just wondering.

591. PelleNilsson - 11/9/1999 12:36:05 PM

marj

From your link:

Of all the important ideas that have convulsed the modern world, a good number have set forth from India ......

India's loom drew the british and inspired the modern computer

We can't wish politics away; it'll pursue us into the next century

You must excuse me but I find these rantings pathetic. Third world intellectualism at its pretentious worst.

592. marjoribanks - 11/9/1999 12:40:48 PM

Only thing is, Pelle, he's not a third-world intellectual by almost any definition. He's a Brit-educated (Cambridge) faculty member of the University of London and something of a star in that arena. His main work had nothing to do with India until fairly recently.

593. Schehezarade - 11/9/1999 12:51:23 PM

In Jameson's Cultures of Globalization, that type of third-world elitism is discussed in chapter one. It also discusses (briefly) why India is and always will be a small part on the planetary-order, why there are revisionist attempts to portray India as though they could have been the dominant world-power, and how India is being increasingly influenced by cinema.

I only skimmed this book, if you're interested in this type of topic it's a keeper.

594. Schehezarade - 11/9/1999 12:52:17 PM

they = it

595. Schehezarade - 11/9/1999 1:05:01 PM

Alrighty then.

596. PelleNilsson - 11/9/1999 1:11:48 PM

marj

Remove "third-world" and replace with "pansy agoniste".

597. JonesAtLaw - 11/9/1999 3:32:38 PM

A select militia was regarded as little better than a standing army. The argument that today's National Guardsmen, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation.

The federalists did not object to select Militia-Hamilton specifically defended them in Federalist No 29. There is no historical basis for the argument that the right was to be a guarantee of an individual's right to arms.
Most historians or legal scholars do not argue that only the National Guard has a right to keep and bear arms, but that the states may regulate their militia members in exactly how many and what nature of arms they may hold. There's no escaping the "well regulated" phrase. It may be the states or it may be the federal government, or both, but it does not suppport any argument for unregulated arms possession by every citizen, which is the thesis of the author you quote.

598. JonesAtLaw - 11/9/1999 3:37:48 PM

In addition, Malcom is not too swift on his English history. Comparing the rights of subjects under the common law and those of American citizens under a prescriptive constitution is less than apt. Remember that keeping standing armies was the traditional right of the sovereign, and the Americans looked at standing armies in peacetime with concern. The third amendment and the provisions of the constitution restricting appropriations for armies to two years are examples of the restrictions they placed on armies. Lastly, they sought to counter central power over the militia by means of state appointment of officers.

599. CalGal - 11/9/1999 3:47:11 PM

Jones,

There is no historical basis for the argument that the right was to be a guarantee of an individual's right to arms.

This is nonsense. Malcolm's book was critically praised by historians and lawyers alike. Whether one agrees with her conclusions, there is no questioning the quality of her scholarship. And she cited plenty of evidence; I have referred to it in other threads and earlier in this discussion.

I have no idea what you are referring to vis a vis the federalist objection to the militia--I have said, clearly, and quoted from Malcolm in case you can't understand me, that the Second Amendment was intended to address the militia issue as well. Combining the two was a bad move, but what the hell.

Malcolm's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

There is overwhelming evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right. It is time to concede that truth. The alternative, to wilfully misread a constitutional guarantee one finds inconvenient, is an ominous precedent. It is a quicker means of change than amendment, but a tactic that endangers all our rights. As Justice Benjamin Cardozo wrote:

The great ideals of liberty and equality are preserved against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles, by enshrining them in constitutions, and consecrating to the task of their protection a body of defenders. The members of this body are pledged to be among those defenders.

600. CalGal - 11/9/1999 3:50:17 PM

In addition, Malcom is not too swift on his English history. Comparing the rights of subjects under the common law and those of American citizens under a prescriptive constitution is less than apt.

Well, you've just established you don't know what you're talking about. Go read up on Malcolm and her credentials--as well as the praise for her book--before you start gibbering about her knowledge of English history. You don't have to agree with her to accept the scholarship.

Tell you what--go bone up on the fundamentals. Then come back and make an intelligent argument.

601. JonesAtLaw - 11/9/1999 3:56:28 PM

CalGal- Malcom misses one important point. Never has the Supreme Court agreed with her. Cardozo's quote is not from a second amendment case. You go ahead and quote what Malcolm thinks what the founders meant and I'll quote what they said.

602. CalGal - 11/9/1999 4:07:21 PM

Never has the Supreme Court agreed with her.

Who cares? You said:

There is no historical basis for the argument that the right was to be a guarantee of an individual's right to arms.

The Supreme Court--which has only ruled on the Second Amendment three times, as you know--can say whatever it likes about what it means. That has nothing to do with whether or not there is a historical basis for the individual interpretation. In fact, it is very nearly considered a settled subject that the individual interpretation is the correct one, when discussing the founders' intent.

Your assertion is flat out nonsense.

603. CalGal - 11/9/1999 4:09:09 PM

Remember, Jones, this discussion is not about the current SC standing on the Second Amendment--which is agreed, by one and all, to be inconclusive at best. I have made no claims about what should be the interpretation. What is at issue is the intent. That's what Pelle's question involved, that is what your rebuttals purport to address.

When smacked across the face with your ignorance, you run back to irrelevancies.

604. JonesAtLaw - 11/9/1999 4:21:52 PM

So far a web search for Malcom has produced a minorly critical law review article by a second amendment advocate and a number of cites to advocacy pages. Nothing more substantial than that. Try original sources, CalGal if you really want to argue the historical point. An argument from authority won't cut it on this authority.

605. JonesAtLaw - 11/9/1999 4:26:35 PM

CalGal- do you understand what the Federalist is? It is original material describing intent of the framers. I don't agree that this is the correct means of interpretation, but I'm playing on your field. The second amendment is a response to the criticism of the constitution by the anti-federalists. They feared that the constitution placed too much control of the militia in the hands of the federal government and feared the standing army. Thus the second amendment concerning militia and the third concerning quatering of troops.

606. CalGal - 11/9/1999 4:40:36 PM

You might wish to learn how to use a search engine:

"It's Not Just About Duckhunting",David B. Kopel, Michigan Law Review (review of Malcolm's book)

"The Fifth Auxiliary Right", Robert Cottrell and Raymond T. Diamond, Yale Law Journal(review)

"Is the True Meaning of the Second
Amendment Really Such a Riddle?" T. Marcus Funk, Howard Law Journal

Sanford Levinson essay:

Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right. See, e.g., J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right 162 (1994); ..... (I'm figuring Levinson is constitutionally expert enough for you?)

607. CalGal - 11/9/1999 4:41:50 PM

Then there are the quotes from reviews on its publication:

...[Malcolm's] history suggests that most contemporary partisans (on both sides) have it all wrong: Rather than being about hunting, or even defense against criminals, the right to bear arms is primarily focused on preserving an independent base of military power among the citizenry at large..

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, ABA Journal

"Joyce Malcolm's book reminds us forcibly that arguments for gun ownership were, until quite recently, respectable and persuasive, and that gun control and peaceable behaviour appear to be unrelated phenomena."
David Wooten, London Review of Books

A work of genuine excellence, as persuasive in its argument as it is unsettling in its implications...Malcolm's prose is both vigorous and elegant, and occasionally even witty, a virtue rarely to be found in a constitutional treatise. The book should generate a healthy debate about the future of gun control in America.
Douglas R. Edgerton, American Historical Review

[Malcolm] provides a skillful analysis of how the Englishmen's duty to bear arms was transformed into a right to bear arms.
Robert E. Shalhope, Journal of American History

The fact that gun nuts use her book is irrelevant. She wasn't paid by them.

608. Thoughtful - 11/9/1999 4:46:17 PM

Hmmm. Unable to resist throwing in my 1,000,000 lire worth, I would argue that the shapers of the Constitution would never have even considered removing guns from the hands of individuals as doing so would be the equivalent of a death sentence. If anyone has been to Colonial Williamsburg you know that its main street is only a couple of city blocks long. Beyond that was rural, and I mean rural. Remember the Western Reserve referred to Ohio! Hunting was critical to survival and guns were critical to hunting. Residents had no 911 to call in case of emergency. Protection against indians, thieves, wildlife, etc. was in the hands of homeowners who didn't have a chance if they weren't armed. And certainly the framers of the Constitution did nothing to weaken an individual's right to self defense.

609. CalGal - 11/9/1999 4:48:17 PM

It is original material describing intent of the framers. I don't agree that this is the correct means of interpretation, but I'm playing on your field. The second amendment is a response to the criticism of the constitution by the anti-federalists. They feared that the constitution placed too much control of the militia in the hands of the federal government and feared the standing army. Thus the second amendment concerning militia and the third concerning quatering of troops.

Actually, it's Pelle's field. He asked the question. I wouldn't have answered otherwise, though, because any handwringing about what should be done today is best left to hacks.

Yes, I understand what the Federalist is. I have said, several times, that the Second Amendment also addressed the militia issue. You wish to restrict it to the militia, and this is nigh-universally acknowledged as an incorrect interpretation by all but aforementioned hacks.

The reason they focused on the militia, as you acknowledge and as Malcolm addresses in her book (I quoted from it earlier), is because they were stressing a strong preference for militias over standing armies.

But this was coupled with the right of the individual to bear arms. Every draft of the amendment that left out this right and focused exclusively on the militia aspect was roundly rejected. And I have already established, through Malcolm (this was, in fact, the purpose of her book) that the English law--which was the starting point for the American constitution--did not consider the right to bear arms as a convenience for hunting, but an essential right to protect oneself against the tyranny of government.

610. JonesAtLaw - 11/9/1999 5:04:13 PM

The act that Malcom refers to as an English Bill of Rights, dates from William and Mary's assumption of the throne following the Long Parliament. Note that it gives her majesty's protestant subjects a right to bear arms. This had far more to do with suppression of Catholic rebels in the north and in Ireland than rights against the sovereign. Remember these folk had just got rid of one sovereign and were interested in insuring the surival of their side.

If the Congress wanted to placate the Anti-Federalists concerns about an individual right to bear arms, why did they not use the sort of absolute language that they did in the first amendment? Why did they tie the militia to the clause, and why is it immediately followed by the third amendment's prohibition of quartering troops? Reading in pari materia, we see that the focus was on the militia and not on the individual. Finally it is clear that states have a right to regulate and discipline the militia and this includes their weapons.

611. CalGal - 11/9/1999 5:06:38 PM

Jesus, Jones, I've already addressed that. I'm not going to bother again.

Like it or not--historical evidence is on the side of the individual interpretation. The reason the majority of the debate was on the militias is because that was the add-on piece, the part that they ill-advisedly tacked on to the issue on which there was no dispute--that individuals had a right to bear arms, and why.

612. PelleNilsson - 11/9/1999 5:14:19 PM

I'm not sure I understand this discussion at all. I do understand the aversion to a standing army, which, I presume, goes back to the reaction to Cromwell and his Ideal Army. I also understand that the allowance for militias controlled by the state would do away with the need for such an army, denying the federal government of an instrument of power that could be used against the state, while at the same time providing for legitimate defence means.

But the last words of CalGal's latest post really brings up one aspect of my original question:

an essential right to protect oneself against the tyranny of government.

How does such tyranny emerge in a country with a democratic constitution with carefully thought out checks and balances?

613. JonesAtLaw - 11/9/1999 5:14:36 PM

Finally (I promise!) The extrapolation of rights under the US Bill of Rights from those of English law is suspect. This is Hamilton on such an approach- "It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of perogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was the MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the Petition of Right assented to by Charles the First in the begining of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of Parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, accoriding to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions, professedly founded on the power of the people and executedx in their immediate representatives and servants."
Hamilton Federalist No 84.

