Thoughts on the Mugwumps

I just sent the following email to a colleague who was talking about the Mugwumps. The Mugwumps were a group of elite Republicans who switched sides and voted for Grover Cleveland in 1884.  The name derives from a bastardization of a Native American word for chief, but the above cartoon suggests a different interpretation.

I don't consider them moderates. They switched party because of strong political belief, specifically in rational government. They were laissez faire Republicans, and many had been abolitionists. There was nothing moderate about them even though they switched sides.

The confusion many people have about today's two extremist parties leads to the mistaken impression that if you don't favor either party you are in between.  The crank TV newscaster Bill O'Reilly makes a similar claim.  He is moderate because he splits the opinions of the two big parties.  

The two parties are close, and they are both extreme in their support for big government. By historical standards, today's America occupies the extreme Whig end of the spectrum, and that's true of both parties. Only an extremist can call two parties that both advocated lending as much as $29 trillion to Wall Street to be moderate.  Today's America is an extremist, authoritarian state. There is no Aristotelian mean here.

This is the email to my colleague:

A classic in the study of the Gilded Age is Edward Wiebe, The Search for Order http://www.amazon.com/Search-Order-1877-1920-Robert-Wiebe/dp/0809001047/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427393497&sr=8-1&keywords=wiebe .

The first book I read on the Mugwumps was Nancy Cohen’s Reconstruction of American Liberalism 1865-1914, which is an intellectual history that gives a good overview. You can piece together a libertarian perspective from it.  See http://www.amazon.com/Reconstruction-American-Liberalism-1865-1914/dp/0807853542/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1427393591&sr=8-1&keywords=nancy+cohen+progressivism .

The third book I recommend is a little different. It is Burton Bledstein’s Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class and the Development of Higher Education in America. http://www.amazon.com/culture-professionalism-development-education-America/dp/0393055744/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1427393672&sr=8-3&keywords=bledstein . It traces the creation of professionalism in a host of fields.  Professionalism was intimately connected to the Mugwumps’ interest in civil service reform. The impetus for rationalization led directly to Progressivism. Once the commitment to organized professions took hold, it was a small step to building legal standards and regulations for the professions.  That, in turn, was linked to the development of universities. Hence, big government, the organized professions, and universities have always been linked.

The institution of the modern university in 1876 via the founding of Johns Hopkins came near the heart of the Mugwump era, which was in 1884, during the election of Grover Cleveland.  I don’t think historians have a clear understanding of why the Mugwumps opposed James Blaine and turned against their own Republican Party to support Cleveland.  [My colleague] may be right that there was a laissez faire impetus, but showing that would require a new, or at least clearer,  historical treatment of it.  Among the interesting Mugwump figures (see Cohen) were EL Godkin, David Ames Wells, and William Graham Sumner.

I also don’t believe that historians have a clear understanding of the role of the greenbacks in stimulating the expansion of industry in the Civil War era and what the economic effects were on bondholders, so the post-1873 gold deflation, which harmed other asset holders (likely Western and Southern farmers as well as stockholders) and generated Populism and Bryan (and which Friedman calls “the crime of 1873” in an article that was published in the Journal of Economic History), may have been a reaction to the post-Civil War inflation. Godkin writes about his anger at the effects of inflation on redistributing wealth to Jay Gould and others. 

One question that no one has asked is whether there was a relationship between Wall Street and Bryan or the Populists.  Mark Hanna, a high school friend of John D. Rockefeller,  was, of course, McKinley’s close adviser. On the other hand, it may be that the election of McKinley (as propped by Wall Street) was not really opposition to silver, but rather it may have been preemptive and done in the hope for the central bank that was recommended fourteen years later, in 1910, by the same Rockefeller (with Morgan and Kuhn Loeb) interests.  It is unlikely that there is much public information on something like this.

In any case the 1896 election had an opposite dynamic from what today’s pro-inflation banking community offers, and I suspect that something is not being said about who the Populists were and, more importantly, who their opponents were.  Was a central bank being quietly considered by ‘96? 

