Thoughts from George Will on the parallels between Wilson and the current president.
How gripped was Wilson by what Beinart calls “the hubris of reason”? Beinart writes: “He even recommended to his wife that they draft a constitution for their marriage. Let’s write down the basic rules, he suggested; ‘then we can make bylaws at our leisure as they become necessary.’ It was an early warning sign, a hint that perhaps the earnest young rationalizer did not understand that there were spheres where abstract principles didn’t get you very far, where reason could never be king.”
Professor Obama, who will seek re-election on the 100th anniversary of Wilson’s 1912 election, understands, which makes him melancholy. Speaking to Katie Couric on Feb. 7, Obama said: “I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, academically approved approach to health care, and didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it, and just go ahead and have that passed. But that’s not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people.”
Note his aesthetic criterion of elegance, by which he probably means sublime complexity. During the yearlong health care debate, Republicans such as Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee have consistently cautioned against the conceit that government is good at “comprehensive” solutions to the complex problems of a continental nation. Obama has consistently argued, in effect, that the health care system is like a Calder mobile — touch it here and things will jiggle here, there and everywhere. Because everything is connected to everything else, merely piecemeal change is impossible.
So note also Obama’s yearning for something “academically approved” rather than something resulting from “a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people,” aka politics. Here, too, Obama is in the spirit of the U.S. President who first was president of the American Political Science Association.
It’s worth noting that Wilson was the first fascist dictator we ever had as president, and a model for much of Mussolini’s program. We’ll never know what he might have done had he failed in his bid for a third term — the nation was saved by his stroke.
I always read you with pleasure and often with agreement but, good Heavens, isn’t a bit worst-of-Kos to describe Mr Wilson without qualification to be a “fascist dictator”? or am I misreading somehow? perhaps I’m more ignorant of presidential history than I ought to be.
I think it’s a quite accurate description. There’s a lot of the history of the Wilson administration that isn’t generally taught in schools, but even what is is pretty damning. You might want to read this, and make your own assessment. And it doesn’t even mention his virulent racism. Hint: what do you think that Harding meant by a “return to normalcy”?
I have to go with Rand on that characterization. It’s different from what I’d say, but not stronger.
This business about “drafting a constitution document” for conduct of a marriage. Don’t know much about the historical Mrs. Wilson, but it seems as if Michelle Obama would stand for something like this . . . for about 3 milliseconds.
Republicans such as Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee have consistently cautioned against the conceit that government is good at “comprehensive” solutions to the complex problems of a continental nation
A skepticism that only emerges when they’re in the minority.
Because everything is connected to everything else, merely piecemeal change is impossible.
Will, by contrast, would build a one-legged stool, and postpone thinking about additional legs until some future date.
Doe anybody have any idea what Jim is prattling about? Including Jim?
McGehee, we would have to care first.
I guess this is the place to mention Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”. Though I have a feeling quite a few people here have already read the book, it has a great chapter on Wilson that fits in well with Will’s column .
Woodrow Wilson, father of the Leage of Uncommonly Gentle Nations….That worked out well didn’t it!?!
Oh and howdy Cousin!
I’ve bookmarked that link on Wilson (an eye opener.)
The US definition of “dictator” is so amusing. It’s sufficient to declare every Prime Minister or President of other democracies around the world as dictators. As for fascist…. isn’t that what the US is? You rub my back, I’ll donate to your re-election campaign.
“Prime Minister” and “President” do not preclude one from also being a dictator, Trent. Examples of both abound. Just off the top of my head:
“Prime Minister” O. Cromwell
“Premiere” (means the same thing as PM) I. Stalin
“Premiere” M. Gorbechev (just because he’s a more tolerant dictator doesn’t mean he isn’t one)
“President” J. Peron
“President” S. Hussein
“President” H. Chavez
“President” A. Pinochet
This can be extended further – K. Marx demanded a dictatorship of the proletariat. But that doesn’t change the fact that he demanded a dictatorship, regardless of whom he demanded sit in its all-empowered, all-encompassing, and all-corrupting seat.