614. CalGal - 11/9/1999 5:28:18 PM

Jones,

Quite apart from the fact that you are going against all accepted historical norms in denying the link between English rights and the American constitution, the Hamilton quote you cite is not on point.

Hamilton is rejecting the notion that the constitution is not operating in the same regard as a bill of rights in monarchical England. This is one of the reasons why the Americans so often expanded the scope of the English rights.

This has nothing to do with whether or not they used them as a starting point, or why.

Pelle--what don't you understand?

615. PelleNilsson - 11/9/1999 5:33:22 PM

CalGal

I'd rather not go into what I don't understand. To put it simply: in any discussion of American politics between Americans there is a subtext which is not easily accessible to non-Americans, and perhaps not of a great deal of interest to them either.

616. CalGal - 11/9/1999 5:35:27 PM

Pelle,

How does such tyranny emerge in a country with a democratic constitution with carefully thought out checks and balances?

Well, because shit happens. Reference the recent case of Randy Weaver. Although that reference alone will probably cause a few people here to squawk.

We have a right to freedom of speech, too. No one questions that right, or wonders why we need it in a democratic constitution. Yet the same query could be made.

Remember that one of the checks and balances is the Supreme Court, which uses the Constitution as a means of determining how and when an individual's rights are being threatened. So the Constitution and its guarantee of basic rights are essential to the very checks and balances that you take for granted.

617. CalGal - 11/9/1999 5:36:33 PM

Pelle,

Shrug. This isn't a political debate. It is a historical one. That it is impassioned doesn't change that inconvenient fact. Neither one of us has once referred to politics.

618. CalGal - 11/9/1999 5:37:28 PM

Also, Pelle, this is all in answer to your question, not some off-topic diversion.

619. JonesAtLaw - 11/9/1999 5:40:58 PM

Hamilton is rejecting the notion that the constitution is not operating in the same regard as a bill of rights in monarchical England. This is one of the reasons why the Americans so often expanded the scope of the English rights

No Cal, he is arguing that the American Constitution did not need a bill of rights because it presumes that rights not granted under it remain in the people. He derrogates bills of rights as largess granted to the people by a sovereign.

620. PelleNilsson - 11/9/1999 5:46:39 PM

CalGal

I wasn't criticising at all. I was just stating a fact. And of course it is not off-topic.

So you think that after the FF had crafted the constitution, they and others thought "what the hell, shit happens, let's throw in an amendment"?

621. CalGal - 11/9/1999 6:03:47 PM

No Cal, he is arguing that the American Constitution did not need a bill of rights because it presumes that rights not granted under it remain in the people.

Hamilton didn't think a Bill of Rights was necessary. And he lost that fight, obviously.

However, that doesn't change what I said--he was differentiating between the English bill of rights and the Constitution. The difference was one that most if not all FFs agreed on, whether they supported the idea of a Bill of Rights or not.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the Americans began with the basis of the English rights as a starting point for their constitution.

622. dusty - 11/9/1999 6:04:37 PM

PelleNilsson

So you think that after the FF had crafted the constitution, they and others thought "what the hell, shit happens, let's throw in an amendment"?

Well, yes. I think that it what happened. They wrote a Constitution, felt it was sufficient, and presented it to the people. The people said, "This is very nice start, but I'd like to see my rights spelled out thankyouverymuch."

And history records who prevailed on that point.

623. dusty - 11/9/1999 6:08:38 PM

JonesAtLaw

No Cal, he is arguing that the American Constitution did not need a bill of rights because it presumes that rights not granted under it remain in the people. He derrogates bills of rights as largess granted to the people by a sovereign.

Fine. Let's accept that. Did he prevail? No, he did not. The people said, "Nice sentiment, but I'll have my rights in writing, if you don't mind." So they went back to the drawing board to articulate rights. CG is opining on the intellectual well-spring of those rights, while you seem to be trotting out arguments explaining why the Bill of Rights isn't needed.

624. Thoughtful - 11/9/1999 6:10:06 PM

Pelle, Being a newcomer to this discussion, I apologize in advance if I'm being redundant, but I'd like to take a stab at your question:
How does such tyranny emerge in a country with a democratic constitution with carefully thought out checks and balances?

I think that, back when the Constitution was being framed, it was largely thought to be an experiment in democracy which had no guarantee of survival. The framers had just come out of the failed Articles of Confederation, and the contentious arguing over the clauses of the Constitution and the resistance to signing the document made it's probability of success seemingly low. Even at that, the challenges the new national government faced in the early years were many. Certainly George Washington's refusal to run for a 3rd term is considered by many to be a critical step in ensuring this new form of government did not revert to a sovereignty.

Concerns over the loss of freedoms and a loss of balance among the 3 branches of government arose several other times in US history due to national crises. Notably, Lincoln during the Civil war ran roughshod over many civil liberties -- though of course the civil war itself was a tremendous challenge to the concept of enforcing individual freedoms.

Likewise, during the Depression and into WWII, Franklin Roosevelt, running into having his administrative efforts roadblocked as "unconstitutional," attempted to "pack" the Supreme Court by appointing additional Supreme Court judges who were favorable to his position. He also broke the "No 3rd term" tradition having run for 4 terms in office.

So, I guess the short answer is, in times of crisis, it is natural to look to a strong leader who may de facto gain more power and thus abuse it.

625. CalGal - 11/9/1999 6:10:33 PM

Pelle,

I didn't so much see it as criticism. This is all in answer to your original question. If you think of it as political, you are missing the point. So I thought I'd remind you.

So you think that after the FF had crafted the constitution, they and others thought "what the hell, shit happens, let's throw in an amendment"?

Rather, they realize that governments can overstep their bounds. They wanted certain rights articulated. There was significant debate over whether or not a bill of rights was needed, as you can see from Jones and my discussion.

Again, your argument about the Second (why is it necessary?) can apply just as easily to the First. Or the Fourth. Or the Fifth.

626. CalGal - 11/9/1999 6:13:42 PM

If you think of it as political, you are missing the point. So I thought I'd remind you.

This sounded more condescending than I meant. Consider it, instead, a whack upside the head, "Hey! You started this, dammit!"

627. Thoughtful - 11/9/1999 6:19:09 PM

Pelle, curiously, other shifts in the balance of power have occurred recently where Congress -- for political reasons (are there any other?) attempted to shed a critical responsibility by passing Graham-Rudman. It was a legal mechanism that would automatically lop spending off the Federal budget until it was balanced. Easier to let some unnamed *automaton* take the blame rather than holding reps responsible for the spending choices they've made.

Other areas of Presidents overstepping boundaries would, in my view, include FDRs clandestine support of England during WWII despite the isolationist stance taken by Congress to stay out of the war; and Reagan's Iran/Contra affair which by-passed Congress' Boland amendment against aid to the Contras.

628. Thoughtful - 11/9/1999 6:23:26 PM

Sorry, that's Gramm-Rudman.

629. Thoughtful - 11/9/1999 6:23:56 PM

The Senator, not the cracker....

630. dusty - 11/9/1999 6:24:09 PM

PelleNilsson

How does such tyranny emerge in a country with a democratic constitution with carefully thought out checks and balances?

Looks like this is a popular point. I've been mulling a response, while noting at least two responses so far.

In retrospect, the FF deserve a lot of credit for the system of checks and balances they created. As I get older, and work on projects that require major rewording only a few years later, I become more impressed with a document that has survived two centuries with only minor tinkering (relatively speaking). But as impressive as they were, I suspect they didn't see themselves as omnipotent, so it is hardly surprising that they might consider the possibility that their document was short of perfection.

An alternative view is to argue that the second amendment is precisely one of those checks and balances. A hastily constructed analogy: if I decided to go on a diet, I might question my willpower to stay out of the icebox. One solution might be to give SO a ruler, and permission to smack my hand should I take a forbidden snack. The very existence of the rule, err ruler, might help keep me on target. In other words, the fact that the populace is armed might help deter a Prince with visions of a take-over.

631. CalGal - 11/9/1999 6:34:05 PM

I almost responded, as Dusty did, that the Second Amendment is one of the checks and balances. I am not convinced that the framers did see it as a check. If I understood the application of their logic, though, they intended that it be a right protected by one of the major "checks", the Supreme Court.

However, there is no question that Blackstone--who was widely referenced in both England and America at that time--considered the right a check against oppression. So it is also possible that this fed the thinking of the founders, as well.

632. JonesAtLaw - 11/9/1999 7:12:32 PM

CalGal- now we've come full circle (you and I, not you alone). We started with an analysis that presupposes a unified view amongst the framers arising out of English common law and the traditional rights of subjects (Malcom), to a rejection of the tradition (Hamilton), to something that some framers may have viewed as merely vindicating rights already granted them as Englishmen and usurped by a corrupt crown, others may have viewed as a logical extension of those rights, and still others viewed as a new system based on natural law and the inherent rights of man. Each is amply supported by the writings of patriots, and each were rolled into the constitution in a political give and take. How then, can we speak of original intent, when some of these issues were clearly finessed, with each side hoping to prevail in their view of the words?

633. JonesAtLaw - 11/9/1999 7:13:57 PM

sorry, that "something" refered to is the Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular.

634. Aldavis - 11/9/1999 8:24:11 PM

Perhaps it would be instructive to read the Anti-Federalist Papers to see what objection many had to the constitution as drafted. Please keep in mind that the existing States had Constitutions with certain rights gaureenteed. The Constitution without the Bill Of Rights would not have been ratified, no matter what Hamilton thought or wanted. It could certainly be argued that if the framers did not mean for the people to have the right to bear arms they could have ristricted that right to States. The very idea is silly.

635. ranheim - 11/9/1999 9:29:46 PM

Pelle

Let us be quite specific : portions of the government at the federal level and state level are out of control. That is not so much a problem at the local level as we more intimately know our local politicians and bureaucrats.

Federal government : So far as I can tell the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) is a rouge orgnaization. The shooting of Weaver's wife at long range!
That portion of the FBI that showed up at Waco was also out of control.
Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) does not even pretend to do their job on our border with Mexico.

State : The LA Department of Wildlife and Fisheries - within the last week - went onto the property (2 acres) of a rural resident with 50 miles of me. They picked up a raccoon - the owner had nursed this raccoon back to life as a baby 15 years ago!! No typo - 15 years. They issued the man a ticket saying that he was not authorized to care for a raccoon. Hell! 'coons are wild. Who in the world would have drawn up rules and regulations for the "care of 'coons"? The LA Dept of Wildlife and Fisheries, obviously, made up their rules on the spot. The bureaucracy's spokesman "does not return 'phone calls" - obviously asking them for an explanation and they don't have one.

Every USA citizen on the Mote can give you similar examples - if they will. The government of the USA is no longer our government. It serves the movers and shakers; the politicians; and the bureaucrats. And a few groups giving credence to the old saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease".

Why do you think I continue to post saying we must decrease the power of government in this country? And one of the main ways to do that is to starve them of money.

636. JonesAtLaw - 11/10/1999 10:07:34 AM

It could certainly be argued that if the framers did not mean for the people to have the right to bear arms they could have ristricted that right to States. The very idea is silly.

First, which framers? Federalist, Anti-Federalist, fence straddlers? The whole thing was a compromise that resulted in the language of the constitution and the amendments. The best evidence of intent is the language of the constitution and amendments itself, because this was the meeting ground of what was acceptable to the contending factions.

