Simple raw calculations are all that is needed to determine which president was the economically pivotal presidency. Finding out that Herbert Hoover was economically pivotal comes as little surprise to those that never fell for his false reputation as a do nothing president.
Trying to figure out which president is the most pivotal in terms of use of the military and foreign affairs is more complicated. Each particular war could, in theory, be considered the turning point in United States foreign relations. But there is one war in particular and also one president in particular that stands out.
Reading "Recarving Rushmore" by the Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute gives an interesting perspective to a usually overlooked president, William McKinley. It is commonly assumed that he wished to avoid war with Spain, but research by Ivan Eland shows otherwise. William McKinley played a very coy game of pretending to oppose the war while encouraging it behind the scenes.
While previous wars had some sort of arguable pretext, even though in the Mexican-American war the actual course of the war went far beyond the pretext, there at least was a case to be made for military action by the United States. There wasn’t always a good case, but there was some case.
The case for the Spanish-American war was imperialism, nothing less and nothing more. The sinking of the Maine served as an incident, but didn't serve as a cause. More than any other military action, it set the course for future United States military involvement around the world, setting the state for the many crimes of Woodrow Wilson.
The reason why William McKinley doesn't get the recognition he deserves is because while preparing for war, advocating war, and later waging war, his public statements were to the effect of opposing war. Why he spoke out against a war that he wanted is a very curious subject to examine, which can be read about in "Recarving Rushmore."
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Friday, September 10, 2010
Near-miss Libertarian
Although the world is full of unpleasant examples of socialism, apparently not a single country that embraced central planning has ever counted as an example in any discussion of the subject. In each and every case the country in question wasn’t “real” socialism. It is a giant international game of "No True Scotsman" with regards to socialism. Every country in the Warsaw Pact, as well as China, Cuba, and North Korea are not examples of real socialism.
It may be necessary to deny all the examples of the failures of central planning are examples of socialism. After all, if one were to admit them as evidence, it would be necessary to conclude that socialism as an economic system does not work.
This stands in stark contrast to classical liberalism, where imperfect examples are embraced, with the caveat that they are imperfect examples and there are aspects of those examples that are illibertarian.
One of the first examples is the United States, usually prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve but often prior to the New Deal. Libertarians will grant that the setup had the flaws, most notably slavery. Other examples include many other western countries during the time between the final defeat of Napoleon and the outbreak of World War One, in spite of their colonialism. Or further back in history, there is Medieval Iceland, which lasted three hundred hears before becoming a territory of Norway.
Although each example had flaws, libertarians embrace them as examples because they show that the closer a country has gotten to the classic liberal ideal the better off that country has been.
Statists have counter-arguments to the trend the examples show. The first counter-argument is The Temporal Fallacy wherein they argue that, due to technological advancements since then, that today’s situation is clearly better in every respect. The truth is that technologically today’s situation is improved, and the rest does not follow.
A second argument is to deliberately confuse the flaw with the example. If a libertarians says "although this example had the glaring flaw of slavery…" the statist will respond as if the libertarian had said “this example has the virtue of slavery” and accuse the libertarian of being a defender of the flaw instead of condemning the flaw. The statist will then feel free to ignore the point of the example.
Either of those arguments is easily countered. The principle stands as a shining one – the closer a country has gotten to liberty the better off that country has been. This includes many countries that count as examples, and even a few that are decidedly not libertarian countries but have become more free in various areas, such as when communist China decontrolled various parts of the economy creating an economic powerhouse. The principle is clear to anyone willing to see.
It may be necessary to deny all the examples of the failures of central planning are examples of socialism. After all, if one were to admit them as evidence, it would be necessary to conclude that socialism as an economic system does not work.
This stands in stark contrast to classical liberalism, where imperfect examples are embraced, with the caveat that they are imperfect examples and there are aspects of those examples that are illibertarian.