The same is true of the conflict within the Democratic Party between Bryan and the Bourbon Democrats,* of whom Cleveland was the chief representative. Wilson had been a Bourbon Democrat, and I think that he voted for a third party, the Gold Democrats, in 1896.  His connection to Morgan is mentioned in my paper on colleges, and I suspect that his signing of the Federal Reserve Act came from his relationship with Morgan.  An interesting point in the biography of Frank Vanderlip is that Wilson dropped him as a friend, and Wilson would have nothing to do with Vanderlip once Wilson was elected. Wilson did not want to seem to be linked to bankers.  I wonder who thought up that plan of action.  Wilson went from voting for gold in 1896 to refusing to have to do with bankers so he could propose the Federal Reserve Bank.  As a result of secrecy, it may be hard to get data. But was the opposition of the banking community to silver a strategic one?
  

*Wikipedia: Bourbon Democrat was a term used in the United States from 1876 to 1904 to refer to a conservative or classical liberal member of the Democratic Party, especially one who supported Charles O'Conor in 1872, Samuel J. Tilden in 1876, President Grover Cleveland in 1884–1888/1892–1896 and Alton B. Parker in 1904. After 1904, the Bourbons faded away. Woodrow Wilson, who had been a Bourbon, made a deal in 1912 with the leading opponent of the Bourbons, William Jennings Bryan; Bryan endorsed Wilson for the Democratic nomination, and Wilson named Bryan Secretary of State. The term "Bourbon" was mostly used disparagingly, by critics complaining of old-fashioned viewpoints.

Spreading Shortages Due to Greenspan-Bernanke Federal Reserve Policy--Woodrow Wilson Turns in His Grave

My wife just returned from a Food Emporium supermarket on the upper west side of Manhattan. She tried to buy light bulbs but all the light bulbs had been sold except for two packs in which one light bulb was broken each. Likewise, her best friend just returned from her house in Hawaii and said that there is rice rationing there. As well, my wife has repeatedly been unable to purchase spa and beauty products at our health club in Ulster County, New York and has been told by the sales people that there are backlogs on orders across the board. Suppliers have not been shipping. This is the first time that we have seen a shortage of light bulbs in the supermarket.

These shortages are directly attributable to Fed policy, specifically of the Greenspan-Bernanke Fed. Across the board shortages and price inflation result from malinvestment attributable to excessively low interest rates that fund Wall Street and the commercial banking industry. Thus, the public has subsidized Wall Street to build houses that no one can pay for. The inflationary consequences of the Greenspan-Bernanke policy over the next 30 years will cause many headaches. Although a shortage of spa products or light bulbs are inconvenient, and I can hedge by buying commodities indexes and the like, the Greenspan-Bernanke Fed's three decade-long Christmas for Wall Street, hedge funds and real estate developers has resulted in the death of children in the third world and significantly lower incomes for the average American worker.

It distresses me that double talk--e.g., blaming the results of the Fed's decades-long inflationary stance on third world trade--that characterized discussions about the inflationary recession of the 1970s is again appearing, this time among "conservatives". Social-democratic conservatives seem eager to claim that the interventionist Fed policies of the last three Republican and Clinton administrations have not caused across-the-board inflation in commodity prices, flat wages of workers, wealth transfers to speculators, and child starvation in the third world. They are the friends of big government.

The only solution to flat earnings, reduced wages, inflation and shortages is to get government out of our money supply. That means establishing the kind of gold standard in which Woodrow Wilson believed when he established the Federal Reserve in the first place in 1913. Wilson had voted as a "Gold Democrat" for the New Democratic (Gold) Party in 1896. He did not anticipate that the New Deal coupled with the social democratic (Roosevelt-Rockefeller-Nixon-Bush) wing of the Republican Party would declare against the gold standard. And who would have thought that following Richard ("We are all Keynesians now") Nixon, so-called conservatives have become bigger apologists for government control, regulation and debasement of our money supply than their left-wing social democratic colleagues.

Woodrow Wilson's Constitutional Government in the United States

Woodrow Wilson. Constitutional Government in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2004. (Original published 1908). 236 pages.