Even if we concede the point urged by CalGal and others, that there is a personal right to arms, the question of the boundries of the right remain. Even if one does not accept that the militia clause which preceded "the right to keep and bear arms" was the focus of the amendment by the same analysis that is used to support the personal right legitimizes state control over weapons as part of regulating the militia. Militia service was not universal, and it was subject to military law. The state could easily say to those advocates that x, y, and z are the prescribed calibers and styles of weapons. They could likewise remove persons from the militia for crimes, mental illness, bad character etc. All of which are amply supported in the historical record, and would be in keeping with "original intent" as viewed by those advocates.

637. PelleNilsson - 11/10/1999 1:39:08 PM

A point and two questions.

It is inherent in a democratic system that the minority is to some extent "oppressed" by the majority. The success or otherwise of the sytem depends on how the majority can handle this.

I suppose that in the early days franchise was quite limited. Could it be argued then that the disenfranchised were, or could be, oppressed, even tyrannized, by those who had the vote?

Given that the 2nd Amendment gives the right to the people to wear arms, how was "the people" defined at the time?

638. Adrianne - 11/10/1999 1:45:57 PM

Calling the ATF a "rouge" organization may well be my favorite typo of the millennium.

639. ranheim - 11/10/1999 1:51:55 PM

pardon my typo, Adrianne

rogue - I really was not meaning to use cosmetics on the BATF.

640. CalGal - 11/10/1999 2:01:44 PM

Jones,

We started with an analysis that presupposes a unified view...

???

No, we don't. Who on earth would think the FF's were unified? I mean, if you want us to instead say "the majority of the FF's wanted...." then fine.

What is at issue is this: why was a particular amendment put in the constitution? What was the reasoning behind it? What were the protections it was intended to provide?

You first attacked my sources, then when I proved those, you went on to bring up a small bit by Hamilton, on one of his few losses. On something that had nothing to do with the Second Amendment, or even to do with the second point, that we used English rights as a starting point for our consitution.

And now that I point out it has nothing to do with it, you throw up your hands and say, "how can we prove anything, if the FF's weren't united?"

Oh, pish and tush. I mean, really.

There is little doubt left about the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment. There is no doubt about the fact that American rights and laws are sourced in English rights and laws--and then significantly expanded.

That the FF's weren't in lockstep has nothing to do with it.

641. CalGal - 11/10/1999 2:10:12 PM

Given that the 2nd Amendment gives the right to the people to wear arms, how was "the people" defined at the time?

The Fifth Auxiliary Right--I linked this in earlier, it's an analysis of Malcolm's book, as well as the law behind it.

We agree with Chief Justice Rehnquist's assertion in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez[27] that "the people" referred to in the Second Amendment are the same as "the people" discussed in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It is hardly credible to assume that the Framers' reference to "the people" indicated intent to protect the rights of private individuals to assemble peaceably and to petition the government in the First Amendment, but was somehow transformed in the Second Amendment to refer to a right of states to keep and bear arms, and then miraculously reverted to indicate an individual right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects in the Fourth Amendment and an individual's residual rights and powers in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. It should also be noted that the term "the people" is a broader term than "the militia." Although the First Congress envisioned a militia that would encompass virtually the entire adult male population below the age of forty-five,[28] the term "the people" certainly was meant to include (p.1003)adult white men over that age, adult white women, and, arguably, free Negroes.

642. stostosto - 11/11/1999 10:56:26 AM

The German newspaper Die Zeit has just started a series entitled "Between globalization and individualization". Here is part 1, dealing with the future of democracy. Guess who is author:

Ich oder die Gemeinschaft Von Francis Fukuyama


It can probably be found somewhere in English, but I haven't succeeded in doing so. Anywhere, I know no one here has any problems reading German.

643. JonesAtLaw - 11/11/1999 11:49:58 AM

CalGal- for Malcom's analysis to hold up, one must take the view that the constitution merely codified rights previously held by Englishmen granted to them by the sovereign. Some framers and later Americans hold this view. However, there is another view, that the American constitution recognized pre-existing natural rights held by the people, and that they granted power to the sovereign, and not the other way around.

Hamilton's quote recognizes this view. We can assume that Jay and Madison concurred since it was published by "Publius" their joint endeavor. Clearly this is one area of agreement between major Federalists and Anti-Federalists. It is further supported by the ninth and tenth amendments which clearly take the view that power extends from the people and that sovereigns/governments have only those powers granted them from the people. The British view is not founded on such a principle, and is not to this day.

644. JonesAtLaw - 11/11/1999 12:10:25 PM

Assuming arguendo that there is a individual right granted by the second amendment, the question remains open as whether the second amendment falls within the incorporation doctrine, whether the militia clause grants states and/or congress power to prescibe the type of weapons for the "militia" or the membership of the militia, and what effect the general police power of the states has on the individual rights.

Finally, all of Malcom's work depends on two views, first that the constitution is a continuation or expansion of English law, and second that original intent is the proper mode of constitutional analysis. The first may have more adherents than the latter. It is doubtful that the mode of constitutional jurisprudence presently is orignial intent.

645. PelleNilsson - 11/11/1999 12:59:36 PM

sto

Yes, CalGal, at least has shown proficiency in the past.

646. Schehezarade - 11/11/1999 2:12:21 PM

Stostosto

I'm interested in globalisation, but cannot read German. No fair.

647. stostosto - 11/11/1999 3:09:08 PM

Pelle

Are you sure she isn't cheating? She has been known to make good use of something called the Babelfish, or something...

Schezza:

Perhaps that could work for you. Otherwise, you might try to hunt for this particular Fukuyama piece in English on the Internet. I can't promise you that future articles in Die Zeit's series will be written by native English speakers, though. So I guess you'll be needing some kind of translation.

648. CalGal - 11/11/1999 3:29:43 PM

Pelle,

My lord, I thought you knew I was joking. I am a devout monolingual.

649. CalGal - 11/11/1999 3:30:25 PM

However, I often take an article and run it through babelfish. I can quite often glean enough from the translation to get the gist.

650. Schehezarade - 11/11/1999 3:49:15 PM

Stostosto


I've mostly been reading collected works either written by or edited by Frederic Jameson on globalisation.

651. CalGal - 11/11/1999 3:49:58 PM

Jones,

one must take the view that the constitution merely codified rights previously held by Englishmen granted to them by the sovereign.

No, one doesn't have to take that view. Where do you come up with these notions?

Bottom line--I gave you a cite. A highly regarded cite. Come up with some that deny the influence of the English laws and rights on the American Bill of Rights.

And the rest of your argument is either nonsense or irrelevant. I never claimed that we had to rely on original intent. In fact, the first people to bring up "original intent" as an argument in this country were gun control advocates.

We're discussing original intent because Pelle asked about it. As I said earlier, your debate technique seems to be disagree wildly, throw in irrelevancies and then, when every effort has been shot down, to declare that it doesn't matter.

652. Spudboy - 11/11/1999 3:53:38 PM

Ranheim:
Federal government : So far as I can tell the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) is a rouge orgnaization. The shooting of Weaver's wife at long range!

Well, it would help if you could keep your facts straight. The ATF was the agency that originally investigated the Weavers, and arrested Randy in early 1998. But it had nothing to do with the outcome at Ruby Ridge. Sammy was shot by a member of the Marshals Service. And Vicki was shot by an FBI sniper.

The ATF was involved in the initial raid at Waco. But the final conflagration was the work of the FBI as well.

653. Spudboy - 11/11/1999 4:00:56 PM

And I'm still wondering, CalGal, how the Weaver case was an example of government "tyranny" -- or more particularly, how Weaver was fighting against such oppression. Was the ATF investigation of white-supremacist kidnappers and gun-runners, in which Randy Weaver was snared, "tyrannical"? Perhaps the monitoring of his home after he failed to appear in court?

Nearly all of the government misbehavior in this case occurred after the shootout with the marshals in August. And it involved improper alteration of the rules of engagement and the subsequent cover-up of that move. If there was "tyranny" present, it was in the extreme over-reaction of the FBI to the ostensible threat the Weavers presented. But I haven't seen you make that case.

654. PelleNilsson - 11/11/1999 4:05:19 PM

CalGal

I was joking. But you remember the occasion. You had a few people (including me) fooled for a while.

655. JonesAtLaw - 11/11/1999 4:14:03 PM

Where would I get the idea that Maclom's view is one of codification of what were regarded as rights of Englishmen? From your cites- "It was the case in England by the eighteenth century, the duty to have arms for the common defense became increasingly conceived of as a right. This sentiment would intensify by mid-century as differences with England grew and Whiggish Americans increasingly perceived themselves to be the true heirs of the Revolution of 1689 and the conservators of "the rights of Englishmen."[76] (p.1013)In the final chapter, Malcolm makes a highly persuasive case that the Militia Clause of the Second Amendment, at the time of its drafting and immediately thereafter, was widely understood to be advisory and cautionary, an expression of preference for the militia over a standing army.[77] The second clause was even better understood: It was a broad grant of an individual right.[78]"

656. CalGal - 11/11/1999 4:35:17 PM

Spud,

And I'm still wondering, CalGal, how the Weaver case was an example of government "tyranny" -- or more particularly, how Weaver was fighting against such oppression. Was the ATF investigation of white-supremacist kidnappers and gun-runners, in which Randy Weaver was snared, "tyrannical"? Perhaps the monitoring of his home after he failed to appear in court?

Oh, please. Take it to Politics if you're going to be such an egregious hack.

657. CalGal - 11/11/1999 4:37:20 PM

Jones,

You think that quote has squat to do with your question? "Mere" codification? Christ.

658. Spudboy - 11/11/1999 4:54:56 PM

OK, if you don't want to answer, I'll assume that you've conceded the point.

Precisely for whom, might I ask, am I "hacking"?

659. CalGal - 11/11/1999 5:02:48 PM

Of course I haven't conceded the point. It's off topic, though, and I'm not going to derail the thread.

660. Spudboy - 11/11/1999 5:04:55 PM

OK, I'll meet you in the Playpen.

661. PelleNilsson - 11/11/1999 5:12:13 PM

The reason I'm so lenient all of a sudden is that I plan to put the thread to rest in a couple of days unless AlDavis wants to put words into deeds by starting a discussion about the perception of communism vs fascism.

662. JonesAtLaw - 11/11/1999 5:21:42 PM

Come up with some that deny the influence of the English laws and rights on the American Bill of Rights.

Remember the Hamilton cite from yesterday contrasting the English "rights" given to subjects as a sovereign's grant versus the American view of rights as natural and inalienable?

663. ranheim - 11/11/1999 5:32:00 PM

#652 Spud

Thank you!

I can now add the Marshals to my list of federal government agencies that are out of control. Thanks again!

Shooting women by sniper fire is unquestionably an act of government totally out of control. There is no way to excuse such conduct.

664. CalGal - 11/11/1999 5:36:45 PM

Jones,

Yes. That is, as I said, worthless, since it addresses a completely different issue. Do you not understand that?

665. JonesAtLaw - 11/11/1999 5:41:50 PM

"Whiggish Americans increasingly perceived themselves to be the true heirs of the Revolution of 1689 and the conservators of "the rights of Englishmen

This directly argues the codification view. How is it that your cite doesn't apply to the topic

666. PelleNilsson - 11/11/1999 5:45:54 PM

Sigh

667. Spudboy - 11/11/1999 5:47:31 PM

Um ... ranheim, the Marshals didn't kill any women. You have a reading problem, don't you?

668. CalGal - 11/11/1999 5:49:15 PM

Jones,

Because you keep on focusing on codification, which has nothing to do with it.