One of the first examples is the United States, usually prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve but often prior to the New Deal. Libertarians will grant that the setup had the flaws, most notably slavery. Other examples include many other western countries during the time between the final defeat of Napoleon and the outbreak of World War One, in spite of their colonialism. Or further back in history, there is Medieval Iceland, which lasted three hundred hears before becoming a territory of Norway.
Although each example had flaws, libertarians embrace them as examples because they show that the closer a country has gotten to the classic liberal ideal the better off that country has been.
Statists have counter-arguments to the trend the examples show. The first counter-argument is The Temporal Fallacy wherein they argue that, due to technological advancements since then, that today’s situation is clearly better in every respect. The truth is that technologically today’s situation is improved, and the rest does not follow.
A second argument is to deliberately confuse the flaw with the example. If a libertarians says "although this example had the glaring flaw of slavery…" the statist will respond as if the libertarian had said “this example has the virtue of slavery” and accuse the libertarian of being a defender of the flaw instead of condemning the flaw. The statist will then feel free to ignore the point of the example.
Either of those arguments is easily countered. The principle stands as a shining one – the closer a country has gotten to liberty the better off that country has been. This includes many countries that count as examples, and even a few that are decidedly not libertarian countries but have become more free in various areas, such as when communist China decontrolled various parts of the economy creating an economic powerhouse. The principle is clear to anyone willing to see.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Tea Party Protest History
The first of the modern Tea Party protests took place in 2007. It was a combined event, both a protest against the excessive spending of George W. Bush and a campaign event of presidential candidate Ron Paul. Throughout 2008 more of these combined events occurred.
This is important to remember, because while the current state of the Tea Party movement is such to cause many libertarians and other freedom lovers to be a little cautious of the current Tea Party protests, especially those that emphasize the pseudo-patriotism of the current military misadventures in the Middle East, especially the Tea Party Express AstroTurf movement, the history is still noble.
Currently progressive and liberal critics of the Tea Party movement like to ask the question where the protesters were before February 2009. This is asked in order to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the protesters by highlighting how they didn’t protest spending under Bush. This allegedly shows that the protests aren’t based on spending but either on partisanship or on alleged (but never proven) racism.
It is true that after the election many people joined the movement who were not in it previously. It is true that many of these late-comers could have their concern described as partisan instead of fiscal, but certainly not all of them. The same can be said about the reduced attendance in anti-war protests since January 2009.
The history of the Tea Party protests is also forgotten by members of the Republican Party trying to absorb the Tea Party protests with false promises of “enemy of my enemy” and “lesser of two evils” who do not want to recall the true origin of the protests. To acknowledge where the protests came from is to acknowledge the dirty secret of Republican fiscal irresponsibility and to lose the audience they wish to capture.
History is inconvenient, and thus forgotten.
This is important to remember, because while the current state of the Tea Party movement is such to cause many libertarians and other freedom lovers to be a little cautious of the current Tea Party protests, especially those that emphasize the pseudo-patriotism of the current military misadventures in the Middle East, especially the Tea Party Express AstroTurf movement, the history is still noble.
Currently progressive and liberal critics of the Tea Party movement like to ask the question where the protesters were before February 2009. This is asked in order to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the protesters by highlighting how they didn’t protest spending under Bush. This allegedly shows that the protests aren’t based on spending but either on partisanship or on alleged (but never proven) racism.
It is true that after the election many people joined the movement who were not in it previously. It is true that many of these late-comers could have their concern described as partisan instead of fiscal, but certainly not all of them. The same can be said about the reduced attendance in anti-war protests since January 2009.
The history of the Tea Party protests is also forgotten by members of the Republican Party trying to absorb the Tea Party protests with false promises of “enemy of my enemy” and “lesser of two evils” who do not want to recall the true origin of the protests. To acknowledge where the protests came from is to acknowledge the dirty secret of Republican fiscal irresponsibility and to lose the audience they wish to capture.
