Basically, Mr. Hart and "Historiann" took umbrage at former House speaker Newt Gingrich's statements that the Founding Fathers would not have approved of the progressive spending/social policies of today's congress and the Obama Administration.
But President Obama agrees with Gingrich! The Constitution did not approve!
We'll quote from Mr. Obama, from 2001:
"[The Warren Court] wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. At least as it's been interpreted and more important interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf."
and continuing...
"[One of the] great tragedies of the civil rights movement [was that it got away from] political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."
Look, it's fine that we disagree about where this nation should head in 2009, that's politics. But there's no need to disagree about the historical facts. The "so called" Founders did not define, and did not allow, "economic freedom" as "redistributive change." On this, Newt Gingrich is quite right, and as we see, even President Obama agrees. Now that we've straightened out the facts about the Founders, let the debate commence.
"Historiann" asks, "And who wants to live in their world, anyway?" Some of us, my dear, some of us. Mebbe even most of us. We shall see.
[
32 comments:
Tom writes:
Look, it's fine that we disagree about where this nation should head in 2009, that's politics. But there's no need to disagree about the historical facts. The "so called" Founders did not define, and did not allow, "economic freedom" as "redistributive change.
Historical facts? GEEZ! If the "historical facts" say that the founders all agreed, then why is it that they DID NOT AGREE? Your interpreting the "historical facts" as you see them. And in fairness, that all any of us do. Ever wonder how Howard Zinn and David Barton can come to 2 completely different conclusions using the same "historical facts?"
You can look at the "historical facts" and say that the founders DID want a more powerful government/ federal involvement in economics. It's there. And this is EXACTLY my point. The founders were not unanimously in favor of really anything. They fought over this stuff just as we do.
But it is nice to see your politics shining though!
[You're] interpreting the "historical facts" as you see them...
I'm reporting the facts as both Gingrich and President Obama see them. That will do as a basis for contemporary partisan discussion.
If you or Historiann wish to argue affirmatively that the Founders---any of them---would have argued for the President's vision of "distributive change" as "economic freedom," go ahead. But I don't think you can, because it's a contradiction in terms.
Further, trashing Gingrich is unwarranted, since the President agrees with him about the views of the "so called" Founders.
And that is the point of this post. Let's just be honest about what the President and Congress are up to. Gingrich has absolutely nothing to do with this---since President Obama's own words make the exact same argument, we can retire Gingrich to the sidelines.
Here's the thing: I think we all agree that there are lots of specifics on which Hamilton and other Federalists would not agree with Obama, Bush etc. No doubt. Things change. Just as transportation has changed since the 18th century so has government, so we can conclusively say either way on every little detail.
Now, we can (based on the "historical evidence") conclude that most Federalists (especially Hamilton) were in fact in favor of more government intervention in economic affairs as well as others.
And as far as "redistribution of is concerned, I think most of Obama's stuff is in the eyes of the beholder...and it reveals the author's political partisanship to suggest that what is currently going on is "wealth redistribution." Again, it's in the eyes of the beholder.
In addition, it's not like wealth redistribution was a foreign concept to the founders. As Adam Smith (the "father" of capitalism) stated in Wealth of Nations,
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor...The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess...It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
In addition, you completely misunderstood the purpose of my post (and historiann's), Tom. You state:
Basically, Mr. Hart and "Historiann" took umbrage at former House speaker Newt Gingrich's statements that the Founding Fathers would not have approved of the progressive spending/social policies of the today's congress and the Obama Administration.
As I said in my original post:
In conclusion, I have no problem with Gingrich's questioning of Obama. I myself am against massive government spending. With that said, whenever I hear someone exclaim "What would our founding fathers do if..." or "I'm sure the founding fathers would be flipping in their graves over..." it tends to get my blood boiling. Like today, there was no consensus in early America over these and other issues. In reality, early America was arguably one of the most contentious eras we have ever seen (with an obvious exception being made for the Civil War of course.
I don't care that Newt hates Obama's economic plan. What I hate is when people paint the founders with, as you put it, "a wide brush" assuming that they agreed on this and other issues unanimously.
For somebody who claims they hate "generalized history" you sure are doing a bang up job of backing Newt! I'm sure there are no political reasons for doing so...none atall!
By the way, none of this proves that Obama and Gingrich agree. You took a couple quotes from way back and assume that they still apply to Obama's way of interpreting the Constitution.