Woodrow Wilson's Constitutional Government in the United States is a great treatise. Wilson had been a fine political science professor before becoming president of Princeton, governor of New Jersey and then president of the United States. Wilson was a Democrat, but he shared some views with the Mugwumps, the Republicans who supported Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland in 1884. Wilson closely read Walter Bagehot and he supported the gold standard in the late nineteenth century. In 1896 he bolted the Democratic Party to support the National Democratic candidate John Palmer. As a proponent of sound money, that year of William Jennings Bryan's "cross of gold speech" Wilson opposed Bryan's free silver candidacy. The National Democrats were libertarian in orientation and favored not only reduced tariffs and the gold standard, but limited government as well. The first year of his presidency Wilson established the income tax and the Federal Reserve Bank, but these laws were not so statist as they sound. Many Mugwumps (who were largely free market and pro-gold) supported the Federal Reserve Bank because they thought it would be better to have an expert agency regulating the currency than to have Congress creating greenbacks. The gold standard that was in place in 1913 and for nearly two decades thereafter limited the Fed's ability to expand the monetary base and create the kind of inflation that we have had since the 1930s and especially since Richard M. Nixon's presidency, which Wilson would have opposed. Likewise, the income tax was an unknown concept in 1913, and he could not have anticipated its extension. Until 1913 federal tax revenue was raised chiefly by tariffs, and Wilson repealed most of the tariffs in the same law that established the income tax. Moreover, the income tax applied to about one percent of the population in 1913. He could not have foreseen the degree to which subsequent administrations extended it.

Wilson had begun to identify himself as a "progressive" during his tenure as New Jersey governor, but his reforms were not especially interventionist or statist in nature. He introduced primary elections, which were an affront to the preexisting boss system. He also established a workers' compensation law, but workers' compensation is as much a realignment of common law liability principles as an employee benefit or regulatory program. His progressivism was conservative.

Wilson's writing is more articulate and subtle than Herbert Croly's or Theodore Roosevelt's, and his ideas are more refined and sophisticated than either's. In contrast to Roosevelt, who was a Republican predecessor to the New Deal Democrats, Wilson's ideas were informed by Burke as well as Bagehot. He not only believed in preserving existing institutions, but also retained a suspicion of big government as well as big business. He was a progressive in that he advocates, in Constitutional Government in the United States, a Darwinian as opposed to what he calls a Newtonian theory of government. That is, he believed that the federal government needed to be reformed to enable some changes. This idea may not have been wrong in principle but it was wrong, in my view, in terms of fundamental errors Wilson made in failing to anticipate the results of the reforms he made as president. However, subsequent generations of conservatives as well as progressive-liberals rely on Wilson's ideas about government. It would be better to throw out government altogether, but unless you've joined the Libertarian Party you probably owe a debt to Wilson's thinking.

Wilson's writing is somewhat flowery but it is eloquent and clear. The book can be read in one or two sittings yet it packs a considerable punch. It contains many beautiful theoretical insights about government. It is probably among the best of the Progressive works on government, and if any one work of the Progressive era might be said to shine a flattering light on the Progressive movement, this is it. The trouble, of course, is that the folks calling themselves "progressives" today are not Wilsonian progressives and have little if any interest in Bagehot, Burke or Wilson.

The United States is fortunate that Wilson and not Roosevelt won in 1912, although Wilson's best efforts were subsequently overturned by his fellow Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt, in the 1930s. It is evident that the roots of the Democratic Party's rejection of freedom begins with Roosevelt. The New Deal was an ahistorical response to exigencies and circumstances that occurred in the early 1930s and had absolutely nothing to do with Wilson's ideas. Wilson was not a predecessor of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The one president who can claim that title was Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican.

Wilson argues that there are four stages of evolution of government. In stage one government is the master of the people. In stage two government is no longer master by force but remains master because of superior sagacity. In stage three the leaders of the people confront mastery and agitate to control it. In stage four the people's leaders become the government. The American constitutional government is an example of stage four, but Wilson prefers the British parliamentary system to the American separation of powers, which he believes to be a more primitive model. Wilson admires Hamilton, whom he feels was more comfortable with giving government power than with the system of checks and balances which inhibits government action and leads to the party system, which in his view is associated with corruption and failure of democracy. The party system and bossism was necessitated by American constitutional government because the division of powers made it impossible for the different branches to coordinate their thinking without some integrative device. In management theory this idea is called differentiation and integration, and it was first articulated in the 1960s by Lawrence and Lorsch. Wilson noticed the differentiation and integration problem with respect to the federal government in the first decade of the twentieth century, fifty years before Lawrence and Lorsch.

Wilson believed that there are crucial regional and social differences among Americans that lead to the need for decentralization. He writes (p. 49-51):

"our state governments are likely to become, not less, but more vital units in our system as the natural scope and limits of their powers are more clearly and permanently established...

