Replies

The writer is ignorant of American History. What the so called reformicons seem to be advocating is old fashioned Henry Clay Whiggism. The Whig Party advocated that the federal government be active in promoting economic growth and commerce. In simple terms, set the conditions that would allow business and industry to flourish, like financing the construction of canals, highways, and railroads. Quite different from Jacksonian Democrats and Wilsonian Democrats. Jacksonian were more libertarian in their outlook on economics, and also favored agriculture over commerce and industry. Wilsonian Progressive diverged in their emphasis on social welfare, the beginnings of wealth redistribution instead of wealth creation. To say that the old Whig program does not work is to ignore the last 40 years of the 19th Century, the Gilded Age. Remember, upon the end of the Civil War the old Whigs, now Republicans, were solidly in control. They unleashed a stretch of economic growth never to be equaled, even by Reagan. They propelled an agricultural society into an industrial world power. Now I'm not sold that this is what is needed now, but I'm willing to listen to the arguments without dismissing them out of hand with comic book history.

They unleashed a stretch of economic growth never to be equaled, even by Reagan. They propelled an agricultural society into an industrial world power.

And drove millions of freehold farmers off the land with railroad tariffs (ever hear of The Octopus? That was the Central Pacific aka Southern Pacific, which my great-grandfather worked for as conductor and stationmaster for over 30 years [12-hour days, 7 days/wk] until they retired him with a gold watch [sister has it now]), rigged markets (ever hear of the Yellow Sheets?), oligopsony, and bank loans tied to the Gold Standard, which gave lenders a couple of points' bump against silver over the life of the loan.

The word "plutocracy" applies here. As in, Pinkerton and union-busting, Chicago bulls and busted heads, Homestead and Presser vs. Illinois and the beginning of gun control. Time clocks and tyrannical management practices and fifteen cents an hour. The Federal Reserve and currency manipulation, "repression" and recycling people's savings out from under them.

And don't forget drowning for some people, and immunity from liability for the centimillionaire owners of the Johnstown Flood, the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, and the RMS Titanic.

And the Civil War that enabled it all, the war to secure title to America's future, people, and resources to the moguls of the Atlantic Seaboard cities and their exarchates in the Old Northwest.

Yeah, it's been a real party. For some people.

Could you pass the creme brulee? Muffy and Buffy have invited me along for a splendid afternoon on the water with Chip and Skip and Poppy, and I'll need to keep my energy up for tennis later on.

Wilsonian Progressive diverged in their emphasis on social welfare, the beginnings of wealth redistribution instead of wealth creation.

Yes, they have been authors in what they thought was a good cause of a program too easily overreached and hijacked by Communists acting behind masks, and by Fabian dissemblers.

The old Jacksonians were the Jeffersonians on steroids, and their concern was the People. Jackson and Taney fought the banks and their octopoidal reach (we seem to be dealing with octopi today), and they fought the tendency of the Whigs to pour out public "improvement" capital in the backyards of the banks. Items: The Erie Canal, the Chesapeake Canal, the Transcontinental Railroad (Lincoln's 1862 legislation was a classic: it benefited nobody south of St. Louis), and the Federal Turnpike (US 40).

Good post. I'm not sure Henry Clay Whiggism is what's needed now either or that it was the way to go at the time, but we could have stayed a much poorer country if we had restricted all government activity to a bare minimum. To be sure, the industrial revolution was brutal, but so were pre-industrial conditions. Farm labor could be back-breaking even if there were no railroads or Rockefellers or Pinkertons.

The writer has other problems, too. Full time government employees are likely to be Democrats out of self-interest. Also, by law they're not supposed to play politics while they're in government employ. It's against the law, isn't it? Government employees tend to stay in government for the pension, so they aren't likely ever to be making much of a noise on the political or intellectual scene.

Also, I'm not sure that his "reformicons" are really that enthusiastic about using government to change human nature or behavior. It's more that government isn't going to go away. Only very rarely do countries vote to cut back government programs or services. Sorry, but it doesn't happen that often. No more than private citizens voluntarily slashing their own incomes or expenditures.

Given that government isn't going away or shrinking down to the minimal state anytime soon, it can do more or less harm. It can be largely destructive or at least a little bit constructive, and I suspect that's what the reformicons are after, though they may deceive themselves with "compassionate conservative" rhetoric.

Yuval Levin's hope that government can strengthen society or the community seems misplaced, but I'd really be surprised if Levin and the others were out to "nudge" American society in the way Cass Sunstein and other progressives urge. I suspect it's more a matter of getting the government (that we aren't going to get rid of any time soon) to do less harm, and perhaps even a little good, if only indirectly or accidentally.