Please pay attention. Here was my request: Come up with some that deny the influence of the English laws and rights on the American Bill of Rights.

Note the complete lack of the word "codification", which means "to reduce to a code". Please note the word "influence". At other times I have said "basis". At other times, I have specifically pointed out that Americans expanded the right (in the case of the Second Amendment), so that clearly denies any such "codification".

To "codify" means that they lifted over certain rights and used them verbatim. They did not. Therefore your rebuttal is completely irrelevant.

Now. My question--please cite a reputable source that denies the influence of the English Bill of Rights on the American--cannot be answered by quoting Alexander Hamilton's reasoning for why a bill of rights wasn't needed.

Hamilton did not think an explicit description of rights was needed. He most assuredly knew that any Bill of Rights written would use the English version as a starting point.

669. JonesAtLaw - 11/11/1999 5:52:02 PM

That is, as I said, worthless, since it addresses a completely different issue. Do you not understand that?

I understand that you asserted it, CalGal. I don't understand how Hamilton's rejection of continuity between English rights under the Magna Charta, and the declaration of rights etc. escapes you. Malcom and you argue that we must read the second amendment as an outgrowth of English rights that were expanded under the constitution. Hamilton is arguing that rights under the constitution were of an entirely different character. The fact that a bill of rights was adopted does not negate his position that "rights" under English law and rights under our constitution are the same. Rights in England are prescribed by Parliament and are subject to continuous alteration. Your source, Malcom goes on to point out that under English law, the right to bear arms was repeatedly violated. After Peterloo, and again in the 20th century arms were confiscated or regulated under the Englsih view of the right to keep and bear arms.

670. JonesAtLaw - 11/11/1999 5:54:31 PM

should read:
rights" under English law and rights under our constitution are notthe same

671. JonesAtLaw - 11/11/1999 6:06:42 PM

"English Bill of Rights" you keep using this phrase but I don't know what you are referring to. Do you mean the declarations by William and Mary, or subsequent acts of parliament? If you want me to say that English common law influenced American law, I'll readily agree. IF you want me to agree that we adopted the English view that some vague historical precedent of rights exists subect to the will of parliament, I can't. It simply is not true.

Further, the thesis of Malcom is that we can know the meaning of the second amendment by examining English law and history. Are you arguing that the second amendment is consistent with English law or inconsistent? If it is inconsistent, then how is English history or law an aid in its interpretation. If it is consistent, then how is this not a codification,or if you prefer, a reaffirmation of the English view. If it is a reaffirmation of the English view, how can you reconcile English history following the American revolution with the view of a grant of an individual right to arms?

672. JonesAtLaw - 11/11/1999 6:15:14 PM

Pelle, this discussion is winding its way back to a more central issue for the thread- namely the relationship of natural rights enumerated under a Bill of Rights or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as in the US and Canada or common law and parliamentary rights under the English.

673. ranheim - 11/11/1999 10:14:44 PM

Spud

I read very well.

Its just that I consider the federal government - all of it - THEM. I have no use for them!

20 years ago I seriously read books on anarchy. I had to give that up as un-workable in today's society. So this total antipathy for our current government is nothing new.

Bring back a republic.

674. wonkers2 - 11/12/1999 12:04:36 AM

Earlier this evening I posted a long summary/comment on "The Wrong Man," a report on capital punishment by Alan Berlow from the November "Atlantic Monthly." For some reason it didn't post. I don't have time at the moment to reconstruct my post. Suffice it to say that the article convinced me that a significant number of innocent people are being sentenced to death and some have been executed, for a variety of reasons, the principal one being the politics of crime in America. This is an example of the tyranny of the majority (who favor capital punishment)over a minority of innocent people who are sentenced to death in this country. The bold headings from the article will provide a feel for the article's contents and conclusions:

"The Worst Kind of Mistake"

"Since 1963 at least 381 homicide convictions nationwide have been overturned because prosecutors concealed evidence of innocence or presented evidence they knew to be false."

"Accumulating Aberations"

"Death Qualified Juries"

"Winning at Any Cost"

"How Much Justice Can You Afford?"

"One Half Justice"

"Speeding Up Executions"

"The Public Opinion Factor"

"Building In Safeguards"

675. Schehezarade - 11/12/1999 7:34:03 AM

PelleNilsson


Oh, oh, oh! Wait for me!! I'm going to reread Fascism by Mark Neocleous this weekend. Don't kill the thread yet.

676. JonesAtLaw - 11/12/1999 10:09:41 AM

Since the silence concerning the second amendment issue I was discussing is deafening, I would offer the following.

There is a tension in the law in western nations between the notion of law as a positive thing created by either legislative majority or some political consensus and the law as beign derived from some permanant natural law ordained by nature, or God or some other overarching principle which is beyond mortal control.

Both facism and communism make appeals to natural law. I would love to discuss how these views of the natural law compare with those of western democracy and how they shape the political systems which arise out of the different views.

677. Aldavis - 11/12/1999 3:18:51 PM

pelle
What interests me is why communism, which has accounted for the deaths of about 100,000,000 people, seems to viewed in the west less harshly then fascism. I certainly do not care to defend fascism. My real interest is how is it that a system so brutal does not inspire the gut level response that Nazism does. I still get upset by a swastica, but the hammer and scycle doesn't bother me much. I am very interested in how Europeans view Communism. Another thing. It seems normal to associate Fascism with the behavior of Fascists, but the behavior of Communist regimes are often thought of as abberations. Pozner won't call the USSR a Communist country.

678. JonesAtLaw - 11/12/1999 3:28:19 PM

Aldavis- Pozner remembers his party line well. I believe that many alleged that the SU was a socialist system which aspired to communism. It hadn't reached that "level" yet, at least I belive that was their theory. What they missed was that they never really had a capitalist period. Lennin and then Stalin thought they could skip a step.

679. Cellar Door - 11/12/1999 3:31:04 PM

The reason, Al, has to do with the difference between what Marx wrote and how Lenin, Stalin, Mao and toher others put it into practice. For while they called themselevs Communists, they were in fact totalitarian fascists. Theoretically, Communism is supposed to be a system of total, broad-based societal cooperation for the betterment of all, without hierarchies. Sounds lovely, no? Now try getting that worked out in actual practice. That's the hard part.

In fact, that's the Next-to-Impossible part.

680. JonesAtLaw - 11/12/1999 3:48:43 PM

The first dichotomy I see between facism, communism and western democracy is the view that rights are held collectively by the first two groups and individually by the second.
The second is that rights in the first two arise out of a grant of rights by the state as a consensus of the people. In the US and others the rights of the individual are intrinsic and natural.

681. DaveM - 11/12/1999 4:04:39 PM

Jones -

Your Message # 676 is interesting, though I think that you might have a slightly anachronistic view (or perhaps I do?).

The "tension" that you identify in the law - between natural law theory and positivism - hasn't existed in academia since the sixties. Edward Purcell, A Law Professor at New York Law School, gives a fairly well accepted history of this conflict in his The Crisis of Democratic Theory (1973); I can't find any good web pages on the topic so I will write up a few key quotes in a little while.

In short, though, Purcell indicates that the Realist (legal realism is fundamentally allied with legal positivism) critique of the law in the 30s and 40s was fiercely criticized in the pre-WWII era for its ethical relativism; its primary critics were Catholic/Thomistic natural law theorists who posited grounded for the law in divine providence. The criticism was powerful because of realism/positivism's inability to adequately address totalitarianism in general and fascism in particular; how can a person be damned for following the "law" of the land? The issue was particularly well emphasized at the Nuremburg trials - what, exactly, does a crime against humanity mean if one doesn't believe in natural law?

682. DaveM - 11/12/1999 4:04:49 PM

The realists didn't sit idly by; their counter offensive formed the foundation for legal process theory. Essentially, the realists conceded a grounding for the law and a role for the judiciary in maintaining the vitality of a democratic process (kind of putting the rabbit into the hat, eh? - no, we're not anti-democratic because we fiat that our arguments only be used to support democracy!). The role of the judiciary and the legitimacy of the law -according to the positivists - was premised on the desirability of democratic processes. Any conclusion achieved through legitimate representative processes was deemed to be legitimate; the court's role was in ensuring that legislative and judicial processes were in fact representative (Carolene Products - Footnote 4).

Of course, the proponents of process theory were fierce opponents of things like prayer in schools, segregation, and gerrymandering to reduce the voting power of minorities, all ideas which seem to be resurfacing - maybe the natural law/positivism debate oculd come back too?

683. JonesAtLaw - 11/12/1999 4:31:00 PM

DaveM-
I think that the debate will renew, but the driving force now is outside of academia. I think that much of the libertarian right appeals to a natural law view, as well as the social conservative wing of the republican party. The democratic party is largely positivist in approach, save for the foundations of their racial policy, and some other social theory. In practice though, they fairly clearly adhere to realism on issues related to econmics and redress of social issues.

684. DaveM - 11/12/1999 4:36:28 PM

Purcell:

"By 1941 when America entered World War II, the bitter debate within the legal profession had reached its most intense phase, and it revealed a number of important facts about American thought in general and legal theory in particular. Most important, the debate demonstrated the depth of a basic split that divided two groups of American intellectuals who...might be called scientific naturalists and rational absolutists. The realists, inspired by the success of modern science, believed that truth was wholly dependent on empirically establishd facts; the absolutists, such as Hutchins, Adler, and the Catholics, believed that human reason could discover certain universal principles of justice by a philosophical analysis of the nature of reality. Those two fundamentally irreconcilable attitudes were in a large part responsible for the intensity and extremism in the debate. Since both sides started from widely divergent assumptions, each was often unable to understand, let alone sympathize with, his enemy's position. The realists saw rational absolutism as pointless and often subjected it to ridicule and scorn. Felix Cohen referred to it as "Transcendental Nonsense," while Arnold and Frank compared it to superstitious incantations chanted by witch doctors and faith healers. The rational absolutists returned the scorn in full, charging realism with everything from atheism to communism to nihilism. As the realists were often unable to understand how anyone could accept some of the cannons of rational absolutism in light of the discoveries of modern science and philosophy, their critics were equally unable to see how any man could fail to accept that which was self-evident and necessary to give support to a universally valid ethical system. With each side committed to its own obvious truths and faced with a implacable opponent, vilification and the questioning of motives became an almost automatic response."

685. DaveM - 11/12/1999 4:38:22 PM

Jones -

The Classical Liberal approach to affirmative action is squarely within the positivist/process tradition - the Carolene Products footnote 4 set up the standard that is still used today: representation reinforcement.

686. JJBiener - 11/12/1999 4:39:38 PM

Jones - The democratic party is largely positivist in approach, save for the foundations of their racial policy, and some other social theory. In practice though, they fairly clearly adhere to realism on issues related to econmics and redress of social issues.

You are kidding, right?

687. PelleNilsson - 11/12/1999 4:48:08 PM

Jones --- Message # 676

I was thinking along the same lines during the drive home. Then friends came .... Expect me to break the silence.

688. PelleNilsson - 11/12/1999 4:52:33 PM

JJ

Yellow card.

689. JonesAtLaw - 11/12/1999 5:01:59 PM

Well, it's clearly time for me to dust off my jurisprudence notes.

690. DaveM - 11/12/1999 5:12:37 PM

Purcell again:

"Responding to the crisis of democratic theory that American naturalists faced, Friedrich and Herring gave the assumptions behind relativist theory the form of concrete analysis. Together with such scholars as Dewey, Smith, and Barzun, they helped to reformulate the common assumptions of most American intellectuals into an explicit and coherent justification of democratic society. Continuing to reject the appeals of philosophic rationalism, they retained their naturalist orientations and turned the charges of their domestic critics back against them. If an absolute demostration of democracy's moral foundation were impossible, that only meant that any absolute moral-political demonstration was impossible. And that, they reasoned, meant that logically no individual or group could justify asserting any set of values over others...The barbarities of Nazism demanded a commitment to democracy. The assaults of the Thomists demanded a defense of naturalism. The relativist theory of democracy provided a rational basis for both."