But then, since you’re using the term “fascist” wrong – with a small f instead of a capital F, it is a synonym for “totalitarian,” nothing more and nothing less – I shouldn’t be surprised at your incomprehension of the word “dictator” either.
As a minor aside, each of those examples of benevolent-titled dictators I mentioned was elected, democratically. Each was elected by an electorate as defined before they rose to power (limited or not as the case may be), and each won precisely one election before taking the reins of power permanently (with the exception of Chavez, if I recall right; he lost his bid for total domination the first time he tried, and successfully won it on his second attempt).
No, dude, what I’m saying is that Americans have a viewpoint of “dictator” that which many democracies around the world find perfectly fine. In fact, about the only thing unacceptable in most democracies is for elected officials to subvert the political process (say, I don’t know, by canceling elections or by running big election campaigns). Oh and corruption. I’m not meaning to be ironic here, it’s just coming out that way.
No, dude, what I’m saying is that Americans have a viewpoint of “dictator” that which many democracies around the world find perfectly fine.
Democracies like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea?
Please tell us more about what these “Americans” believe.
In fact, about the only thing unacceptable in most democracies is for elected officials to subvert the political process (say, I don’t know, by canceling elections or by running big election campaigns).
How about that? I imagine you’d find that most people whom “Americans” consider “dictators” actually do things like that.
Incidentally, I ran into the dark side of the Wilson administration when I was reading up on the 1918 influenza epidemic. Woodrow Wilson wasn’t the only one abusing his power. This extended down into city level politics. The city of Philadelphia, for example, suppressed information about the new lethal strain of influenza, even to the point of having the city’s appointed health official (some sort of “commissioner” I dimly recall, who was strictly a political appointee) lie brazenly about the extend and severity of the influenza outbreak in Philadelphia. It was considered more important to not “panic” the citizens of Philadelphia than it was to tell them the truth about a lethal disease that ended up killing 13,000 Philadelphians.
The same power that allowed Wilson to suppress his political opponents worked to suppress information about the influenza epidemic. Newspapers at first couldn’t publish stories (there were a few exceptions due to supportive town governments) about it or even lied that the disease was not a threat. I imagine this proved very ineffective in Philadelphia when your family was laid out with the disease and you knew of a few deaths in your block.
The author didn’t go into it. But I imagine the city had a lot of leeway from the Wilson administration because they eagerly further Wilson ambitions. For example, they supplied plenty of soldiers, propagated the appropriate Wilson propaganda, and delivered plenty of war bonds purchases. In fact, during the early days of the influenza epidemic, the political leaders of the city chose to go forward with a large war bonds parade even though this would spread the disease.
Finally, there’s an example of Wilson’s hubris later on. Apparently in 1919, he chose to negotiate one-on-one with each of the leaders of England and France (apparently leaving even his own negotiating team out of the loop). They apparently took turns wearing him down. Then Wilson finally caught the influenza (he didn’t get it during the more lethal 1918 waves). The other leaders pressed their advantage. Wilson crumpled like wet cardboard, allowing all of his Fourteen Points to slide away. That bout of flu may as well have contributed to his subsequent stroke a few months later when Wilson campaigned to justify the treaty (and presumably build up to another run for office in 1920).
These sorts of actions do not strike me as belonging to a great president.
A skepticism that only emerges when they’re in the minority.
Do you have evidence to the contrary? I frankly can think of a lot of government programs that are poorly run, even unnecessary, especially in today’s government.
Or do you think that labeling a hypocrite as such is some how sufficient proof that they are wrong? I find that politically, the minority is keen on fairness and making sound political decisions while the majority prefers to abuse power. This hypocritical stance seems universal no matter who is in power.
Trent, perhaps you could name some national leaders have been unfairly tarred by the American public as dictators?
A skepticism that only emerges when they’re in the minority.
Yeah. When in the majority their pushing their own comprehensive health
careinsurance reform.Will, by contrast, would build a one-legged stool, and postpone thinking about additional legs until some future date.
Nope. He’d just point out the stool being proposed didn’t have any legs at all.
