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 rev