[dr_who_2]

Come on. Patronage was invented almost exclusively by Martin Van Buren, Andrew Jackson, and the Dems in the 1820s as a means to win elections, and the Whigs, then Republicans, had to copy it to get elected. Gerrymandering was of course in the Constitution, named after Elbridge Gerry, one of the FOUNDERS!

It would be understating things to say that something that originated with pre-Roosevelt (Franklin or Theodore) states rights "Dems" has really caught on since then. Slow decay is of course preferable to cataclysmic change, but that's beside the point. In some cases, it's postponing the inevitable and making the problem worse, decade by decade, and there have been plenty already. "Worse", as in endanging the republic wanted by the founders, those fellows you lionize when it's convenient to.

[LS]

But the problem with that logic is that it completely ignores actual history. I have actually bothered to look at these things: not ONE president, save for two short spans during serious depressions, has EVER reduced the national spending, either actual or per capita. Some of the greatest spending growth has occurred under some of the "small government" advocates of Martin Van Buren, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Ronald Reagan. Historically, there is little correlation between EITHER government jobs/patronage and ideology or the size of government. That's because life intervenes: wars, threats, disasters, etc.

But I repeat: patronage is NOT in any way, shape, or form a "modern" phenomenon, nor is it in any way traceable to FDR. In the 1800s, the most common forms of patronage were post office jobs and newspapers, which the parties completely supported and paid for.

So far from "postponing the inevitable" or "making the problem worse," really we are still fighting over the Founders' principles and how far to go in given directions. And if you don't think Alex Hamilton or George Washington were "big government" guys in some sense, you need to re-read their words.