Libertarians vs. Progressives
Reason's Damon Root, unsurprisingly takes the side of the libs. It's well worth a read, however, as a reminder of the sordid history of the Progressive movement. As Jonah Goldberg wonders in his book, how come progressives are never asked to own up to the darker moments of their history? Root supplies some of the low points:
Moreover, as economist Tim Leonard points out, progressives believed in a "powerful, centralized state, conceiving of government as the best means for promoting the social good," a belief that directly contributed to the widespread progressive support for eugenics, racial collectivism, and various coercive "reforms." Progressive darling Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, held notoriously racist and imperialist views, including the notion of "race suicide," which held that the white race faced the risk of being out bred by its "little brown brothers." He also believed that the 15th Amendment should never have been ratified since the black race, in his words, was "two hundred thousand years behind" the white.
Against the statist racism, Root celebrates the impedance provided by a stream of libertarian (I'd call them classical liberal) SCOTUS judges. Root suggests that we will need vigilance going forward:
Indeed, as Sutherland and Storey's careers demonstrate, libertarian ideas have long served as a crucial check against the illiberal impulses of progressive majorities. The Jacob Weisbergs of the world notwithstanding, libertarianism matters now more than ever.
Awesome piece. Hat-tip:
Instapundit
Philosophy
Posted by John Kranz at November 13, 2008 11:37 AM
Huh. Where you see an awesome piece, I see a shoddy historical hit job.
Let’s start with Teddy Roosevelt. While the man had statist views in comparison to many of his fellow Republicans,* Roosevelt was hardly an abject racist, and characterizing him as such does a disservice to any attempt at rationally analyzing the man. Indeed, to prove Roosevelt's "notorious" racism, Root has to bend backwards with misquotations and phrases taken completely out of context.
'Race suicide" is a good example of this. Roosevelt talked about this subject several times, (and every time it was in relation to Eastern European immigrants, not Blacks), but his preoccupation with the subject had less to do with fear of an America run by blacks** and
Italians and more to do with the fact that he thought it was morally wrong for a nation not have kids. As he said in his 1910 speech at the Sorbonne: "The chief of blessings for any nation is that it shall leave its seed to inherit the land. The greatest of all curses is sterility, and the severest of all condemnations should be that visited upon willful sterility"
Likewise, Roosevelt's view on the 15th amendment is taken complexly out of context. That statement comes from a letter addressed to Henry S. Pritchett, President of MIT, concerning Republican 'radicalism' and the damage it did to America during the reconstruction. Roosevelt does not criticize the amendment because it gave blacks the right to vote- he is criticizing it because it ruined North-South relations for the next 40 years!
The funniest thing about all of this is that Roosevelt is being billed off as a 'statist racist.' Huh. I always thought that for something to be called statist, it had to involve the government actually doing something. But then again, I could be wrong. We all remember Roosevelt's forced sterilization program, right? Perhaps his battle with New York's state legislature to repeal the 15th amendment comes to mind?
No, the reason Root attacks Roosevelt's purported "views" and "beliefs" instead of actually attacking his national policies is simple. If he did examine Roosevelt's policies, he would have concluded that TR did more for black equality under the law than every other President between Johnson and Johnson. From his reform of the civil service to his plethora of black Presidential appointees, Roosevelt proved by way of deed that he was against racial discrimination.
However, none of this matters to Root, who was so intent on proving libertarianism’s righteousness that he could not be bothered to let historical facts get in his way. After all, he has to prove that progressivism is morally bankrupt! Nothing should get in the way of this valorous task!
And that is what makes his column so funny. I mean, other than "libertarianism rocks!" what is exactly is Root trying to say? "Uh... well, some people who called themselves progressives 100 years did some bad things... and libertarians didn't do bad things back then... so obviously, libertarianism matters a lot... because more people who call themselves progressive just got elected!"
Uhuh. This is sloppy history done for a sloppy article trying to make a sloppy case. Nothing more, and nothing less.
~T. Greer, no friend of idealogues.
*But remarkably less so than the modern GOP. It is kind of funny how yesterday's progressives are today's conservatives, isn't?
**One could again note his "view" that half the congressmen from the South should have been black, as it was "an outrage" for the white men in any district with "three black men and one white" to "suppress the votes of the three black men in order to make his vote worth that of four men."
Huh. Where you see an awesome piece, I see a shoddy historical hit job.
Let’s start with Teddy Roosevelt. While the man had statist views in comparison to many of his fellow Republicans,* Roosevelt was hardly an abject racist, and characterizing him as such does a disservice to any attempt at rationally analyzing the man. Indeed, to prove Roosevelt's "notorious" racism, Root has to bend backwards with misquotations and phrases taken completely out of context.