"...Not only are the separate and independent powers of the states based upon real economic and social differences between section and section of an enormous country, differences which necessitate adaptations of law and of administrative policy such as only local authorities acting in real independence can intelligently effect; but the states are our great and permanent contribution to constitutional development. I call them a great contribution because they have given to the understandings upon which constitutional government is based an intimacy and detail, an adjustment to local circumstances, a national diversity, an immediate adaptation to the variety of the people themselves, such as a little country may perhaps dispense with but a great continent cannot...They have been an incomparable means of sensitive adjustment between popular thought and governmental method, and may yet afford the world itself the model of federation and liberty it may be in God's providence come to work...

"Constitutional government can exist only where there is actual community of interest and of purpose, and cannot, if it be also self-government, express the life of any body of people that does not consititue a veritable community. Are the United States a community? In some things, yes; in most things, no. How impossible it is to generalize about the United States!"

In his discussion of the presidential branch of the American constitutional system, Wilson emphasizes the Darwinian nature of government. Our government was founded by Whigs who, in his view, followed a Newtonian model. Rather, he argues (p. 57), "living political consitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice". The nature of the presidency depends on the individual occupying it, in Wilson's view. Although the Whig model is Newtonian, it is elastic. The Whigs who wrote the constitution may have believed that the president was only a legal executive, executing policy and applying the law. Instead, Wilson argues, the president had become "the leader of his party and the guide of the nation in political purpose, and therefore in legal action." The president must embody "the character and purpose (the public) wishes it to have". The president may still function as an executive, but he was becoming "more and more a political and less and less an executive officer" (p. 67). He is the leader of his party. "No one else represents the people as a whole, exercising a national choice; and inasmuch his strictly executive duties are in fact subordinated, so far at any rate as all detail is concerned, the President represents not so much the party's governing efficiency as its controlling ideals and principles" (p. 68).

The chapters on the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Supreme Court are all insightful and brilliant. He argues for an evolutionary view of the Court's role (p. 158-68):

"Expanded and adapted by interpretation the powers granted in the Constitution must be; but the manner and the motive of their expansion involve the integrity, and therefore, the performance, of our entire system of government...if they had interpreted the Constitution in its strict letter, as some proposed, and not in its spirit, like the charter of a business corporation and not like the charter of a living government, the vehicle of a nation's life, it would have proved a strait- jacket, a means not of liberty and development but of mere restriction and embarrassment. I have spoken of the statesmanship of control expected of our courts; but there is also the statesmanship of adaptation characteristic of all great systems of law since the days of the Roman praetor; and there can be no doubt that we have been singular among the nations in looking to the courts for that double function of statesmanship, for the means of growth as well as for the restraint of ordered method."

For me, a professor of management, the most intriguing chapter is the penultimate one on "the states and the federal government". Wilson writes that (p. 173):

"It is clear enough that the general commercial interests, the general financial interests, the general economic interests of the country were meant to be brought under the regulation of the federal government, which should act for all; and it is equally clear that what are the general commercial interests, what the general financial interests, what the general economic interests of the country is a question of fact, to be determined by circumstances which change under our very eyes, and that, case by case, we are inevitably drawn on to include under the established definitions of the law matters new and unforeseen, which seem in their magnitude to give to the powers of Congress a sweep and vigor certainly never conceived possible by earlier generations of statesmen, sometimes even almost revolutionary even in our own eyes...

"Almost every great internal crisis in our affairs has turned upon the question of state and federal rights. To take but two instances, it was the central subject-matter of the great controversy over tariff legislation which led to attempted nullification and of the still greater controversy over the extension of slavery which led to the war between the States...

"The principle of the division of powers between state and federal governments is a very simple one when stated in its most general terms. It is that the legislatures of the States shall have control of all the general subject-matter of law, of private rights of every kind, of local interests and of everything that directly concerns their people as communities, and that Congress shall have control only of such matters as concern the peace and commerce of the country as a whole." (p. 175)

"Which parts of the many sided processes of the nation's economic development shall be left to the regulation of the States, which parts shall be given over to the federal government? I do not propound this as a mere question of choice, a mere question of statesmanship, but also as a question, a very fundamental question, of constitutional law...