I just bought a copy of the ‘5000 year leap‘ which points to Wilson’s WWI rally cry, ‘make the world safe for democracy’ popularized the idea that the USA was a democracy rather than a republic. Further democracy is what socialists were calling themselves since socialism was revealing itself through bad examples (pg. 158-159)
Oops. That link was to the CD. Here’s the book at Walmart for anyone that wants a copy for themselves.
Or better, use Rand’s Amazon link above. 😉
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Social Security dramatically reduced poverty among the elderly and disabled. The Great Society programs dramatically reduced poverty, period. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts overthrew nearly a century of legal racial oppression. The Clean Air Act and EPA gave us a much safer environment. The Interstate Highway system revolutionized transportation. There are plenty of examples of successful, comprehensive U.S. government action.
do you think that labeling a hypocrite as such is some how sufficient proof that they are wrong?
It isn’t proof that they are wrong, just that they don’t particularly care whether they’re right. The GOP only has one goal: to keep Obama and the Dems from getting anything done. Republicans correctly see their political opportunity in obstruction, and it doesn’t much matter to them whether they’re obstructing good policy or bad policy. If anything they have more reason to oppose good policy.
“The problems of maintained civilization are not to be solved by a transfer of responsibility from citizenship to government”
Warren G. Harding
May 14, 1920
— the president’s response to Jim.
I smiled when I saw the description of Wilson as Fascist. Why? Because it fits so well, but is sparsely known.
That linked article is excellent, though I’d be inclined to give Wilson a pass, to a degree, regarding his manipulations to get America into WWI. There were, at the time (and without benefit of hindsight) legitimate strategic concerns. I’ll note that FDR is oft lauded for similar manipulations regarding American entry into WWII.
However, that in no way justifies Wilson’s many other authoritarian measures. I don’t know whether I’d rank him our worst president (I have trouble seeing anyone other than James Buchanan holding that title) but I’d rank Wilson a close second, and consider his stroke a literal stroke of good fortune for the country.
Speaking of James Buchanan, I see parallels to Obama; Buchanan presided over the dissolution of the union largely via inaction, whereas Obama is provoking secessionist feelings. For examples, see current moves by Texas, Arizona, Maryland, Idaho, Virginia, Alabama, etc, to declair any federal health-insurance mandate null and void in their jurisdictions. This raises the old nullification issue, and that, to me, is an ominous parallel to 1860. Do I think it will lead to armed conflict if Obamacare passes? Probably not, but “Probably” is not comforting for this kind of issue, IMHO.
Ramming through a massive change that most people oppose is playing with fire of the worst kind. It scares me that they might have no clue what they are risking. It scares me more to realize that maybe they do.
Social Security dramatically reduced poverty among the elderly and disabled. The Great Society programs dramatically reduced poverty, period. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts overthrew nearly a century of legal racial oppression. The Clean Air Act and EPA gave us a much safer environment. The Interstate Highway system revolutionized transportation. There are plenty of examples of successful, comprehensive U.S. government action.
Social Security and other Great Society programs are terrible examples. They are simply transfers of wealth done inefficiently and commonly without need. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts are reversals of government solutions (things like Jim Crow laws that institutionalized racism).
The Clean Air Act and the EPA (along with OSHA, the workplace safety regulator) are again a poor example. They caused considerable industry to cease or move overseas and have an undue bureaucratic burden. The roles are important, but there are absurd regulations on exposure limits and release of chemicals (for example, the release of minor amounts of CFC’s need to be reported), paperwork to fill out for trivial accidents (like small cuts), the viciously punitive Superfund act (where generating a portion of the chemicals at a polluted site, even if you had no responsibility in creating the problem, can make you liable for the entire cleanup, which can be ludicrously expensive since no one else cares how much it costs), and the EPA’s recent declaration that carbon dioxide “harms” human welfare and hence is a material that can be regulated by the EPA.
The interstate highway system is better than most, though it is worth noting that it killed off most commercial public transportation in the process and has long acted as indirect heavy subsidies to oil producers.