As Mr. Rowe often says, this is "spaghetti being thrown at the wall to see what sticks."
Yes, Adam Smith would approve of the progressive income tax, which we already have. Whether he would approve of over 40% paying no tax atall is another matter.
Now, we can (based on the "historical evidence") conclude that most Federalists (especially Hamilton) were in fact in favor of more government intervention in economic affairs as well as others.
What historical evidence beyond a generic sentiment? Make your case. If you can get from Hamilton to Obama, there's a Nobel Prize in it for you.
You took a couple quotes from way back
Way back in 2008, you mean? And ask not for whom the spaghetti tolls. A wave in Hamilton's general direction [who lost the battle anyway] isn't a thesis or an argument.
President Obama explicitly acknowledges his view is not the same as the "so called" Founders. "Things change," as you put it. Let's just be honest about it.
It's sort of common knowledge, Tom that the federalists were for bigger government. History, 101 stuff!
Fine, Tom. You just keep on believing that the founders were all unanimously united on this and other issues. It's ridiculous, but go ahead.
Your next post should be "What the founding fathers thought of..."
Talk about painting with a wide brush!
You're boxing me into "all unanimously united," which is the only slender thread that "Historiann" based its bash of Gingrich on, that he used the word "all."
Now make an affirmative argument. It's not about me and it's not about Gingrich---that's personalizing the debate. The counterargument that Mr. Zummo made is that even Hamilton can't get you to Obama's vision of "economic justice," which is 20th century progressivism, not Founding principles.
Even Obama explicitly says this, so let's just be honest about it.
First off, I don't think Mr. Zummo is entirely right in his analysis. Second, I'm not trying to connect Hamilton and Obama...never was my intention. And if we're being "honest" I think this is more that New's use of the word "all." I'm sure you recognize that people on both sides of the isle paint the founders with too wide of a brush.
Look, this wasn't meant to be all that "deep" of a post. Just something simple on a relatively simple topic. Now it's become a "Is Hamilton like Obama" discussion.
Frankly, not interested. Maybe others will be but not me.
By the way, I need to issue a public apology to my blog brother, Tom. I'm sorry for my tone, which was both harsh and rude. I know we can agree to disagree (we've done it lots in the past). I need to learn not to blog after a bad day of work. I work in law enforcement, which tends to get a bit "animated" at times.
So, my apologies.
But that doesn't mean I agree with you on this!!! Not atall!!!
=)
There are no simple posts, only simple arguments, and "Historiann's" was one. If yours is that Gingrich shouldn't have used the word "all," than illustrate an exception. If your proof is that "Hamilton favored bigger government," then we'll leave the ages to decide whether that effectively makes the case.
[I'm not sure I agree with Mr. Zummo's Hamilton-Jefferson argument either. But it's novel, and I'm open to hearing more.]
Uh, yes. There are simple posts. Videos, United States of Zod, etc.
A blog is an all-encompassing forum. the complex AND the simple are welcomed.
Shocker for conservatives: Obama may not hate the Constitution
The right, including Rush Limbaugh, falls for a hoax about the president's college thesis
TVD, you jump on that hoax hook line and sinker…
…furthermore, the 40% not paying taxes is a bogus retort, that obscures FICA taxes (raised significantly in the Age of Reagan) and state taxes (since the age of Reagan, state coffers not filled as much with federal dollars)… …nor does it take into account regressive taxation schemes like mortgage interest deduction, lower capital gains tax, etc.…
That's funny! I was wondering why Obama would say something like that. Oh well, I guess I fell for it too...though I'm glad it was a proven farce.
TVD, you jump on that hoax hook line and sinker…
Yes and no. I did more research, and posted other Obama quotes that say the same thing. However, I will amend the post to withdraw the "thesis" and leave the rest, which make the same argument.
Wow! ... lots of posts today.
Tom, I am curious with regard to your comment/question; "Adam Smith would approve of the progressive income tax, which we already have. Whether he would approve of over 40% paying no tax atall is another matter."
There is a cross over point where x % of the tax payers contribute (100-x) % of the tax. I don't have a reference available (anyone?), but my recollection is that x = 2 (or there abouts).
Regarding your question as to what Adam Smith wouild approve of, from a perspective of short term economic or financial impact, I think he would find the question irrelevant.
From a sociogical or psycological pespective he/we can arrive at very different conclusions. Having everyone contribute teaches responsibility (psycology, I think), and instills responsibility into society (sociology, I think). If fiscal responsiblity could be manifested in society at large there may be a long term economic impact.