691. ranheim - 11/12/1999 6:30:46 PM

#690 DaveM

It has been many years since I have heard the name John Dewey. My father taught math. He was totally and completely against what was called in the 50s "New Math". Dad's feeling that was New Math was for people who had math brains. It would ruin the math of all others. I think that is, essentially, what has happened. Dad blamed John Dewey and Columbia for this! He never changed his teaching methods. He refused to teach the New Math. He retired in the early 70s - I am sure his colleagues were happy to get rid of a man who constantly railed against John Dewey and his new teaching methods.

It has been nearly 30 years since I last heard Dad on this subject. I have not kept up. What is the current status?

692. DaveM - 11/12/1999 6:51:01 PM

ranheim -

Truthfully, I don't know what you mean by "New Math." John Dewey I only know a little about his political philosophy.

Dave

693. Uzmakk - 11/12/1999 7:30:40 PM

" The assaults of the Thomists demanded a defense of naturalism. The relativist theory of democracy provided a rational basis for both."

Indeed????

694. DaveM - 11/12/1999 7:36:09 PM

Uzmakk:

I agree - the reliance on process theory as an "answer" to the "problem" of ethical relativism is entirely question begging. I almost laughed when I read this line in Purcell:

"And that, they reasoned, meant that logically no individual or group could justify asserting any set of values over others..."

I suspect that the realists simply wanted to avoid losing tenure. However incoherent their arguments, though, they managed to win the war for the heart of the courts.

695. dusty - 11/12/1999 9:08:43 PM

Aldavis

What interests me is why communism, which has accounted for the deaths of about 100,000,000 people, seems to viewed in the west less harshly then fascism.

I agree. My take on the answer is that popular history has written 100 times as many words about the millions killed by Hitler, as have been written about the many more millions killed by communists. I daresay if you walk up to the average man on the street in the states, and ask him to list names of people who are responsible for killing over a million people, over 90% will list Hitler first, and few will be able to name some who killed even more.

696. dusty - 11/12/1999 9:11:42 PM

PelleNilsson

Yellow card.

Interesting concept, but after seeing the uncalled foul in Message # 683, he might be forgiven for thinking that the refs were letting them play (to switch from a football metaphor, about which I know little, to a basketball metaphor.)

697. dusty - 11/12/1999 9:17:11 PM

JonesAtLaw

There is a tension in the law in western nations between the notion of law as a positive thing created by either legislative majority or some political consensus and the law as beign derived from some permanant natural law ordained by nature, or God or some other overarching principle which is beyond mortal control.

I'm confused, but not sure whether the source of my confusion is my ignorance of legal history, my inability to identify nations in the category "western", or some other problem. Perhaps you can help. When I hear reference to law as derived from God, I think Islamic, but I don't think of these as western nations. Or are you simply referring to the US derivation leaning upon the phrase "we hold these truths to be self-evident"?

698. joezan - 11/13/1999 12:20:31 AM

One of the most horrific stories of the soviet enslavement of eastern Europe - the Ukrainian famine of the late 20's/early 30's - remains to this day largely ignored.

Stalin's efforts at collectivization made slaves of the entire rural peasantry of the Ukraine. These poor people were forced to produce ever more bushels-per-acre of wheat for the massive Russian appetite. The grandmother of a former girlfriend of mine, who, along with her brother - out of 11 siblings - escaped the famine, make up the entire legacy of an extended family which numbered in the dozens.

The Russians, as she put it, worked the Ukrainians like cattle. Then, when they were too weak to produce their quota because they were not allowed to eat from what used to be their own fields, Stalin saw a new use for them - they were allowed to drop dead and fertilize the fields their children would also starve in. She said that after awhile, they simply plowed the remains under.

And although 20,000,000 died in Stalin's scheme to squeeze the "breadbasket" of all it was worth, no one was ever prosecuted for these crimes, and many have lived in the US for many years now.

Why has no one ever gone after these animals?

699. Aldavis - 11/13/1999 12:40:38 AM

What is hard for me to understand is that all of this brutality seems to have been hidden from the American public. Why were Soviets who had committed crimes just as bad as the Nazis allowed to sit in judgement at the Nurenberg trials? Well, I guess it was because they were our allies in WWII. But, was Roosevelt entirely ignorant of Soviet atrocities? That seems impossible to me since some people had fled the Soviet Union with information about what was happening. And certainly after WWII the west learned about Stalin's brutality. Why were no movies made about that? Surely there were stories to be told as powerful as the brutality of the Nazis. Sould we just accept the idea that Cellar posits, that really Communism was not the evil, just the mis-application of it? What do the Europeans think of all of this. After all, they were far closer to the events than America.

700. joezan - 11/13/1999 12:50:39 AM

Al:

I can't say, but somehow it all reminds me of something one of Vince Lombardi's players said about him...He treated everybody the same -like a dog.

IOW, the only difference I can see is that the Russians - even for all their claims of a shared destiny with their Slavic brethren -didn't single out any particular group for their atrocities...the peoples of every nation were expendable for the furtherance of communism.

701. joezan - 11/13/1999 12:57:23 AM

...which, I guess, is okay. Equal-opportunity slaughter.

702. Aldavis - 11/13/1999 12:57:51 AM

joezan
One book I read said that Hitler killed his percieved enenies. Stalin killed friends.

703. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/1999 1:00:09 AM

Have you two never heard of, say, Solzhenitsyn?

If Soviet crimes are not as well publicised as the Nazi crimes, surely that's because the Nazis did it more dramatically, in a much shorter space of time, by sending people to the gas oven and so on. But the Soviets killed their millions by shooting, or starving them to death, or working them to death, over a much longer period of time.

IOW, the only difference I can see is that the Russians....didn't single out any particular group for their atrocities..

Then why were certain whole populations (Chechens, Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, Russo-Koreans, etc.) chosen for deportation but not others?

704. joezan - 11/13/1999 1:04:11 AM

Yeah...I think Stalin must've felt that anyone who'd want to be his friend wasn't worth a damn anyway.

705. joezan - 11/13/1999 1:08:32 AM

Who the hell read the Gulag Archipelago anyway?

...and 20,000,000 dead over the course of a decade is nothing to scoff at.

706. JonesAtLaw - 11/13/1999 1:12:07 AM

Dusty- When I refer to natural law in the western tradition, I am referring to what DaveM refers to, as well as a bit looser definition as well. Jefferson and many of the French revolutionary thinkers were deists and believers in natural law. There is a bit of a disconnect between this and the Thomists that DaveM references, but I use the term to refer to a critique of existing order based on principles which transcend human power or consensus. The case has been made that Taoists in early China were natural law theorists, while the Confuscians were legalists.

My position is that the US constitution is a natural law approach arising as a critique of English law and social order which it replaced.

707. Aldavis - 11/13/1999 1:14:22 AM

Have you two never heard of, say, Solzhenitsyn?
Do you really think Solzhenitsyn had a big influence on the American population? I have to admit, as much as I have read about him, I have never read his books, which I should do. But, American opinion is more formed by other media than great writers, and Solzhenitsyn did not get great press in America. Do you suppose Roosevelt had heard of him or of Sacarov or of Stalin's dealings with the kulacks? If so, why was he so willing to give so much to Uncle Joe? Who was it who ranted about the plight of Latvia, Estonia, Lithauania after WWII? I distincly remember Dan Rather in the early '80's making a trip to Russia and telling us how well they were doing and how much better their medical system was than ours (America). Was/is the American press blind as to what went on for 70 years in Russia?

708. Aldavis - 11/13/1999 1:19:15 AM

pseudoeramus
You had a little discussion with Angel Five about the Soviet's dealings with Afganistan. Don't you wonder why he was so quick to say that , yes, Russia wasn't great, but those other guys were worse. This is so often the case in America when dealing with a Communist regime. Castro has been praised all over the place by many Americans in spite of the fact that we see people risking their lives to get the hell out of the place. Do you suppose that after Castro is dead we might discover that things weren't as great as some believed?

709. joezan - 11/13/1999 1:20:54 AM

And just to set the record straight, PE, your;

...why were certain whole populations (Chechens, Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, Russo-Koreans, etc.) chosen for deportation but not others?

only advances my point, doesn't it?

710. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/1999 1:41:50 AM

#707

But again, don't you see the difference? Germany was conquered, occupied and forcibly transformed by the allies. All their dirty laundry were aired in public. There is video footage of the carnage. There are huge piles of Jewish hair and teeth in Holocaust museums in Germany and Poland, accessible to tourists.

Totally different story with the Soviet Union. The communist regime underwent de-Stalinisation, but never grew completely out of Stalinism, so the crimes of Stalinism were only revealed piecemeal, less dramatically than the Nazi crimes. And the revelations came not in video footage and in piles of bones, but through personal reminiscences and novels and poetry. Moreover, the dirty laundry has not been fully aired -- there are archives still either hidden or just forgotten and many Russians are nostalgic about Stalin. Moreover, unlike the Nazi concentration camps and Holocaust museums in the West, the Soviet gulags are located in some of the most inaccessible places in the world.

The disparity in the knowledge of Nazi crimes and Soviet crimes, I believe, is a matter not of hypocrisy but of publicity. The former still got a lot more, for completely understandable reasons.

#708
I totally agree with this one. Castro is a case of utter and unconscionable hypocrisy. The very week Pinochet was arrested in London by request of a magistrate in Spain, Castro was being fêted and given some prize in Madrid. Yet you have a dicatator who drove a third of his people into exile (in Miami).

#709
Your point was that the Russians were equal-opportunity oppressors, i.e., they killed everybody. Well, I'm saying they oppressed some peoples more than others.

711. Aldavis - 11/13/1999 2:05:04 AM

pseudoeramus
and many Russians are nostalgic about Stalin.
This is a very interesting comment to which I would add that many Americans are evern more nostlgic about Stalin. Of course, you are quite correct in the rest of your comments. But it is somewhat of a shame to me that as much as those who have read about Stalin's deeds know, the majority of Americans are somewhat in the dark. They know far more about the adventures of Lassie and Jonbennet than Stalin.

712. joezan - 11/13/1999 2:16:43 AM

True. But to take my point to its end, I believe the reason the Communist atrocities get such short shrift, vis-a-vis those of the nazis, is precisely because they were not perpetrated on a particular group.

No under-dog to posthumously root for, I suppose.

713. Angel-Five - 11/13/1999 3:40:35 AM

Davis: Wherever did I say anything about Russia in Afghanistan?

A difference between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union is that we went to war against, and defeated, the Nazis, and we occupied their country and held a tribunal on their war crimes, and so got a chance to air definitive data. Moreover, GIs got to fight their way into the death camps and see the results of the Final Solution first-hand, and then return to America and tell what they saw.

The data on what the Soviets did is much less specific (viz. the wide range of numbers that gets bandied about WRT how many Stalin had killed) and much more speculatory. There was no Nuremburg, and never will be, for Stalin and his henchmen.

Moreover, I'd imagine that the fact that America has a sizable, well-represented Jewish population and the fact that the Germans launched two wars of conquest -- in both of which they fought against the US -- has something to do with the way Nazi Germany sticks in the consciousness. The Allied fight against the Nazis has an almost mythological character in the US psyche; it is commonly thought of as the last 'good war', with simplistic black and white rendering of the participants and their motives. This, as much as the horrifyingly systematic, dehumanized way in which the Nazis exterminated their victims, is why we pay so much attention th their deeds.