"...The war between the States established at least this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own power...Its power is to 'regulate commerce between the States,' and the attempts now made during every session of Congress to carry the implications of that power beyond the utmost boundaries of reasonable and honest inference show that the only limits likely to be observed by politicians are those set by the good sense and conservative temper of the country...

"The proposed federal legislation with regard to the regulation of child labor affords a striking example. If the power to regulate commerce between the States can be stretched to include the regulation o flabor in mills and factories, it can be made to embrace every particular of the industrial organization and action of the country. The only limitations Congress would observe, should the Supreme Court assent to such obviously absurd extravagances of interpretation, would be the limitations of opinion and circumstance...

"...Uniform regulation of the economic conditions of a vast territory and a various people like the United States would be mischievous if not impossible. The statesmanship which really attempts it is premature and unwise. Undoubtedly the recent economic development of the country, particularly the development of the last two decades, has obliterated many boundaries, made many interests national and common, which until our own day were separate and local....

"The United States are not a single, homogeneous community. In spite of a certain superficial sameness which seems to impart to Americans a common type and point of view, they still contain communities at almost every stage of development, illustrating in their social and economic structure almost every modern variety of interest and prejudice, following occupations of every kind, in climates of every sort that the temperate zone affords. This variety of fact and condition, these substantial economic and social contrasts, do not in all cases follow state lines. They are often contrasts between region and region rather than between State and State...

(p. 182)"We are too apt to think that our American political system is distinguished by its central structure, by its President and Congress and courts, which the Constitution of the Union set up. As a matter of fact, it is distinguished by its local structure, by the extreme vitality of its parts. It would be an impossibility without its division of powers...America...has come to maturity by the stimulation of no central force or guidance, but by an abounding self-helping, self-sufficing energy in its parts, which severally brought themselves into existence and added themselves to the Union...Communities develop not by external but by internal forces. Else they do not live at all. Our commonwealths have not come into existence by invitation, like plants in a tended garden; they have sprung up of themselves, irrepressible, a sturdy, spontaneous product of the nature of men nurturing in free air.

"It is this spontaneity and variety, this independent and irrepressible life of its communities, that has given our system its extraordinary elasticity...The distribution of the chief powers of government among the States is the localization and specialization of Constitutional understandings; and this elastic adaptation of constitutional processes to the various and changing conditions of a new country and a vast area has been the real cause of our political success.

(p. 186)"No two states act alike. Manufacturers and carriers who serve commerce in many States find it impossible to obey the laws of all, and teh enforcement of the laws of the States

As I have previously blogged, what intrigues me most about Wilson is his emphasis on the potential for states' rights as a biological evolution out of what in his view was the mechanistic federal system. Sadly, his ideas were ignored by the subsequent Republican administrations, which were conservative (i.e., Harding and Coolidge) and conservative-progressive (Hoover). Roosevelt's reforms made government too rigid to adopt Wilsonian progressivism with respect to decentralization. Subsequently, conflicts concerning civil rights made it impossible and inappropriate to give weight to his ideas (as my friend Norma Segal has pointed out, Wilson's upbringing was very much pro-Confederacy and Wilson stands accused of racism (see Jonah Goldberg's article in the Christian Science Monitor.

Wilson's emphasis on the importance of evolution of government puts him in the same category as the other progressives, but today's conservatives have largely adopted the progressivism that Wilson pioneered. The ideological differences between Taft and Wilson versus today's "conservatives" are non-existent. Wilson had at least the familiarly with Burke as any conservative of today and was enamored of Burke. He repeats Burkean ideas throughout this book. Today's conservatives are progressives, not conservatives in the 19th century sense. Today's libertarians are much closer to that. For instance, today's conservatives have adopted a Keynesian monetary stance. No 19th century conservative, including Wilson, would have supported abolition of the gold standard. Keynesian economic ideas, which were advocated throughout the 19th century, were crackpot to 19th century conservatives. Today's conservatives have backed Keynesian presidents since Richard M. Nixon in 1971. This is not progress. It is stupidity.