What I'm curious about is what perspecitve you took when commenting? ... one of short term or long term economical impact? ... and why?
To avoid false inferences ... I don't personally have an informed opinion as to whether a flat tax or a progressive tax would be more beneficial to society in the long term.
@TVD,
The remaining cites in your post have little in common with Gingrich.
BHO point about "tragedies of the civil rights movement" was a general assertion about the power and solidarity of love and changing hearts on the ground (MLK call for prayers and blessings for the enemies that were beating, stoning, firebombing them, and that marchers should not bear any ill thought toward the oppressor, that their campaign was as much about or greater for capturing those hearts) v. a preponderance of reliance on judicial and legislative deeds.
And the first text clip merely asserts that (in stark opposition to Gingrich, fundamentalists and teabaggers) the Warren Court did NOT trample the Constitution and founders intent — that is, their rulings did not fall into the realm of things state and federal government were prohibited from doing to "promote the general welfare" and $insertOtherRelevantConstitutionalPhrasesHere…
Finally, here's an interesting "interview" with Adam Smith (the answers are his own words from "The Wealth of Nations…"
Many libertarians and conservatives argue that the only fair tax system would be a flat tax. In your opinion should the tax system be flat or progressive?
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
Rearranging his written words around a question, no fair yes, but from my study and rereading of "The Wealth of Nations" I discovered it stated affairs quite a bit differently than the "common American right" (i.e., Limbaugh, Beck, Murdoch, WSJ editorial page, neoconservative think tankers, economic libertarian "free market" utopians, etc…) shrilly proclaim…
In answer to both Mr. Abbott and Mr. Naum, my response about the progressive income tax was only in passing. I would favor a flat tax only if it were more effective in defeating tax cheats, or not make it worth cheating on your taxes.
It has little or nothing to do with the larger issue at hand, President Obama's idea of "economic justice" vs. the strict limits of, in President Obama's own words
"the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution..."
It's all yours. Defend instead of attack. What constraints is he talking about?
And park Limbaugh, et al., and "shrilly" at the door. Make your own case, if you can, standing on your own two feet, or failing that, on President Obama's. For "economic justice" and "redistributive change" are not Gingrich's words nor mine---nor the Founders'---they are Barack Obama's, provably, from his own lips.
Geez, just be honest about it. What's up with this challenge? The President said
"I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."
Coalitions of power. Distributive change. Geez, it's right there in plain English.
But, whatever. Attack me, attack Gingrich. Whatever. But as a great man once said, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. It's right there in plain English, and most of the American people speak that language.
TVD,
Now you're really twisting and grasping at straws… …chopping off "it didn't break free from" sort of smatters your point…
In response to discovering you were snookered in a hoax, you should have simply acknowledged the folly and guilt for impetuousness in an act of pure partisan zeal.
But now you want to squirm over "redistributive change" as if extending liberty and justice to all (not just white male property owners) is some evil onerous plot against all that was holy with the founders vision.
Hehehe! It's fun to see somebody get kicked of his high horse, struggle to maintain at least a small measure of scholarly decency, only to dig himself deeper into the shit hole.
Keep it up, Tom! This was worth coming out of retirement to see.!
Hehe. The original essay reads just fine with the hoax deleted. And of course, my correction was not enough for those seeking to score cheap points.
Mr. Naum reduces "redistributive change" to mere nonsense. If Barack Obama had meant "liberty and justice," that's what he would have said.
Why the gentlepersons of the left deny what's there in plain English [actually, it's progressive newspeak] is puzzling. It's patently what they proudly believe; I don't understand the misdirection.
***American Creation News Flash***
Mr. Tom Van Dyke has been caught with his pants down. Buying into a pathetic hoax he now attempts to throw up smoke screens to obscure his pathetic argument. Instead of simply trying to avoid the issue (which is what any smart person would do if caught in his current predicament) Van Dyke pretends to think he's "above the fray," which is his usual M.O. when exposed as a fraud.
Despite these facts, Mr. Van Dyke continues to assume he is omnipotent and exempt from error....SHOCKER for those of you who know him
Still ruining this fine blog I see! Ever wonder why I decided to leave in the first place?
Mr. Naum reduces "redistributive change" to mere nonsense. If Barack Obama had meant "liberty and justice," that's what he would have said.