714. ranheim - 11/13/1999 8:48:10 AM

My take on the Soviet Union's excellent pr in the USA is that it started in the late 30s. Following Hitler's invasion of the SU, it was obvious to FDR that they were going to be allies of the USA in the war. (REMEMBER - by hook or crook - FDR was going to get an isolationist USA into that war.) From that day forward, FDR kept on referring to our great ally "Uncle Joe". Uncle Joe could do no wrong!

I was 6 at the time of our entry into WW II. Until I was considerably older, I had a soft spot in my heart for Uncle Joe who helped us win the war in Europe. There was NEVER any bad publicity about the USSR until the Truman years.

Then there is this business regarding political beliefs. As I have said many time previously, liberals defend - or do not speak up about - communism since their beliefs and the communist's beliefs are very similar. Dan Rather was mentioned. He would agree much more with the political ideas of communism than he would libertarianism. It would be my guess that the same could be said about FDR. Although he had no real agenda; except policies that kept him in power.

715. Schehezarade - 11/13/1999 11:12:48 AM

This is a VERY interesting link on the Holocaust timeline and rise of the Nazi party. Please skim it.

716. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/1999 11:19:57 AM

Ranheim, you're an idiot, a first-class blunderbuss idiot.

717. msgreer - 11/13/1999 11:35:55 AM

Ranheim

I read your post 714. I was so incensed I decided to wait abit before posting my reaction. Thankfully pseudoerasmus captured my feelings.

As for your take on FDR it would take volumes to educate you and I don't feel it is worth the time.

718. ranheim - 11/13/1999 11:42:40 AM

I am fully aware that my feelings about FDR are in the tiny minority.

But, I was alive during some of his reign - and that word was used on purpose. Plus I have read books by his political enemies; in addition to the usual pap ladeled out at school.

IMO my take on FDR is closer to the truth than what is reflected in posts #716 & 717.

719. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/1999 11:59:57 AM

Ranheim, I wasn't objecting to your comments about FDR, but to your statement that "liberals defend - or do not speak up about - communism since their beliefs and the communist's beliefs are very similar". Well, I'm a liberal, and I know a hell of a lot more about Soviet and communist barbarities than you have room in your brain to hold.

720. ranheim - 11/13/1999 12:04:45 PM

Recall, if you will, that I lived in Moscow for 2 1/2 years. My brain does contain a little knowledge about the Soviet Union and communism.

721. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/1999 12:17:29 PM

Well, if you can believe that a liberal's beliefs and a communist's are similar, then your experience was trumped by stupidity.

722. ScottLoar - 11/13/1999 12:17:34 PM

Ranheim, is it on the premises of the present Embassy of Tunisia that a Stalin-era execution chamber was uncovered some years ago by the staff? The condition of the chamber shows it was used quite well.

723. msgreer - 11/13/1999 12:29:27 PM

pseudoerasmus

My comment to ranheim was not limited to his thoughts on FDR. I also feel if ranheim is under the illusion that liberal's beliefs are similar to communism he is sadly lacking in politcal theory.

Ranheim

I hope a friendly disagreement on this topic will not keep you away from Health Policy.

724. ranheim - 11/13/1999 12:54:14 PM

msgreer

You should know by now that I have my own ideas on various subjects and don't mind that you and I disagree on a particular subject. I pay no attention to name-calling either.

ScottLoar

I did not hear anything about an execution chamber under the Tunisian Embassy during my time in Moscow. I think I would have. My wife reminds me that there were a great many rumors floating around Moscow at the time. Our ambassador then was Llewellyn (sp?) Thompson. He was a very cool operator. He tended to discount nearly all of those rumors.

725. msgreer - 11/13/1999 1:01:04 PM

ranheim

I don't like name-calling myself. I apologize for that.

I always enjoy your posts especially in Health Policy. I have told you before when it comes to how you handle your practice you are a gem.

Now I will bow out and stop the spam.

726. joezan - 11/13/1999 1:14:13 PM

Speaking of H. S Truman, I just caught a few seconds of some game show. It's kind of a dumbed-down (because the contestants are HS'ers) version of some other game show - I can't think of its name. In any case, the questions seemed ridiculously easy, even considering the contestants' ages,

Anyway, the subject was Tom, Dick or Harry, and the question was Truman. Not one of the three contestants knew. Finally, the girl whose turn it was had to guess. She guessed correctly, but admitted she pulled the answer out of the air.

Sad.

727. joezan - 11/13/1999 1:15:12 PM

Oops...

728. ScottLoar - 11/13/1999 1:19:54 PM

I'm almost sure I'm right. If not Tunis then one of the north African countries.

729. PelleNilsson - 11/13/1999 1:41:51 PM

ranheim --- Message # 714

their [the liberals'] beliefs and the communist's beliefs are very similar

Please elaborate.

730. joezan - 11/13/1999 3:04:13 PM

By definition, liberal ideology has much in common with communism. What's the problem?

731. PelleNilsson - 11/13/1999 3:09:40 PM

By definition!??

Whose definition?

732. joezan - 11/13/1999 3:15:10 PM

Pelle:

liberal: adj.5.Favoring...the use of public resources to promote social progress.

American Heritage Dictionary

733. Angel-Five - 11/13/1999 4:07:32 PM

If we're going to play silly-assed tendentious dictionary games:

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1819
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual
and ethical content of Christianity
b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint
and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
c : a political
philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the
individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
d capitalized : the principles and
policies of a Liberal party

Main Entry: com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: 'käm-y&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
Date: 1840
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common
and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the
official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has
withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively

Boy, there's a whole lot of common ground there.

734. SpenceMirrlees - 11/13/1999 4:09:17 PM

of course the content of the phrases "public resources" and "social progress" are left unspecified. But their content creates a wide gulf for a liberal to cross before becoming a communist.

Indeed, that definition has "much in common" with any political ideology, if we can leave nebulous the operative terms.

735. SpenceMirrlees - 11/13/1999 4:09:47 PM

734 is to 732

736. Angel-Five - 11/13/1999 4:10:43 PM

Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1835
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and
social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

So conservatism and communism both stress established institutions as a means of 'gradually developing' society. I guess that means in Zaniland that conservatism has much in common with Communism!

737. PelleNilsson - 11/13/1999 4:33:16 PM

joezan

And this, you think, is close to communism? Public schools, the interstate highway system, the rural electrification scheme?

Also I'm curious about the words left out.

Here is the definition found in Encyclopedia Brittanica.

"liberalism

the creed of those who believe in individual liberty. More specifically, since "no government allows absolute liberty" (Locke), it is the belief that it is desirable to maximize the amount of liberty in the state."

738. DaveM - 11/13/1999 4:50:07 PM

Kind of a funny story -

When I was younger, say 12 or 13, I got into an extremely heated argument with another kid about the Democratic party. He was arguing that Democrats and their support for an income tax made them Communists - we both thought that Democrats wanted a tax based on a percentage of income and Republicans wanted a static figure that each person owed the government.

We ended up having to be separated by the lunchroom proctor.

739. SpenceMirrlees - 11/13/1999 5:01:56 PM

Pelle, I think Zan is referring to liberal in the American usage, whereas anything mentioning Locke is pretty much categorically classical usage.

740. ranheim - 11/13/1999 5:09:41 PM

#729 Pelle

I have never been a liberal - even as a student. So this is as an outsider looking in. To me liberals favor :
1) Central bank with many monetary controls. Liberals favor very severe restrictions on "exporting" your money to foreign lands. Currently, USA citizens are taxed on money/stocks/bonds wherever they are located in the world.
2) Central government to be very, very strong; state and local governments weak. I think it is the last ammendment of the Bill of Rights : the one that says that those powers NOT ENUMERATED to the central government are in control of state and local governments. That is a joke in the USA; and has been my entire life.
3) A huge bureaucracy with a myriad of rules and regulations. There are so many that the bureaucrats can't keep track of all of them.
4) A welfare state. Liberals would have 'cradle to grave' assistance.
5) They favor union/other labor at the expense of capital.
6) Graduated income tax (liberals would like much steeper rates than those in existence currently). Very high death duties.
7) Government ownership of land. Clinton is trying to add millions of acres to the already huge government holdings of USA land. They would severely restrict any commercial use of govt land.
8) Standing army : Liberals' attitude have changed since the Viet Nam era. Clinton sees himself as the policeman of the world. I believe there would be a huge fight among liberals over this point.
9) Judicial system - We have many lawyers that contribute to the Mote. Have them comment on the attitude and rulings of the Supreme Court and Federal Courts now as compared to those same courts prior to WW II. I would guess that current federal judges favor the state over the individual a great deal more now than they did prior to the war.

741. PelleNilsson - 11/13/1999 5:09:52 PM

Spence

OK. But are the beliefs of "American usage liberals' close to those of communists?

This is what ranheim claimed (who has not been heard of since) and what joezan tries to prop up.

The question is not directed to you. I wait for the ranheim/zan team to substantiate.

742. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/1999 6:04:53 PM

Ranheim is a moron. Why bother arguing with him.

Zan: So you don't favour the use of any public resources for the purpose of social progress?

743. DaveM - 11/13/1999 6:19:55 PM

What happens when the state uses its resources to enforce a "private" contract?

744. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/1999 6:23:46 PM

I find great many similarities between Ranheim's views and those of the Oklahoma City bombers.

745. Aldavis - 11/13/1999 6:29:14 PM

pelle
Let me chime in and try to make the point in this manner. Two magazines on opposite ends of the spectrum would be The Nation and National Review, the first being liberal the second being conservative. If one did a study of the last 20 years, which one would have the most articles supportive of Communist regimes? The generalization that liberals support Communism is incorrect and I'm sure ranheim would agree.

If I could find my Communist Manifesto, I could list a number of their goals that have been put into effect by liberal administrations. Liberals who knew the most about Soviet Communism opposed it vigorously. Were their a lot of liberal dupes? Well, I sure as hell was one once, but maybe that is just because I am an ancient, sexist imbecile.

746. stostosto - 11/13/1999 6:36:38 PM

"I was 6 at the time of our entry into WW II. Until I was considerably older, I had a soft spot in my heart for Uncle Joe who helped us win the war in Europe. There was NEVER any bad publicity about the USSR until the Truman years. "

You do know that around 20 million Russians were killed in WWII? They bore the brunt of the war effort against Hitler, and they suffered the worst of Hitler's atrocities as well as tied up the most and the best of his armies.

If anybody helped anybody win the war in Europe, it was the US that helped the Russians. They were, literally, engaged in a struggle to the death. The US - and FDR - should be commended for their great effort in helping them out in this struggle. But it can't ever, be the other way around.

747. PelleNilsson - 11/13/1999 6:38:21 PM

AlDavis

You don't have to look for the Manifesto. All you have do is to check the butterscotch bar at the right and click on "The Communist Manifesto". I have told you before. But perhaps your copy is a very special copy.

748. Aldavis - 11/13/1999 6:45:00 PM

pelle
In a way it is. I once on the Fray quoted from a copy I had and was told that it probably was one the John Birch Society put out, so I obtained one edited by Valdimir Pozner. I figured he wouldn't mess around changing anything. Well, I don't remember you telling me that, but my memory is not that great. Now, I don't have to bother making a list since anyone can just look it up, right pelle?