It isn’t proof that they are wrong, just that they don’t particularly care whether they’re right. The GOP only has one goal: to keep Obama and the Dems from getting anything done. Republicans correctly see their political opportunity in obstruction, and it doesn’t much matter to them whether they’re obstructing good policy or bad policy. If anything they have more reason to oppose good policy.
You should consider why that tactic works.
It’s different from what I’d say, but not stronger.
My description would consist of genitalia a mouth and negative pressure combined to create an adjective.
Ramming through a massive change that most people oppose
If the bill passes it will be because 60 Senators and a majority of Congressmen voted for it. If that’s “ramming through,” then every law we have was “rammed through.”
As for “most people oppose”, much of the opposition comes from people who don’t think it goes far enough: they want single-payer, or at least Medicare buy-in or a public option. The Senate bill is a compromise measure, but it has more support than any alternative.
Social Security and other Great Society programs are terrible examples. They are simply transfers of wealth done inefficiently and commonly without need.
They accomplished exactly what they set out to do: they dramatically reduced poverty.
they dramatically reduced poverty.
Of the program managers, but they discourage the recipients from getting out of poverty or for the local community to care.
“They accomplished exactly what they set out to do: they dramatically reduced poverty.”
Which of course justifies the coercion involved. Essentially a variation on the argument-from-pity fallacy.
If that’s “ramming through,” then every law we have was “rammed through.”
It’s rammed through because of those that are shut out of the process. It’s a bad bill or they wouldn’t have to go through such machinations to attempt to pass it.
Ken,
There is no reason to confuse Jim with your so called “facts”. Just because the destruction of the inner city coincided with the introduction of the great society programs he loves, doesn’t mean one caused the other. But that’s the way to bet.
Even if one accepted Jim’s Bizarro Planet ethics and logic–i.e., that the augment-from-pity is a valid argument, and that coercive redistributon of wealth is justified when it eliminates poverty–one wonders if even on Bizarro Planet one could actually see where Jim’s beloved Great Society programs actually eliminated poverty. In my native New York City and my adopted new hometown, Atlanta, pretty much the areas that were slums during LBJ’s administration would remain slums for the next several decades. In Atlanta, from what old-timers tell me, they even got worse, as the third-generation welfare recipients discovered more potent pharmacueticals and more sophisticated weaponry. The only thing that eliminated slums in either city was the much-hated gentrification, whereby the poverty itself wasn’t eliminated as much moved to other neuighborhoods.
They accomplished exactly what they set out to do: they dramatically reduced poverty.
No sign of cost/benefit analysis here. They had a purpose, they accomplished it, at least as Jim sees it. No consideration of the loss of freedom, whether the programs actually did what Jim claims they did, the cost of these programs or unintended consequences, etc.
It’s rammed through because of those that are shut out of the process.
Crazy talk. The GOP isn’t shut out of the process, they just have fewer votes. By your logic the election of Scott Brown was “rammed through” because the Coakley voters were “shut out of the process.”
No sign of cost/benefit analysis here
Lamar Alexander says that the U.S. government can’t do comprehensive reform. I dare him to tell his constituents that he thinks Social Security and Medicare and the Clean Air Act and the interstate highway system are all failures — they know better.
one wonders if even on Bizarro Planet one could actually see where Jim’s beloved Great Society programs actually eliminated poverty
You don’t have to look far:
Percentage of U.S. elderly in poverty in 1959: 35%
Percentage of U.S. elderly in poverty in 2003: 10%
Lamar Alexander says that the U.S. government can’t do comprehensive reform. I dare him to tell his constituents that he thinks Social Security and Medicare and the Clean Air Act and the interstate highway system are all failures — they know better.
As I said, “no sign of cost/benefit analysis here”. The public “knows better”. Let’s keep a few things in mind here. A majority of the “constituents”, the ones that vote, get Social Security and Medicare benefits. It’s self-interest masquerading as “know better”. For the Clean Air Act, it’s worth noting that very few constituents have to deal with the bureaucracy of the Act. They don’t have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars because of a legal action performed thirty years ago.
Excuse me, a legal action performed fifty years ago. It’s been a while since Superfund was created.