@TVD, I listened to the cherry picked bites you linked to and still the two quotes are intertwined — "civil rights" was all about "redistributive change" — changes that meant those folks denied equal rights based upon skin color could participate fully in society, politically and economically… …I realize there are still some that think we should go back to them days, where women knew their place and interracial marriage was sin against morality (and fortunately that lot is shrinking)…
And clipped and chopped (with no link to the original audio and/or transcript) by one totally besotted with teabagger-phoria…
… v. the words of a scholar of constitutional law.
You continue to expose yourself as a zealous, blinded ideologue, and you're still squirming on the backfiring of a cheap ploy to score some political points…
Stop being boring. "Distributive change" is a modern progressive term and traces to the work of philosopher John Rawls.
Further, Obama acknowledges that the constitution speaks only to negative liberties. He and Gingrich agree. Back to the interview, there's no cherry-picking. He's clearly talking about "economic justice," a progressive pillar and a fequent Obama theme:
"You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.
So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”
So just own it. It's what progressives proudly believe. Why the denial?
TVD,
What exactly is your point? I believe I acknowledges that "redistributive change" was all about social and economic justice.
Haven't read up lately on the deplorable Gingrich but isn't the base of his voting block the same teabaggers that believe the Constitution was violated by social security, medicare, healthcare, etc.…? Definitely not the position of Obama articulated in your cherry picked (and yes, it's cherry picked because the source site you linked to only provided an edited mashup) for which he said the Warren court did not violate any those "negative" stipulations…
What, next you're going to tell me you have black friends or that you know somebody in RL that voted for Obama and you've let them use your bathroom…
I picked the site because I wasn't going to sit here and transcribe the interview myself, and the leftosphere tried to disguise Obama as a Clinton-type centrist in the general election. It was only the rightosphere that was onto him, so they took the trouble to examine the Obama record.
But now the whole country knows, too late.
Good, so in the end we agree. However, your overblown rhetoric about Gingrich and teabaggers meets the norm of the Daily Kos, but not AC. This is why I prefer we stay away from partisan politics, as it always degenerates into unpleasantness, which pulls certain commenters out of the wordwork whose only interest is partisan unpleasantness. As this thread crawls to a merciful close, we have yet more proof of it.
I do hope you enjoy Robert Kraynak's rebuttal of Harry Jaffa's scholarship, which is quite germane to this purpose of this blog and has the virtue of nonpartisanship.
Tom, I had no intent of participating in an attack.
Had I realized that your passage, that genuinely struck my curiosity, was only rhetoric, I'd have not bothered with the question.
This blog is a lot more fun when those who post and comment avoid promoting or disparaging world views!
It was a passing thought, wondering what Adam Smith would think of the income tax being paid only by a bare majority. Perhaps he would have approved, since he found a "carriage tax" acceptable, and only the rich had carraiges. the poor, who didn't have them, would get free use of the roads.
But what disturbs me more, Ben, is that virtually all the gentlepersons of the left I encounter seem incapable of conducting a conversation without perjoratives ["deplorable," "only rhetoric"], innuendo ["black friends"], or without sophistry and semantics [Rawls' term "distributive justice," as if that has no commonly understood meaning].
If you want to discuss Adam Smith, why not just do it instead of this? In good faith instead of this?
This is me---Tom, TVD---Ben. You've known me for years now. A human being and no bot for anybody. And a liberal, like Adam Smith himself, whom I've actually read. My position---contra Rawls but quite Smithian---is that the question is not whether the rich have too much, but whether the poor have enough.
"Economic justice" and "distributive change" do not frame the question that way, nor would the Founders have even recognized such radical egalitarianism. That was the French Revolution, not the American one, and the underlying point of this whole mess.
Read up on your Adam Smith. I'm convinced Madison did, based on his thoughts about state-subsidized religion, which echo Smith's. Let's kick it.
Tom,
I'm an admirer of Adam Smith, which is a big part of why I asked the question.
Its been years since I read The Wealth of Nations. It was quite tiring for me, and took me a few months to complete, but I found many gems there.
In any event, as I said, I have no interest in attacking any side ... and to be honest, I think I've missed the central disagreement of this dicussion.
I will comment that I think it improper for anyone to claim, or imply, the founders would favor their world view. Such claims paint with too wide a brush for me,
Huh? Who's talking "worldview," Ben? We're talkin' the constitutionality of "economic justice" and "distributive change," as brought about by "coalitions of power"---all President Obama's words.
Fuck that, dude.
Post a Comment