The Coming of the Fourth American Republic

The American ^ | 21 April 2009 | James V. DeLong

[bamahead]

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

[NaughtiusMaximus]

Excellent read!

[Billthedrill]

Many thanks for the ping. This is going to take quite a bit more study than I have time for at the moment, but three things stand out: first, that the French model of the First, Second, and Third Republics does indeed map rather nicely to certain phases of American governmental history at least insofar as the boundary events of the Civil War and the New Deal are concerned with their concomitant restructuring of federal powers. I confess to being unfamiliar with Theodore Lowi's work and intend to do something about that at first opportunity. A lovely model on the face of it.

Second is a past historical example of a government that experiences steady growth in terms of size, responsibility, and the abilities of interest groups to influence both its makeup and scope. There is an analog if somewhat imperfect: the Chinese government prior to 1906 comes to mind, an entity that in its final form was a monolithic monster of Byzantine complexity, ubiquitous control, bureaucratic rigidity, and an overall ossification that made it incapable of timely responses to new versions of old threats. The upshot of that was that control of the entire machinery was vied for between several competing and aggressive outside entities - the Manchus come to mind, and in another sense the British later - while leaving the underlying structure still pretty much in place. Chinese nationalism is only now recovering from the perceived humiliation of an enormous vehicle with outsiders at the wheel who didn't always have its interests uppermost in mind.

It's a little difficult envisioning the United States following that path. For one thing the underlying cement for Chinese society was a religious conformity in Confucianism that is nowhere present in the United States, whatever the pretensions of secular humanism. Without that cement it is hard to imagine a similar phenomenon. More likely, in my view, and it certainly tracks with the antecedents of U.S. history, is a devolution to a more regional form of federalism if not a reversion to a purely state-centric model. Which brings us to the third point, which is what comes next. What is more likely under this model, a continued growth and ossification such as the Chinese? A determined reform that maintains the mechanism of the current federation in a greatly attenuated form? Or a complete collapse? And if the latter, what are the implications for government in the DisUnited States?

The last is proper material for speculative historical fiction and so there I'll leave it in hands more capable than mine. The real problem is that none of this will happen in a vacuum; that the precipitating events are unlikely to be confined to the United States, and that whatever the dictates of theory the actual practice is likely to be both messy and unpredictable.

Fun stuff if a bit depressing. Thanks for the post and the ping!

[SunkenCiv]

Note: this topic is from April 21, 2009.

[Pharmboy]

Thanks for the ping, SC, and the great post, AM (I’ve skimmed it but have it bookmarked for later read; assembling my new smoker tonight!!).

[FreedomPoster]

An interesting article I came across recently from a link elsewhere. Of course I find it had been posted here at FR when new.

Worth the read for the Big Ideas aspects, as well as for the longer historical view of what is happening.

[EternalVigilance]

Two possibilities for change seem most promising. The first is a third political party that explicitly repudiates the present course and requires that its members eschew the legitimacy of the Special Interest State. This would require a certain almost religious fervor, but the great tides of history and politics are always religious in nature, so that is no bar.

This second would be more bottom-up. The Constitution has a residue of the original alliance-of-states polity that has never been used. Two-thirds of the state legislatures can force Congress to call a constitutional convention, and the results of that enterprise can then be ratified by three-quarters of the states. So reform efforts could start at the grassroots and coalesce around states until two-thirds of them decide to march on the Capitol. There is already a lively movement along these lines. On the other hand, the states are no paragons, in that the model of the Special Interest State reigns triumphantly there as well, so a few comments about pots and kettles could be made. Realistically, though, organization from the bottom up is a real possibility.

We're already doing both.

Thought-provoking article. Thanks for posting it.