Reply #12: Re-response...

[SaveElmer]

"The founding of the Republican party and radical republicanism... and the New Deal prove you wrong."

These were not radical changes...the founding of the Republican Party was a reorienting of existing party structures in response to the stridency of the South and the issue of moving slavery west. It consisted primarily of old-line WHigs, and northern Democrats, with a smattering of know-nothings and other fringe groups. It's platform in 1860 was profoundly conservative in nature.

Radical Republicanism largely failed in its goals during reconstruction, and was gone by the election of Rutherford B Hayes. It's most significant achievments, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were neutered by Congress and the courts for 90 years.

Contrary to your statement, the New Deal was a conservative alternative to more radical change, and an effort by Roosevelt to preserve the existing economic system through reform. In the context of the existing party structure and traditional American politics the changes were significant, but not particularly sweeping. Roosevelt's main accomplishment was instilling confidence in people that the governemnt was at least doing something. Social Security was highly criticized by progressive and radical groups at the time as a timid reaction to the crisis. All of his solutions to economic problems were geared to jump starting existing processes, and did not introduce radical new ones. His most significant contribution was an acceptance of greater regulation of the economy, a necessary goal, but hardly radical, and only possible because of the severity of the crisis. And it certainly did not provide a long term change in the poltical structure, or in any huge difference in the political parties. It did induce a political realignment, which has happened many time in history. But really just replaced one dominant party with another. The two party system was not altered, and the pattern of political discourse was not radically altered.

"More because Hamilton believed in a more autocratic government (indeed, he wanted an American aristocracy)."

This is incorrect as well. Hamilton's primary goal was to make sure the credit of the United States was recognized as worthy by Europe. As weak and fragile as the economy was, it would have been foolhardy to do otherwise. Hamilton was not an autocrat or monarchist by any means, and was a committed republican. These are political charges thrown at him by Jeffersonians that do not hold water under scrutiny.

"As for the Civil War not ripping apart social and economic structures, this is plainly ridiculous. Without considering the demise of the South's entire socioeconomic structure, the creation of the national debt, greenbacks and the like revolutionized the North's way of life. As for politics, Recontruction wasn't exactly a bland little happenstance, while the trade union movement in the post-Civil War period was revolutionary to say the least."

Yes the South's economic structure, based on slavery was ripped apart, in the one spectacular instance in American history when we failed to compromise. And what economic and political structure did they eventually adopt? Free labor economies as had been prominent in the north since the War of 1812. And the structure in place today.

The trade movement was killed for a generation at the hands of the robber barons, and the creation of debt, and instiution of greenbacks were not radical, and did not involve a fundamental shift in the political structure..significant yes...radical no. And given that it took a Civil War to introduce these with the speed they were, it is probably not something we want to replicate.

"New Deal vs. classical Republicanism? Or how about the current situation where our entire economic system has been changed by a virtual "palace revolution" - out with Keynes and in with Von Misses. Teddy's Trust Busting... If you have a point it is that the electorate rarely understands what is at stake and is presented with a fait accompli when the diverse radical changes have taken place."

New Dealers did not advocate doing away with existing econmic structures, or even radically reorienting the system...it had to do with closer government scrutiny of existing structures. And the Depression certainly did not reorient the political system in any meaningful way. Nor did Teddy Roosevelt's Trust busting...

I don't argue there haven't been significant changes, just that the differences between the parties has never been wide, and that short of a deep crisis, significant change has never come about without a significant prep work, and without one party having enough power in Congress to get done what they needed to. And that even in deep crisis radical change has never been the path taken. The road to that power is measured in small steps, not radical leaps


Reconstruction, though noble in intent, was largely a failure. By the 1890's blacks in the south were back to nearly a condition of involuntary servitude, caught in an agricultural system which kept them perpetually in debt, unable to free themselves from obligations to their landlords, and shorn of virtually all political rights. Yet blacks did not agitate for radical solutions, they agitated for equality. And it took another 85 years before they even began to approach it. Some say the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's was a radical step, yet it took millions of small steps by millions of people to get us there.


"You figure it will happen by itself? I'm not asking for anything more than what has happened in the past (Teddy Roosevelt)."

As I said...the Democratic Party contains more members who are open to making needed changes to our political system than the Republican Party...so while there are certainly Democrats I consider too Conservative, with a Democratic Party in charge, change is far more likely. And contrary to your assertion, we are not in a crisis anywhere close to those which have occurred in the past. The American people are nowhere close to feeling as though significant political change is now necessary. I agree change is necessary, but within the existing political reality, it needs to be achieved through the accumulation of power by those most likely to do something about it...in my view the Democratic Party.

You seem to be saying it is not worth voting for a Democrat unless they advocate the type of significant political change you are advocating. I am saying that is a platform for long-term electoral failure.

And I reject the notion that were the Democrats in charge things would be no different, which is what you imply...Had Al Gore been in the White House, we would not have been at war in Iraq. Had Al Gore been in the White House, women would not be on the verge of losing their reproductive rights. Had Al Gore been in office, gays would not be under attack from the government that is supposed to protect their rights. Had Al Gore been in office, the wealthy would not be getting increased tax breaks. Had Al Gore been in office, the United States would have ratified the Kyoto Accords, and if not would be doing everything in their power to comply with its provisions. I could go on...



I do not vote for DLC candidates, I vote for Democratic candidates..DLC or not. That is progress.

On edit: I know you are overseas, so if you respond to this and I don't re-respond again right away it is because it is way past my bedtime.

And hey I know we disagree, but I have enjoyed this particular discussion very much!