This posting, via the use of several quotes, is visiting a
recurring theme on this blog. That is that
this nation had, as a dominant political, mental construct, a form of
federalism, but that through the years that view was challenged by another
view. The other, which eventually became
dominant, is the natural rights construct.
The evolution of how the nation went from one view to the other was a
slow process, one that was noted for its back and forth progression, and started
at the time when the nation was engaged in the ratification of the US Constitution.
The first
quote is one that he feels best describes and emotes the urgency the advocates of
the natural rights construct feel. It is
from a film, issued during the Cold War, that narrates a bizarre tale over the
“communist menace.” The Manchurian Candidate[1] has a character that is only seen for a
few minutes, he is a presidential candidate who is to be an assassination
victim.
It doesn’t work out that way, but
before the shooting starts, he utters the following: “Nor would I ask of any fellow American in
defense of his freedom that which I would not gladly give myself – my life
before my liberty.”[2] In terms of political values, that describes
a trump value assuming the character has the usual attachment to his life as
most people do.
And why is liberty so valued? Does it guarantee happiness, wealth, a
rewarding family life, or eternal salvation?
No, but natural rights advocates hold this value at the pinnacle and
perhaps that is because they see it as a precondition for any of these other
results. It doesn’t guarantee happiness,
for example, but happiness is impossible without it. That is true, in these advocates’ eyes, at
least, for Americans.
This blog has pointed out that
liberty itself is viewed differently today than it was seen in the nation’s
early days. In those earlier times, John
Winthrop’s view of liberty, defined as the freedom to do what one should do,[3] was the
common notion of liberty. That was a
Calvinist view. Today, the nation views it
as the freedom to do what one wants to do.
The earlier view can be associated with federalist thinking (although
early natural rights advocates saw it similarly); the latter view is more
attuned to a current natural rights view.
This more recent sense of what
liberty is, in the opinion of this writer, has led to the narcissistic levels
the nation is suffering from today.[4] Advocates, who lead responsible lives, might
see the resulting problem as just being the price of liberty. The question that is considered here as
useful to ask is how and why did American political culture shift from the more
obligated view of liberty – associated with federalism – to the more libertine
view of today.
This blog has identified certain
historical events and developments that encouraged or helped cause this
shift. Among them was the western
movement of settlers, the rise of corporations with the resulting
disassociation between ownership and management, the bureaucratization of
government through the Progressive movement and the New Deal that detached
citizens from their government and allowing an individualism to erupt. Another set of events can be associated with
the presidency of Andrew Jackson.
According to the historian, Richard
Hofstadter,[5]
Jackson’s terms of office were situated at a time when entrepreneurship was
experiencing a boost. Till that time,
and even after, most “businesspeople” were farmers of small farms. Hofstadter offers a telling statistic: only one in fifteen Americans lived in towns
of 8,000 or more. The bulk of the population
lived on farms. In the 1830s there is a
sudden uptick in people starting businesses.
Part of the debate over the national
bank was due to this change. For those
who need the reminder, Jackson set upon himself to bring the national bank to
an end in favor of state banks. This was
seen as more readily assisting the business startups of that time. What should be remembered by this move – one
that was very controversial – was the notion that Jackson was concerned over
equal opportunity and adopted a central argument of the natural rights view.
To illustrate, the veto message
Jackson issued – the one that shot down the reauthorization of the bank –
reveal this natural rights perspective.
Here’s part of it:
It is to be regretted that the rich
and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish
purposes. Distinctions in society will
always exist under every just government.
Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by
human institutions. In the full enjoyment
of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and
virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws
undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions,
to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of
society – the farmers, mechanics, and laborers – who have neither the time nor
the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of
the injustice of their Government. There
are no necessary evils in government.
Its evils exist only in its abuses.
If it would confine itself to equal
protection, and, as Heaven does its rain, shower its favors alike on the
high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.[6]
It was felt here that, given the more recent attention
Jackson has enjoyed since the current president has claimed Ol’ Hickory is his
model for an effective president, he deserves some focus here.[7] More to the point, one can detect both
strains of influence in this quote.
On the one
hand, yes, he provides the natural rights sense of equality. Currently, people call that equal condition
and Jackson gives the standard used in this view of equality: government should confine itself to bestowing
equal treatment. If the law says its
provision affects one person one way, that law should affect all people the
same way. According to Jackson, if
government kept it to that, all would be well – a very natural rights’ bias.
But, if one
looks for the reasons of this view, a more federalist view peers through. His concerns regarding the national bank originate
with an economy that was skewed so much in favor of the rich – nothing new
there. Yes, he understood that there
will always be unequal distribution of income and wealth, but artificial
advantages, not all caused by unequal treatment by government, needed to be
addressed. Perhaps government could be
used to assist those caught at the short end of the economic stick. This reflects a more proactive role for
government.
And one sees
this when the national bank is killed, he distributes its moneyed assets to
state banks that were more accommodating to the financial needs of the lower
ranks. This did not end well in that
these banks were so speculative in their lending practices that the economy
fell into a serious inflationary phase that later led to a depression. But the point here is that Jackson’s calls
for advancing self-interest could not escape a more fundamental federated
message.
In what
way? Federalism is about creating a
sense of partnership among the citizenry.
It is not about providing a landscape for energetic citizens getting the
most out of the system irrespective of what happens to the whole national
community. As stated before in this
blog, strong government was not seen as an institution that provided
“giveaways” to the poor, that had never happened to that time. Strong government was an institution that was
instrumental to making the rich richer.
This undermined a federal sense of a union or of a commonwealth.
Is there any
other evidence indicating this view of Jackson or of what was an ideal at the
time? To this end, here is the last
quote of the posting:
Could it really be urged that the
framers of the constitution intended that our Government should become a government
of brokers? If so, then the profits of
this national brokers’ shop must inure to the benefit of the whole and not to a
few privileged monied capitalists to the utter rejection of the many.[8]
One more item this blog has
highlighted is the difference, at the individual level, between theories-in-use
and espoused theories. This writer
believes one can make the same distinction at the societal level. When this blog claims that federalism was the
dominant view of governance and politics, perhaps a more accurate statement
would be, it was the dominant espoused construct. That is, federalism was the source of its
ideals. That can no longer be claimed.
[1] John Frankenheimer (director), The Manchurian Candidate (United Artists, 1962).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Daniel J. Elazar, “How Federal Is the Constitution? Thoroughly” Readings for Classes Taught by Professor Elazar (presentation
materials, prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute,
Steamboat Springs, Colorado, 1994).
[4] Jean M. Twenge and W. Keith Campbell, The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement.
[6] Ibid., 62. (emphasis added)
[7] Focus yes, admiration, given his history associated
with the Cherokee removal and Trail of Tears, no.
[8] Ibid., 45.
No comments:
Post a Comment