749. ranheim - 11/13/1999 6:45:56 PM

sto

That was very poor sentence. I'm sorry. The point that I was trying to make was that, during the war, there was never an ill word said about the USSR. It was all about Uncle Joe and what a good guy he was.

750. Aldavis - 11/13/1999 7:08:04 PM

Stostosto
Perhaps Russia would not have suffered as bad as they did had Stalin not trusted Hitler from 1939 until attacked in 1941. In America, the major opinion is that Roosevelt was a great President who got us through the war. But it seems to me there is another way of looking at history. While it is true that America was anti war in the '20's and '30's, isn't the mark of a great leader the ability to anticipate events and prepare people? Once Hitler took over in 1932, the west should have been preparing for war. It has been many years since I read Mein Kampt, but Hitler spelled out his aims then.

Another reason why the fighting on the eastern front was so vicious was that soldiers fought to the death because surrender meant death anyway and they knew it. Of course, it was sane to ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler, but the sell out to him after the war was a real tragedy, it seems to me. Stalin, because he had spies in the Roosevelt Administration, knew Roosevelt's thoughts and plans before Yalta and Teheran.

751. proudnerd - 11/13/1999 7:08:10 PM

I think ranheim has been watching too many conspiracy theorists on his local community access channel.

That said, I go back to my daily reading of Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei.

752. PelleNilsson - 11/13/1999 7:11:40 PM

Al

You do have to bother because otherwise people will believe you don't know what you are talking about.

753. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/1999 7:15:43 PM

Perhaps Russia would not have suffered as bad as they did had Stalin not trusted Hitler from 1939 until attacked in 1941.

This is nonsense. Throughout the 1930s, Soviet diplomacy was strictly, single-mindedly aimed at forming a united front against Nazi Germany with the allies. But Britain and France were short-sighted, they continually rebuffed Stalin's overtures. What was Stalin or anybody in his position to do after Munich? The only rational option left was to conclude some kind of accomodation with Nazi Germany. In fact, from the perspective of pure Realpolitik, it was a brilliant move: the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact tied the Germans in the West in the event of war. But who could have predicted that France would collapse so quickly and that Germany would be free to wage war in the East?

754. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/1999 7:18:00 PM

Of course, it was sane to ally with Stalin to defeat Hitler, but the sell out to him after the war was a real tragedy, it seems to me.

What sell-out? Were the allies to march on Warsaw and Prague and Bucharest after VE day?

755. Aldavis - 11/13/1999 7:24:08 PM

In fact, from the perspective of pure Realpolitik, it was a brilliant move:
Perhaps you are right: and perhaps Pat Buchanan is right when he suggests that we should have adopted Realpolitik and aided each side as one got an advantage over the other.

To me the real tragedy and the lesson to be learned is that Nations must be armed. It is an imbalence of power that causes problems. The law of unintended consequenses made it a good thing that Russia had atomic weapons soon after WWII. Thank God they didn't have them first.

756. PelleNilsson - 11/13/1999 7:30:57 PM

ranheim ---

You asserted that liberal beliefs are close to communist beliefs.

Now you come up with nine points. Are these indicative of what you see as communist beliefs?

As a trivium for you to ponder upon: there was no income tax in the Soviet Union and its satellites. Paradise, no?

757. PelleNilsson - 11/13/1999 7:33:14 PM

Now folks. I have in the back of my mind that a WW2 thread could be a viable proposition. But this is not it, OK?

758. Aldavis - 11/13/1999 7:34:53 PM

pseudoerasmus
England declared war on Germany because Hitler attacked Poland, is that not correct? So after WWII having everything from Poland east controlled by the Soviets was not a sell out? For Christ sake, in 1939 Hitler and Stalin carved up Poland and after the war, Churchill and Roosevelt gave it to Stalin.

pelle
I don't quite follow what you are talking about. I do not see a link to the Communist Manifesto on the Home page. Besides, most Moties are convinced I don't know what I'm talking about. What, me worry?

759. PelleNilsson - 11/13/1999 7:37:17 PM

Al

Not on the home page. On this very page you are looking at now, up at the right under the heading "Useful Links".

760. CalGal - 11/13/1999 7:39:06 PM

Pelle,

There is nothing all that unusual about Ranheim's beliefs in this country. Remember that Americans have no real concept of the true left, and it starts to make sense.

Consider that one of the primary differences between the left and right in this country is the degree of support for income redistribution and the degree to which the government will provide services and support that would otherwise be the responsibility of the individual.

Looked at from that perspective, liberals are a point on a spectrum that leads directly towards communism, with socialism in the middle.

761. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/1999 7:43:14 PM

#758
How did Churchill and Roosevelt "give" Poland to Stalin? You mean Yalta? The Soviet army was already in Poland by then. It wasn't a sellout, it was a resignation to a fait accompli.

762. PelleNilsson - 11/13/1999 7:53:03 PM

PE

Yellow card.

763. Aldavis - 11/13/1999 7:55:05 PM

pelle
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

While one and three have not been instituted in the U.S., the kinds of attacks that come from the left on private property shade into it. If the far left had their way, the tax on inheritance would approach 100%. There are other items, but it is difficult for me to scroll through page after page of material that is indeed very helpful.

764. Aldavis - 11/13/1999 7:56:30 PM

A joke in Russia was, we pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us. Was there any income to tax?

765. PelleNilsson - 11/13/1999 8:13:36 PM

CalGal

Looked at from that perspective, liberals are a point on a spectrum that leads directly towards communism, with socialism in the middle.

Not understood. If one is so inclined all political ideas can be plotted on a right-left spectrum. And if you position yourself at the right and look at the left your view will always lead to communism, or, if your eyes are good, to anarchism.

This is not the subject under discussion. We have ranheim, supported by joezan and probably by AlDavis claiming that that as far as ideology is concerned there are great similarities between liberalism and communism.

I'm waiting for a substantion of these assertions but I doubt it will be forthcoming because these guys seem to be knee-jerk ideologists with a very limited grasp of political ideas and their origins.

766. PelleNilsson - 11/13/1999 8:24:10 PM

Al

You have shifted your stance. We are not discussing "the far left". We are talking about liberalism. And I'm still waiting for substantion of its ties to communism.

But now it's 2.20 am here and I'm off to bed. So you have time to come up with a considered answer.

767. CalGal - 11/13/1999 8:30:48 PM

Pelle,

I don't understand what you mean by "not understood".

Davis and Ranheim are indeed knee-jerk ideologists with a very limited grasp of political ideas and their origins. This is by no means a rarity in the U.S., nor are their notions. I was attempting to explain the genesis of the belief.

You completely missed what I was saying about the perspective. I gave two specific examples that account for a good deal of the difference in the American political parties: significant income redistribution and government-provided services/support that would otherwise be left to the individual (health care, charity for the poor, jobs, and so on).

If you examine the "liberal" position in these two areas--liberals generally want a very progressive tax, support nationalized medicine, welfare, and so on--then they are indeed far closer to socialism and communism than anyone else in the U.S. (Please note I am speaking of liberals, not Democrats).

So back some 40 years ago, someone got the notion of associating any support for these two issues with communism. They could have just as easily made the association to socialism, but that didn't have the same inflammatory value, given the Cold War we'd been fighting.

Since most Americans have no notion of political theories--nor do they need to, given that their own political system has little to do with such idiotic extremes--they have accepted this limited association of liberalism with communism. While only a small percentage of the whole takes it as far as Davis and Ranheim, I would say that many Americans would agree with the statement that liberalism is closer to communism than conservatism is.

Joe's statement was largely accurate; I agree with Spence's qualification.

768. CalGal - 11/13/1999 8:31:33 PM

Pelle,

You don't understand American politics. To Davis, there is no difference between "the far left" and "liberalism".

769. Aldavis - 11/13/1999 9:29:34 PM

CalGal
Why do you say that and you don't even put a g there. I consider myself a liberal in the original meaning of the word. Now I guess I am a libertarian. Actually, most of the things you say I agree with, and I am way to frightened of you to start an argument.

770. Aldavis - 11/13/1999 10:04:38 PM

pell
I won't be making aconsidered post. CalGal has convinced me that I am far too stupid to be on the Mote. However, I have enjoyed out chats over the months. Take care.

771. CalGal - 11/13/1999 10:15:54 PM

????

Odd as it may sound, I was supporting you. Granted, I think your positions are nonsense, but they are common American nonsense. I see no reason that you should be attacked for your views as if they are somehow unique. Rather, it requires a fair amount of effort to withstand the onslaught of regularly dispensed horseshit that supports your belief system.

772. DaveM - 11/14/1999 1:27:04 AM

CalGal:

First, I preface all of these comments with the fact that I have been at a party for the last several hours and have perhaps consumed an undue amount of alcohol. However...

You have several statements which seem ill founded and generally incorrect. First, your statement that it is a logical progression from liberalism to communism (as you imply in Message # 767 is ridiculous. The typical justification for a progressive income tax, for instance, is that the more money one makes, the more one benefits from the state's protection of private property and, accordingly, the more the state can "charge" for those services.

Additonally, the typical justifications for welfare and "nationalized" health care as patchwork solutions to an otherwise functioning private system of service provision is arguably further from true communism even than strict conservativism (a situation known as "loopification"). The liberals justify state intervention as a way to correct the failures of a private market, and, accordingly, attempt to legitimate the functionings of said market and make it seem tolerable; such a policy perspective could not be further from the communist perspective of "let them revolt." Liberals attempt to legitimate the private property regime in the face of the socialist/communist criticism, conservatives simply ignore that criticism. I, as an American with socialist leanings, would argue that liberalism is further away on the political spectrum even than strict conservativism (because its ideology is pragmatic).

Finally, your labelling of political extremes as "idiotic" simply reinforces the fact that you are nothing but a sheep, herded by the elites of American political Liberalism, incapable of comprehending either the desirability or the coherence of legitimate political alternatives. Enjoy your myopism.

773. CalGal - 11/14/1999 1:34:57 AM

Yes, you are drunk.

First, your statement that it is a logical progression from liberalism to communism (as you imply in Message # 767 is ridiculous.

You first say that I make a "statement" to this effect, then you say that I "imply" it. Make up your mind. Preferably when you have sobered up.

Or understand that I made no such statement or implication. I did not say it was logical. I said it was common.

You don't think communism is an idiotic extreme? Well, I suppose not.

In any event, you are not only drunk, you are maudlin. Perhaps when you have attained the grand old age of, say, 25, you'll be better able to hold your liquor.

774. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/1999 1:37:23 AM

Well said, DaveM, excellent. Conservatives/libertarians/freaks don't seem to realise that liberals save capitalism from the resentment of the masses.

775. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/1999 1:39:51 AM

of course calgal is right that these "extremes" are idiotic, but....

776. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/1999 1:40:35 AM

Is DaveM that teenaged feminoid-PoMo-lit-crit-git-shit?

777. CalGal - 11/14/1999 1:46:19 AM

Lord, Pseudo, you and Pelle are just alike. You act as if they are saying something outrageous and unheard of, as opposed to something that is generally accepted by the U.S. masses as true.

That it is not true is of course relevant. But at least understand that the beliefs are common, for heaven's sake. They are doing the equivalent of asserting that tobacco companies cost the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars. Yet you and others react as if they've announced that the sky is purple.

778. CalGal - 11/14/1999 1:47:01 AM

Well, he's the person that you generally refer to in that manner, yes.

779. Angel-Five - 11/14/1999 2:30:14 AM

While only a small percentage of the whole
takes it as far as Davis and Ranheim,

You act as if
they are saying something outrageous and unheard of, as
opposed to something that is generally accepted by the
U.S. masses as true.

Which is it, then?

