Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Changes
Thus Franklin Delano Roosevelt accepted the presidential nomination of the Democratic party in 1932. Thus began a fundamental change in how the people of this country chose to govern themselves.
It is usually misleading to pick an event out of history and claim it to be a turning point, in that all that went before was one way, and all that came after was something else. In reality, the flow of history is much more continuous. We just don’t see that continuity in the trivia-based analysis of history that most if us have been taught.
The New Deal was an evolutionary result of the political thought that came before, not something revolutionary. The Progressive Era, usually pegged to the early 1900s, introduced the idea to the American populace that significant government involvement in the free-market economy was a beneficial thing. Injustices could be righted, wealth could be equitably distributed, the neglected could be cared for, and intelligent people, far more intelligent than your average joe, could be recruited to make the important decisions and run the economy from above. As the American people blamed the excesses of the capitalists in the 1920s for the hardships of the depression in the 1930s, these ideas resonated with the American people, and they elected Roosevelt in a landslide in 1932. With this mandate he instituted his relief agenda, fundamentally different from anything that had come before.
In 1936, Republican opposition to the New Deal remained strong. Alf Landon, the Republican presidential nominee, was quoted in Time magazine as saying:
The fundamental legitimacy of the New Deal was still being questioned as being in opposition to the American ideal of personal liberty.
Landon lost the 1936 election in one of the most lopsided elections in American history.
By 1952, when the Republican party was finally able to break the dominance of the Democrats, the programs and ideas of the New Deal were tacitly accepted by the moderates that controlled the Republican party. It was well recognized that in order to have some chance at taking power, running against the sentiments of the majority of Americans was pure folly.
Never again was there a serious effort to go back to the pre-New Deal era. Never again would the Republican party advocate the real repeal of the excessive regulation, harmful economic intervention, and blatant wealth redistribution that had been a result of the Roosevelt era. America had changed, in very fundamental ways.
Today we live with the legacy of these changes. Those ideas of the New Deal have been abused to an extent that may have appalled Roosevelt and the liberals of his time. Landon and his compatriots can sit back and say “I told you so”. However, as the status quo is what the people want, that is what they will get. Warts and all.
Are we on the verge of seeing the changing attitudes of the American people being reflected in yet another major shift to the left in moderate Republican policy?
In recent decades, moderate Republicans have fairly consistently espoused views along the lines of a strong national defense, free trade, controlled immigration, anti-gun control, anti-abortion, lower taxes, smaller government, etc. Those of us who are of a conservative bent can usually find ourselves agreeing at least in broad strokes with the central ideas put forth by these candidates.
When I look at the Republican candidates that are leading in the polls for the 2008 presidential election, I see candidates that are leaving some of these issues behind, in very significant ways. Despite assurances that New York is different from the rest of the country, it is quite clear that there is a great philosophical divide on gun control for example, and that common ground on this issue is unlikely to be reached. Given the philosophical divide on this and other issues, can we trust this man? I don’t know.
More worrisome to me is that the consensus candidate, the moderate, the center of our side of the political spectrum, has shifted to someone with philosophical differences so great from that of conservatives. I fear that the trend will only continue, and that we will be left further and further behind.
We will do what we can, and we will fight the good fight. However, in the end the masses rule this country, and we will bow to their will. We can only hope to be a strong positive influence in that process. I hope it is enough.
Comments
-
“However, in the end the masses rule this country, and we will bow to their will.”
Uhhh leave me out of that could ya? Did not end up to well for the Germans. I bow to no will and I don’t think you would either.
Dbltap | 11/7/2007 10:56 PM CDT -
Yes, of course he would and I would. The outcome of elections is to be taken as sacred.
I may plot my escape and take that opportunity to do it, but if we believe in Original Intent AT ALL, we have to accept the will of the majority.
Mrs. du Toit | 11/7/2007 11:59 PM CDT -
Under original intent the “majority” had very little say in the outcome of elections, a shame that has changed.
dbltap | 11/8/2007 01:57 AM CDT