'Race suicide" is a good example of this. Roosevelt talked about this subject several times, (and every time it was in relation to Eastern European immigrants, not Blacks), but his preoccupation with the subject had less to do with fear of an America run by blacks** and
Italians and more to do with the fact that he thought it was morally wrong for a nation not have kids. As he said in his 1910 speech at the Sorbonne: "The chief of blessings for any nation is that it shall leave its seed to inherit the land. The greatest of all curses is sterility, and the severest of all condemnations should be that visited upon willful sterility"
Likewise, Roosevelt's view on the 15th amendment is taken complexly out of context. That statement comes from a letter addressed to Henry S. Pritchett, President of MIT, concerning Republican 'radicalism' and the damage it did to America during the reconstruction. Roosevelt does not criticize the amendment because it gave blacks the right to vote- he is criticizing it because it ruined North-South relations for the next 40 years!
The funniest thing about all of this is that Roosevelt is being billed off as a 'statist racist.' Huh. I always thought that for something to be called statist, it had to involve the government actually doing something. But then again, I could be wrong. We all remember Roosevelt's forced sterilization program, right? Perhaps his battle with New York's state legislature to repeal the 15th amendment comes to mind?
No, the reason Root attacks Roosevelt's purported "views" and "beliefs" instead of actually attacking his national policies is simple. If he did examine Roosevelt's policies, he would have concluded that TR did more for black equality under the law than every other President between Johnson and Johnson. From his reform of the civil service to his plethora of black Presidential appointees, Roosevelt proved by way of deed that he was against racial discrimination.
However, none of this matters to Root, who was so intent on proving libertarianism’s righteousness that he could not be bothered to let historical facts get in his way. After all, he has to prove that progressivism is morally bankrupt! Nothing should get in the way of this valorous task!
And that is what makes his column so funny. I mean, other than "libertarianism rocks!" what is exactly is Root trying to say? "Uh... well, some people who called themselves progressives 100 years did some bad things... and libertarians didn't do bad things back then... so obviously, libertarianism matters a lot... because more people who call themselves progressive just got elected!"
Uhuh. This is sloppy history done for a sloppy article trying to make a sloppy case. Nothing more, and nothing less.
~T. Greer, no friend of idealogues.
*But remarkably less so than the modern GOP. It is kind of funny how yesterday's progressives are today's conservatives, isn't?
**One could again note his "view" that half the congressmen from the South should have been black, as it was "an outrage" for the white men in any district with "three black men and one white" to "suppress the votes of the three black men in order to make his vote worth that of four men."
Posted by: T. Greer at November 13, 2008 3:35 PMGlad somebody was around to step up for TR -- that's a job this American won't do.
I'll accept your defense of #26 on charges of racism because you sounded authoritative and I have no specific knowledge or evidence to back up Mister Root. (Though given a second, flipping through Liberal Fascism, I could probably -- never mind.)
But I will not let TR off the hook for statism. His "trust-busting" activism pushed Presidents off the track of humble, Madison #10, executives. And he set a horrible example for Senator McCain.
Nor will I give the Progressive movement a pass on racism. If TR did not, Margaret Sanger surely tried and President Wilson certainly countenanced eugenics -- under the Progressive banner. Many of the signature progressive pieces had this odd habit of favoring whites over blacks.
Nor will I understate the contributions of Supreme Court Justices in impeding the worst parts of progressivism. You don't have to call them "libertarians" and I dare say Charles Evans Hughes would have looked askance at that, but the point of Root's (generally awesome) piece is that SCOTUS held the line through the TR, Wilson, and FDR Administrations worst excesses. And that we're likely to need that again today.
Posted by: jk at November 13, 2008 4:23 PMAye, Roosevelt was a statist, that is for sure. But then again- who isn't? Sure, Roosevelt was an extremist when compared to Hanna, or Cannon but if one were to compare his governmental policies to those of Bush, DeLay, or even Reagan, I think he would come rather well off. Although he did support a few things that are unpopular around here, (i.e. a progressive income tax), I can't help but think that most modern conservatives would balk at how little his plan asked for: one 5% tax on the top bracket.
I also think Roosevelt would be sick at the sight of our modern welfare state- as he said himself, "We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves"
I am rather confidant that Mr. Roosevelt would not hesitate to veto every piece of welfare legislation to come through the Congress. How many modern Republicans would also do so?
None of this is to excuse Mr. Roosevelt from his many faults and flaws. In particular, I believe his view of the Presidency as the "public steward" who should act when Congress doesn't, is in direct violation of the purpose of the office as planned by the framers. (Although one could argue that such activism goes back quite a bit farther- Lincoln and Jackson in particular come to mind.)
~T. Greer, arguing for a more nuanced view of our history. He is also arguing that it was F. Roosevelt's positive rights, not T. Roosevelt's executive bending, that brought about most of our modern woes.