780. Angel-Five - 11/14/1999 2:40:21 AM

And let's not equivocate on what they said, either.
Ranheim:
As I
have said many time previously, liberals defend - or do
not speak up about - communism since their beliefs and
the communist's beliefs are very similar.

Joezan

By definition, liberal ideology has much in common with
communism. What's the problem?

You:

While only a small percentage of the whole
takes it as far as Davis and Ranheim, I would say that
many Americans would agree with the statement that
liberalism is closer to communism than conservatism is.

Then:

I did not say it [the logical procession from liberalism to communism] was logical. I said it was
common.

781. CalGal - 11/14/1999 2:41:51 AM

Well, if you had finished the quote, you'd know the answer.

While only a small percentage of the whole takes it as far as Davis and Ranheim, I would say that many Americans would agree with the statement that liberalism is closer to communism than conservatism is.

The latter--the common American belief that liberalism is closer to communism--is what I was referring to in my statement to Pseudo.

Remember that Pelle and Pseudo were both challenging the association of liberalism with communism. Pelle, in particular, was demanding proof of this supposedly outrageous assertion. Only someone who was unfamiliar with American politics could think the assertion that liberalism (the American variety) is similar to communism is somehow unusual or outrageous, rather than garden variety nonsense.

782. Angel-Five - 11/14/1999 2:47:07 AM

You reiterate in Message # 777:

You act as if
they are saying something outrageous and unheard of, as
opposed to something that is generally accepted by the
U.S. masses as true.

That it is not true is of course relevant. But at least
understand that the beliefs are common,

But you're not talking about the beliefs they espouse, you're talking (imagine this) about what YOU said. You yourself insist that the beliefs of Ranheim and Davis aren't common at all.

783. CalGal - 11/14/1999 2:47:08 AM

There is no need to repost. I haven't equivocated at all.

You and the drunken teenager both seem to think I am agreeing with them. Not at all. I neither know or care, frankly, how American liberalism differs from communism. I was merely pointing out the root cause of the belief, the reasons I saw for it, and the fact that some form of this belief is by no means uncommon.

784. Angel-Five - 11/14/1999 2:50:53 AM

What? I think you're agreeing with them? That's about as insightful as your inability to differentiate between what you are saying and what Ranheim and Davis have said. What I'm saying is rather different: that you're talking about (once again, imagine that) what YOU said, not what THEY said.

There is no need to repost. I haven't equivocated at all.

Are you quite sure? I see reposting was warranted after all.

785. CalGal - 11/14/1999 2:57:02 AM

Yes, I am quite sure.

I did not say it was logical.

In fact, here is what I said to Al, which pretty much sums up what I was telling Pelle:

Granted, I think your positions are nonsense, but they are common American nonsense. I see no reason that you should be attacked for your views as if they are somehow unique. Rather, it requires a fair amount of effort to withstand the onslaught of regularly dispensed horseshit that supports your belief system.

Now, I realize that you'd love to derail the thread, but you'll have to find someone else to play with. Perhaps DaveM has woken from a drunken stupor. Or perhaps you should put yourself into one.

786. Angel-Five - 11/14/1999 3:05:46 AM

Yes, yes, yes, then you still have that nasty little While only a small percentage of the whole takes it as far as Davis
and Ranheim to contend with. No matter how you slice it, you can't have both that statement and your You act as if
they are saying something outrageous and unheard of, as
opposed to something that is generally accepted by the
U.S. masses as true. One of these things, is not like the other...

And I know you'd like to portray this as derailing the thread, but all it is is a correction of your hasty position. Don't forget, you're the one who is insisting that Pelle and PE shouldn't act surprised by Ranheim and Al's foolishness, because it's common. By extension, you're criticizing their rebuttals -- all I'm doing is pointing out that you contradicted yourself in your attempt to make that criticism, and that indeed they have valid points. Derailing, indeed.

787. ranheim - 11/14/1999 12:04:31 PM

It has been about 18 hours since my post #740. I suppose that I should comment on the comments to that post.

As I told you, Pelle, I have never been a liberal so I do not speak as one who has ever been inside that tent. I spoke on the basis of 6 decades of watching life in the USA in person; reading local newspapers, news magazine & books; and listening to radio and TV.

Recall that I am an M.D. My background is math & science. The last time I took a history course was in high school. I took a test before entering college; scored high in it; and the history requirement for that college was waived for me.

Pelle : you said - I think - in one of your posts that my 9 points reflected my understanding of communism. (By the way, I forgot one very important point - many liberals attempt to demonize religion.)
The only experience that I have with communism is the 2 1/2 years I lived in Moscow in the late 60s. My best recollection of what the political officers of the embassy said was that there was no existing state that reflected "theoretical communism". Lenin did not live long enough; Stalin emerged as his most powerful lieutenant; and Stalin warped the theory to meet his own needs.

So no. I will not try to 'define' my version of communism for you. I'll leave that to some one who has a great more knowlege on the subject. By inference you already know much of my thinking on this subject.

788. PelleNilsson - 11/14/1999 1:02:10 PM

Political ideas have historical roots. Communism, in the sense of collective ownership and elitist leadership can be traced back to Plato or, if you want, to the early Christian communities. In its modern form it is the creation of Marx and Engels.

In the main, modern liberalism was formulated by John Stuart Mill. Liberalism comes in many flavours depending on how the balance between the common good and individual freedom is resolved. But there is no commonality of thought, no shared basic philosophy, between communism and liberalism.

Anybody who can afford $5 plus shipping can read Mill's classical On Liberty.

789. ranheim - 11/14/1999 1:22:28 PM

Pelle

I would say that you are speaking of the liberalism of the USA prior to WW I. Some in the USA call that 'classical liberalism'. There are some political commentators in the USA that claim that classical liberalism is closer to current conservative beliefs than is today's liberalism. I have heard both George Will and William F. Buckley make that comment.

I won't attempt to tell you what liberalism means in Europe. But, I believe that Liberalism, as it is usually understood in the USA, is a far different set of beliefs

The movie Casablanca - was Hans Conried the local French official? - "Round up the usual suspects". The usuals will undoubtedly castigate me for the above paragraphs as they did for the earlier post.

790. PelleNilsson - 11/14/1999 1:36:54 PM

I really need somebody to tell me what American liberalism is. Similar to Europe's social democratic tradition? What "authorities" or political thinkers do liberals refer to when they expound their beliefs?

791. ranheim - 11/14/1999 2:32:00 PM

Modern liberalism in the USA was started by FDR and the New Deal.

792. Cellar Door - 11/14/1999 2:50:40 PM

Claude Rains, not Hans Conreid.

793. ranheim - 11/14/1999 2:54:19 PM

Thanks Cellar

I'm not into movies; I should have left that out. But, I have always liked his "Round up all the usual subjects." Pretty indicative of my general feelings about all law enforcement.

794. Cellar Door - 11/14/1999 2:56:19 PM

And I've always loved his "I'm shocked SHOCKED to hear that gambling has been going on here!"

Pretty indicative of my general feeling about just about everything.

795. CalGal - 11/14/1999 3:09:11 PM

Oh, it's not the "Shocked, Shocked!"

It's the "Oh, thank you!" as he accepts his winnings.

Pelle,

I don't think you'll get very far announcing that communism and liberalism have no shared basic philosophy. For one thing, as has been explained several times, there is really not much in common between American "liberalism" and classic liberalism.

And, as I've explained, many of the beliefs expressed about American liberalism and communism are due to a successful PR/con job, that you really haven't much chance of "proving" untrue.

I suppose it depends on what your purpose in having the conversation is. You may find it of interest to track the history of how American liberalism was associated with communism. It would probably be interesting--I made some guesses earlier.

796. CalGal - 11/14/1999 3:15:24 PM

Incidentally, Pelle, I didn't mean that you shouldn't have the discussion when I said you wouldn't "get too far". Do what you like, obviously!

I agree with Ranheim, btw--it is my understanding that modern American liberalism began with FDR.

797. PelleNilsson - 11/14/1999 3:29:02 PM

OK, if it started with FDR I get the picture, more or less. Keynesian economics motivating a lot of government intervention and control at all levels and so forth. It is related to the European social democratic tradition, also in the sense that conservatives are apt to describe it as a kind of proto-communism.

798. JonesAtLaw - 11/14/1999 11:40:54 PM

Starting liberalism with FDR serves conservative purposes, becuase they have such practice hating him, and he's a democrat etc. However, I would argue that the other Roosevelt is probably a better candidate for modern liberalisms founder. Consider- TR was the first president to be an enviromentalist, was an ardent internationalist, followed an agressive anti-trust policy, supported regulation of business for the public health and safety and favored mamouth public works projects. Modern American liberalism is probably more an outgrowth of the Progressive movement than it is an outgrowth of Keynesian economics and FDR.

799. ranheim - 11/15/1999 8:29:07 AM

Jones

TR and Wilson (the income tax) together are probably a better point to start modern liberalism than with FDR.

I believe it is hard for current residents in the USA to believe that our government was funded by the tariff until Wilson. The income tax of the time of Lincoln had been done away with. So the main source of revenue was the tariff. The bill that started the 'new' income tax was a portion of the bill that significantly reduced the tariff (Underwood - I believe).

Even though there was a great amount of backsliding under Harding and Coolidge, I believe you are more right than I, Jones.

800. PelleNilsson - 11/19/1999 4:25:20 AM

I would like to thank all who have contributed to this thread. There have been several stimulating discussions. I, for one, have learned a lot about the American political tradition.

801. CalGal - 11/19/1999 1:14:09 PM

Pelle,

I really enjoyed this thread. I realize it's late, but I found a quote that I thought might sum up several of the answers you've been given in this thread.

Alone among the influential political thinkers of the revolutionary generation, Jefferson ban with the assumption that individual sovereignty, then attempted to develop prescriptions for government that at best protected individual rights and at worst minimized the impact of government or the powers of the state on individual lives. Both Adams and Madison and, to an even greater extent, Hamilton, began with the assumption of society as a collective unit, which was empbodied in the government, which itself should then be designed to maximize individual freedom within the larger context of public order. Jefferson did not worry about public order, believing as he did that individuals liberated from the last remnants of feudal oppression would interact freely to create a natural harmony of interests that was guided, like Adam Smith's marketplace, by invisible or veiled forms of discipline. This belief, As Adams tried to tell him...was always an illusion, but it was an extraordinarily attractive illusion...

At the end of his panoramic review of American democratic culture, Robert Wiebe has concluded that the Jeffersonian ideal of "self-government", though a contradiction in terms, remains the abiding belief of most Americans. ...For better and for worse, American political discourse is phrased in Jeffersonian terms as a conversation about sovereign individuals who only grudgingly and in special circumstances are prepared to compromise that sovereignty for larger social purposes. [emphasis mine]

Good job hosting, btw.

802. CalGal - 11/19/1999 1:20:43 PM

I could have sworn I turned them off.

803. ranheim - 11/19/1999 6:26:54 PM

"The government that governs least, governs best".

Spending 9 years in the employ of the USAF gave me a pretty good understanding of how things - in government - work. Whether fortunate or not, of my 9 years I was the boss 4 1/2 of those years. Of course, I had people I answered to; but, they did not know anything about medicine. I did pretty much as I pleased.

The thing that bothered me most was that in order to do my job well, I had to lie!

That is why I don't trust the USA government. It is built on lies.

804. dusty - 11/19/1999 6:33:16 PM

ranheim

As contrasted to governments of other countries? Or are you merely restricting your comment to areas where you can comment?

805. ranheim - 11/19/1999 6:36:34 PM

Commenting only on the USA government.