Replies

What can I say, Lind is basically correct. My complaint is that he doesn't allow for the ambiguities of politics. Just look at William Jennings Bryan. He bounces back and forth between Jefferson and Hamilton so much, he had to be dizzy half the time. He believed in the independent farmer, yet he was all for wage labor, regulated by government. He wanted government to own the railroads, at the same time as giving monopoly status to labor unions. He wanted a silver currency. And so on. The only thing we can label Bryan is a populist. (And a good thing he never became president; he was a god-awful Sec. of State).

I suppose T. Roosevelt was closer to the Hamiltonian view during his presidency, but into his ex-presidency he left Hamilton for Croly (who wrote in 1909, after Roosevelt left office). Henceforth, and outside of tarrifs, Roosevelt had little to do with Hamilton. I suppose there is a correlation between government "promotion" and "regulation" of industries, but not much more. Hamilton's promotion certainly included monetary policy, tariff protection, and canal and road building, but it certainly didn't get into T. Roosevelt's government-business "commissions," etc.

I go back to my man Taft. In 1912 he looked about him and saw the currents in a swirl. On the one hand the Progressives wanted Croly's workman's paradise, and they'd get there by bringing business and government together in the interests of the common man (waaaaay too much Hitler in that one for me). They'd also get there by making the Constitution easier to amend and judical rulings subject to a voter approval by majority vote. On the other hand were the Democrats, with Wilson, considered a southern conservative, but with Bryan ever looming above. They would solve the world's problems by eliminating the tariff (Jeffersonian) and have government all but run the trains (socialism). Their view of business was that it was all evil except in the home state, at which point all the powers of the Government ought be submitted on its behalf.

Taft shook his fist at the extreme solutions around him. He explained the futility of the socialist destruction of private property. He pointed to the dangers of unchecked majority rule. He looked about him and saw two fundamental forces at work -- he asked, if "government is framed for the greatest good of the greatest number and also for the greatest good of the individual... [how do both] proceed side by side"? Sounds like a pretty good question for our forum here. Libertarians who reject the "greatest good of the greatest number" only get around it by calculating all national interests on the individual, a land of good neighbors. Ultimately, it's the same thing. And statists who reject the "greatest good of the individual" are simply wrong, philosophically and proven in the disasterous 20th century, as you point out.

Taft freely admitted that the "Jeffersonian idea" that the "least government is best" was incapable to meet present conditions, and he acknowledged a necessity for statutory response to those demands. However, he would accept no solution that did not enforce "as the highest ideal in society... equality of opportunity for every member born into it." Whatever changes were to be made must come "without destroying the present structure of our Government and without affecting the guarantees of life, liberty, and property."

He went on:

"The most abiding compliment that can be paid to the American people is to point to the fact that in the Constitution which they framed and have maintained they have recognized the danger of hasty action by themselves, and have, in its checks and balances, voluntarily maintained a protection against it. The trust is that in this last century we have vindicated popular government in a way that it has never been vindicated before."

Distrust of popular government! The pride that I have that this is a popular Government, and that it has shown itself the strongest in history, is as deeply embed as any feeling that is in me. I would be the last man to exclude from the direction of the ship of state the will of the American people. That is the ultimate source of authority, and it does not in any way minimize my faith and my love of popular government that I insist that the expression of that popular will shall be with the deliberation to make it sound and safe."
I think Taft would find Sobran's article silly. Or he might think that Roosevelt wrote it. (Probably both).

Good to hear from you again!

For whatever it's worth, I believe Mr. Taft was wrong – specifically:

"The most abiding compliment that can be paid to the American people is to point to the fact that in the Constitution which they framed and have maintained...

Many would suggest that the Constitution of the Founders was not in fact “maintained."

... they have recognized the danger of hasty action by themselves, and have, in its checks and balances, voluntarily maintained a protection against it.

Mr. Madison wrote at length concerning the folly of trusting the federal government, specifically including the judiciary branch, to ‘check’ and ‘balance’ itself (please refer to his Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1800). The real “checks and balances” of Mr. Madison’s ‘compound republic’ (if I remember his term correctly) were completely dependent upon the continued survival of vigorous State governments capable of ‘interposing’ between their citizens and federal tyranny.

The trust is that in this last century we have vindicated popular government in a way that it has never been vindicated before.

The use of the federal military to forcefully retain nearly half of the States and populace within the federal union could be described in many ways, but “popular government” would not be the phrase I would personally select.

Perhaps Mr. Taft should have asked a few of the surviving “states’ rights” advocates whether they ‘distrusted’ the ‘popular government.’

I intend no disrespect to the memory of Mr. Taft. However, the century just ended provided more than sufficient justification for the Jeffersonian distrust of government – the ‘dangerous servant and fearful master’ of Mr. Washington’s observation.

As for Mr. Lind, I believe his book is well worth reading. Interestingly enough, he seems to think that the current Democratic Party has lost whatever attachment it possessed to Hamiltonian ideals (although the party’s Marxist tilt would seem to incline it more towards Mr. Hamilton’s ‘expansive’ government than Mr. Jefferson’s limited government). He also refers to the current Republican Party as “Jeffersonian” in nature, and apparently considers most of its members to be “Jeffersonian yahoos.”

With that in mind, I must ask: do you consider the accomplishments of the Republican Party (increasingly “Jeffersonian” since at least 1980) to be of value? And do you consider yourself (in any way, shape, or form) to be one of the “yahoos” - or do you just enjoy debating us?

;>)