History is inconvenient, and thus forgotten.
Friday, June 27, 2008
History of the United States
History can be viewed at from various perspectives, the most common of which being the names and dates method. The problem with said method is that it fails to give any insight into the causes of the various memorized events. To study history from that perspective is similar to studying biology without evolution; it becomes little more than a disparate set of fields and zoology is reduced to cataloging. To properly understand the history one needs to look at the causes of the events, and a way to do that is by studying the ebb and flow of competing ideas that are brought to a head by the issues studied in the name and date form of history. Professional historians know this, but their knowledge seldom translates down to the public school history lessons where most people are fed the simplistic version of history.
The United States was founded with two competing schools of thought, which can be exemplified by two early representatives of those schools, the Hamiltonian school and the Jeffersonian school. The Hamiltonians desire an activist government that intervenes on behalf of major industry and financial institutions, while the Jeffersonians desire a minimalist government. The signing of the Constitution was a Hamiltonian victory, but the ratification of the Bill of Rights was a Jeffersonian victory.
Early in the history of the United States, the Jeffersonians had the upper hand due to the disintegration of the Federalist Party and the ineffectiveness of the Whig party. The economic issues that divided the country were more easily reconciled by Jeffersonians who did not favor economic policies that benefited one region over another, while the interventionist Whigs had to balance competing demands from different regions of the country with different activist goals. Meanwhile several Jeffersonian presidents in a row in first the Democratic Republican Party and then the Democratic Party ensured a court that was primary Jeffersonian.
But as the economic divide in the United States grew more severe the issue of slavery became more polarized with the pro-slavery forces aligning with the Jeffersonians (even though Jeffersonians themselves aren’t pro-slavery) and the anti-slavery forces aligning with the Hamiltonians (even though Hamiltonians themselves aren’t anti-slavery). Slavery and States Rights were blocking the Hamiltonian agenda, which led to the Hamiltonians switching from the Whig Party to the Republican Party and bringing the conflict to a head in the United States Civil War.
Not all Jeffersonians were Southern. The "copperheads" were Northern Jeffersonians who objected to what they perceived to be an unconstitutional extension of Federal power enacted under Lincoln during the war. What the war did settle was which interpretation of the constitution was to dominate, the Jeffersonian version or the Hamiltonian version. Having lost the debate on the field of ideas, the Hamiltonians turned to debate on the field of battle, and there they won.
The United States was locked for a while into the Hamiltonian model, but having determined that an economically interventionist government is good the question that originally divided the Whigs arose in a new form: which model of interventionism is to be implemented? A new ideology grew in the United States after the Civil War, imported from Europe, Progressivism. These progressive initially applied themselves in the Republican Party, influencing the decisions of Theodore Roosevelt. It was the internal struggle between the Hamiltonians and the Progressives that caused the Republican Party to briefly split enabling the election of Woodrow Wilson.
During the time progressivism was trying to influence the Republican Party, it was also trying to influence the Democratic Party. The loss of the Civil War had been devastating to the efforts of Jeffersonians to limit the power of the government, and as a result the Democratic Party was open to takeover by the new ideology. This started under President Wilson but was carried to fulfillment by President Franklin Roosevelt who, while he campaigned as a Jeffersonian in 1932, acted as a full progressive once in office.
The remaining Jeffersonians, already in decline, defected from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in response to the positions taken by the Progressives. The Hamiltonian reaction to the progressive agenda was in opposition for several reasons, including the difference between the forms of interventionism advocated, the scale of interventionism proposed by Roosevelt being beyond that of most Hamiltonians, and that Roosevelt was in the wrong party.
For a while the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians were uneasy allies, but did work together to try to rein in the proposals of Roosevelt and subsequent Democrat presidents, and during that time many people mistook the Republican Party as being a small government party as the Jeffersonians shaped the rhetoric while the Hamiltonians shaped the policy, but under President Nixon the strain of holding together such a coalition finally broke and a core of Jeffersonians broke away and formed the Libertarian Party.