Percentage of U.S. elderly in poverty in 1959: 35%
Percentage of U.S. elderly in poverty in 2003: 10%
Please stop being an idiot, Jim. Guess what else changed between 1959 and 2003? GDP per capita.
GDP per capita in 1959 (in 2005 dollars) : $2,762.50
GDP per capita in 2003 (again in 2005 dollars): $11,840.70
In other words, more than a factor of four increase in wealth generated per person in the US. A far wealthier society will result in a massive reduction in poverty of the elderly (as well as everyone else).
There’s one way to possibly distinguish the effects of growing GDP-per-capita from the effects of the War On Poverty: GDP growth is relatively smooth over decades, whereas the War On Poverty programs were enacted relatively suddenly in the mid 1960s. So if we examine poverty rates over a long timescale, we can try to look for a sudden change in the 1960s:
http://books.google.com/books?id=vHOtYFLeXP4C&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Thanks, LBJ…
Ahem.
Looking at the chart you reference Karl…
You’re mixing Real Total GDP with GDP per Capita… I thought it looked screwy because if a family could live sensibly with one person working on a GDP per Capita of $2800 in 2005 dollars in 1959 then we’re in a worse mess than I thought we were.
Looking back at the chart, and substituting the actual numbers…
1959 GDP per Capita in 2005 Dollars: $15,596
2003 GDP per Capita in 2005 Dollars: $40,728
Which is more like a 2.5 times increase, not 4.
Oh, and the elderly population also doubled in that time as well.
Darn it, I messed up. A 2.5 times increase in wealth per person remains a more substantial explanation for the decline in elderly poverty.
This led me to look at some other stuff. So in 2006 dollars the median household income in 1959 was $32,000 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f07ar.html)
2003: $57,750…
So, actual incomes didn’t track with the growth of GDP per capita… I’m mixing some of the numbers, here as while GDP grew 4 fold, the population also basically doubled, so the per capita number is more useful for this.
But this is still interesting.
Has the standard of living doubled then in the last 50 years? We certainly have more toys and live longer, however, most families will have two wage earners, especially if they want a house and kids to go to college…
So then I wondered, if the tax burden had gone up… no… it seems the tax burden has dropped considerably in the same period.
In fact, in this period, the top rate of income taxation has fallen from 91% to 35%… So, people have more money, they pay a LOT less tax, but the average levels of debt have accelerated, from a debt to income ratio of 55% in the 50s to 133% now.
(http://www.roubini.com/us-monitor/256796/frbsf__u_s__household_deleveraging_and_future_consumption_growth)
So, we have more money, we pay MUCH less tax, but we owe almost 3 times as much and need two household incomes to make ends meet…
No comment. Just thought it was interesting.
A few other data points that interested me with this. In about 1960, the “average” CEO earned about 40 times the amount of an “average” worker in a business, apparently that’s now about 300 times.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Well, I suppose we know where a lot of the money went :/
Darn it, I messed up. A 2.5 times increase in wealth per person remains a more substantial explanation for the decline in elderly poverty.
Not really, because during that period the elderly population also doubled, not to mention that the other helpful chart shows that most of that change actually took place during the 1960s.
In fact, looking at the graph, what’s interesting is that the level of elderly poverty has been stuck at the 10-15% point since about 1965. During that period US GDP had only increased by about 30% and yet elderly poverty dropped by half.
Daveon, you’ve got a problem with math here…
A 2.5 times increase in wealth per person remains a more substantial explanation for the decline in elderly poverty.
Not really, because during that period the elderly population also doubled
If the elderly population increased a million times, it would still have increased wealth per person
The GOP isn’t shut out of the process
When much of the process was done behind closed doors and the GOP was not part of that process… that’s the very definition of shut out. Or do you have no shame, Jim.
Not really Ken. At least not to explain the relative numbers that were presented.
It’s all moot, of course, because the data provided in the graph above shows that the majority of that decrease actually happened between 1960 and 1965 in a period where the GDP had increased by only 30%.
That suggests that GDP grow had bugger all to do with it.