Posted by: T. Greer at November 13, 2008 5:29 PMWow, nice dialog guys. Particularly tg's second installment. My understanding of the earlier Roosevelt is much shallower than this. (I blame my public school education.) I do remember San Juan hill, his muscular diplomacy (speak softly and carry a big stick), his creation of the national parks, and something called the "Bull Moose Party." The rest of the details are hazy.
The 20th century, commonly called "the American century" was a curious era. American industry certainly earned an A+ but American government gets a D. The ideas attributed above to TR may be only a pinch of poison but they are poison nonetheless. See now what they've become.
Posted by: johngalt at November 13, 2008 10:48 PMI'm no scholar on the time period, but I have recently read a spate of books that are very unkind to the Progressive Era. Gene Healy's The Cult of the Presidency points out that we made it over 100 years through powerful presidencies like Lincoln's. When TR & Wilson took us off the tracks we never recovered.
TG says that TR wasn't as bad as FDR but JK would say that's a pretty low bar. I'd say TR was quite a bit better than Wilson. Healy, and Jonah Goldberg, and David Boaz all lump the two of them together. This does better service to President Wilson. And yet they both, un-Taft-like, sought to represent our nation's "soul" rather than the mundane task of keeping the legislature in check.
Healy points out that we never really recovered from that. Boaz is a bit less kind and Goldberg calls it the period of American Fascism.
I want to like Teddy for his erudition. I'm thinking he was probably our smartest President and I always thought of him as "our Churchill" for his combination of intellect and toughness. But his record is pretty sketchy in the liberty department.
Posted by: jk at November 15, 2008 12:00 PMI don't know if he can be called the smartest President America has ever had (Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Coolidge, and Eisenhower could all contest that claim), but I do think it is fair to label Mr. Roosevelt as the most titanic character to ever enter the White House. Having recently read his Autobiography and Edmund Morris' Theodore Rex, I cannot help but be overwhelmed by the sheer pace at which Roosevelt lead his life. Even with the job of President, Roosevelt managed to read more than a hundred books a year (many in French and German), write thousands of pages worth of articles, speeches, and books, give a personal visit to every traveling intellectual, writer, or historian in Washington, read several newspapers a day (in their entirety), take day long hikes, shooting trips, and horseback rides once every week or so, master and maintain the ability to play tennis and fight in boxing ring, bully both the Democratic and old-guard Republican congressmen, and spend a substantial amount of time teaching and playing with his children.
Of course, the ability to lead a strenuous life and enact good policies are two different things, and give Roosevelt has a mixed record on the second count. Again, I agree with you in that his biggest problem was the popularization of the idea that the Executive branch was the steward of the people- indeed, I think every once in a while, Roosevelt thought he was the people. However, I do not think Roosevelt’s infraction were particularly bad. A quick comparison with Lincoln (who, incidentally, Roosevelt drew a large amount of his political inspiration from) shows who the worse of the two was: Roosevelt never suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, never imprisoned thousands of his citizens without warrant, and never launched a war without the consent of Congress. And while yes, Lincoln’s executive style did not live long after his death, I cannot help but wonder if it would have flourished were Lincoln’s days of shaping public policy cut short by an assassin’s bullet.
I also think a lot of Healy’s criticism of the early progressives is unfair- from what I have read from the book’s reviews (and correct me if I am wrong here) Healy’s most strident objections to the ‘cult of the presidency’ come from the fact that Americans expect our Presidents to work wonders and solve all of the world’s problems. You can’t blame Roosevelt for this- his role is limited to making an Executive that formed laws as well as enforced them. However, this was not a change in the type of laws being made so much as it was a change in the branch of government making the changes.
That transformation came with FDR. Before FDR, the role of American government was to protect liberty and foster conditions that promoted (or were thought to promote) the prosperity of farmers and entrepreneurs of the nation. (Trust busting, tariffs, internal improvements, and Indian removal being the most prominent examples of such policies.) However, with the help of Mr. Roosevelt’s nice little firesides, the entire dialogue about good governance changed. The government no longer protected your liberty or prosperity- it was the source of it. The government protected freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but it also provided freedom from want and freedom from fear as. This was unprecedented in the course American history. Whereas the government had once been treated with a sort of distrust, viewed the inferior of the powers of ‘society,’ and relegated to a distinct sphere, the government now was the only thing anybody trusted, viewed as the only solution available to society’s problems, and occupying a sphere that included near every part of the average American’s life.
It was not the expansion of the Executive branch that led to the abuse of Executive powers. It was the fundamental change in how Americans thought about the relationship between the American people and American government that brought us the horrors seen in today's bloated government.
~T. Greer, affirming that the American Dream died with the Great Depression.
Posted by: T. Greer at November 15, 2008 9:54 PM | What do you think? [6]