Freed from the constraints of the Jeffersonians and no longer shocked by the scale of the progressives, the Hamiltonians finally shed their small government rhetoric and embraced a full mercantilist system under President George W. Bush of subidies for domestic industries and militarism.
The United States was founded with two competing schools of thought, which can be exemplified by two early representatives of those schools, the Hamiltonian school and the Jeffersonian school. The Hamiltonians desire an activist government that intervenes on behalf of major industry and financial institutions, while the Jeffersonians desire a minimalist government. The signing of the Constitution was a Hamiltonian victory, but the ratification of the Bill of Rights was a Jeffersonian victory.
Early in the history of the United States, the Jeffersonians had the upper hand due to the disintegration of the Federalist Party and the ineffectiveness of the Whig party. The economic issues that divided the country were more easily reconciled by Jeffersonians who did not favor economic policies that benefited one region over another, while the interventionist Whigs had to balance competing demands from different regions of the country with different activist goals. Meanwhile several Jeffersonian presidents in a row in first the Democratic Republican Party and then the Democratic Party ensured a court that was primary Jeffersonian.
But as the economic divide in the United States grew more severe the issue of slavery became more polarized with the pro-slavery forces aligning with the Jeffersonians (even though Jeffersonians themselves aren’t pro-slavery) and the anti-slavery forces aligning with the Hamiltonians (even though Hamiltonians themselves aren’t anti-slavery). Slavery and States Rights were blocking the Hamiltonian agenda, which led to the Hamiltonians switching from the Whig Party to the Republican Party and bringing the conflict to a head in the United States Civil War.
Not all Jeffersonians were Southern. The "copperheads" were Northern Jeffersonians who objected to what they perceived to be an unconstitutional extension of Federal power enacted under Lincoln during the war. What the war did settle was which interpretation of the constitution was to dominate, the Jeffersonian version or the Hamiltonian version. Having lost the debate on the field of ideas, the Hamiltonians turned to debate on the field of battle, and there they won.
The United States was locked for a while into the Hamiltonian model, but having determined that an economically interventionist government is good the question that originally divided the Whigs arose in a new form: which model of interventionism is to be implemented? A new ideology grew in the United States after the Civil War, imported from Europe, Progressivism. These progressive initially applied themselves in the Republican Party, influencing the decisions of Theodore Roosevelt. It was the internal struggle between the Hamiltonians and the Progressives that caused the Republican Party to briefly split enabling the election of Woodrow Wilson.
During the time progressivism was trying to influence the Republican Party, it was also trying to influence the Democratic Party. The loss of the Civil War had been devastating to the efforts of Jeffersonians to limit the power of the government, and as a result the Democratic Party was open to takeover by the new ideology. This started under President Wilson but was carried to fulfillment by President Franklin Roosevelt who, while he campaigned as a Jeffersonian in 1932, acted as a full progressive once in office.
The remaining Jeffersonians, already in decline, defected from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in response to the positions taken by the Progressives. The Hamiltonian reaction to the progressive agenda was in opposition for several reasons, including the difference between the forms of interventionism advocated, the scale of interventionism proposed by Roosevelt being beyond that of most Hamiltonians, and that Roosevelt was in the wrong party.
For a while the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians were uneasy allies, but did work together to try to rein in the proposals of Roosevelt and subsequent Democrat presidents, and during that time many people mistook the Republican Party as being a small government party as the Jeffersonians shaped the rhetoric while the Hamiltonians shaped the policy, but under President Nixon the strain of holding together such a coalition finally broke and a core of Jeffersonians broke away and formed the Libertarian Party.
Freed from the constraints of the Jeffersonians and no longer shocked by the scale of the progressives, the Hamiltonians finally shed their small government rhetoric and embraced a full mercantilist system under President George W. Bush of subidies for domestic industries and militarism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)