Wilson's emphasis on state's rights has important implications for today's political milieu. We have forgotten his insights and Wilson scholars do not emphasize them. But similar kinds of ideas are well known in the management field

Community, Progressivism and the States

Woodrow Wilson advocated states' rights as part of his progressive philosphy. In his book Constitutional Government in the United States, first published in 1908 and still considered a classic in the political science field, Wilson argues for the importance of the states. The model of centralized federal authority was a product of the two Roosevelts, not of Wilson, despite his inadvertent contribution by creating both the income tax and the Federal Reserve Bank. Theodore Roosevelt, the most statist of all of our presidents, argued for integration of government and business. Franklin Roosevelt extended state power in numerous areas, most importantly by abolishing the gold standard.

Despite the twentieth century's centralization of power, Wilson understood the importance of local government to community. Excessive centralizaton overlooks the importance of community and so is anti-democratic. Since the primary thrust of the New Deal was such centralization, it was at odds with the progressive era's emphasis on democracy, or at least Wilson's version of it.

Wilson writes (pp. 50-1):

"Not only are the separate and independent powers of the states based upon real economic and social differences between section and section of an enormous country, differences which necessitate adaptations of law and of administrative policy such as only local authorities acting in real independence can intelligently effect; but the states are our great and permanent contrbiution to constitutional development. I call them a great contribution because they have given to the understandings upon which constitutional government is based an intimacy and detail, an adjustment to local circumstances, a national diversity, an immediate adaptation to the variety of the people themselves, such as a little country may perhaps dispense with but a great continent cannot...They have furnished us with an ideal means of integrating a vast and various population, adapting law to changing and temporary conditions, modulating development and permanently securing each item of progress. They have been an incomparable means of sensitive adjustment between popular thought and governmental method, and may yet afford the world itself the model of federation and liberty it may in God's providence come to seek...Constitutional government can exist only where there is actual community of interest and of purpose, and cannot, if it be also self-government, express the life of any body of people that does not consitute a veritable community. Are the United States a community? In some things yes, in most things no. How impossible it is to generalize about the United States."

Big business has likely pressed for centralization, and it is likely in the interest of big business to have consistent regulation and policy across the states. But big business has exited the nation. Manufacturing has moved to Asia and Mexico. The remaining large firms often do not pay high wages. Do the American people owe a favor to the firms that have not been interested in supporting them? Moreover, the problems that confronted big business in decades past have been modified, reduced and eliminated by technology. The coordination of separate regulatory, accounting and legal systems today is far from the problem that it was in the 1930s and 1940s. Integrated computer systems make compliance across diverse regulatory systems simple. Thus, large firms will suffer little from decentralization. Moreover, given the globalization of business and the eagerness with which firms have entered foreign countries with diverse regulatory systems, it is difficult to understand why adding more diversity will pose much of a problem to them, or given the eagerness with which firms have adjusted to diverse regulatory systems they can properly claim that they are an impediment here in the United States.

Toward Separate American Communities

Woodrow Wilson argued that America ought to become a community that is united by common belief. However, Wilson did not anticipate the brokerage of special interest coalitions engendered by the expansive state. Instead of a community of interests, the expansion of the welfare state resulted in heightened factionalism to a degree unforeseen by Madison and the founders of the American constitution. The factionalism is in large part economic. The Federal Reserve Bank has served as a redistributive, extractive mechanism by which wealth is taken from workers and savers and redistributed to investment bankers. This is accomplished with the full support and flourish of the New York Times and the mass media in the name of rationalization of credit markets and similar vacuous phrases. The brokerage of coalitions and privilege extends to almost all facets of state and federal government. It is related to the passage of every law. It imbues the very substance of the American system. Under New Deal Progressivism, America has not become, as Wilson envisioned, a community of shared interests, but rather a land where various minorities wage economic war on the majority.

Progressivism entailed an increase in executive power and a reduction in the power of the states. It depended upon the federal government reflecting a popular will. But today, the popular will is fractured not only by economic but also by severe political criteria. The liberalism of Roosevelt has, for many, turned out to be a failure. The states where the New Deal has been taken to its furthest extremes, such as New York, are the dying states. Yet, the mass media cling to the New Deal paradigm as any reactionary clings to his fossilized ideology.

Many Americans have renewed their faith in traditional American values and adopted a conservative position that evolves from twentieth century progressive-liberalism. The conservative position finds that the ideas of the nineteenth century had more substance than the old Progressives thought. It finds that markets are required for flexibility and progress. It also finds that new ideas cannot be adopted by government rooted in special interest privilege.

The competition between the forces of conservative progress and the forces of progressive-liberal reaction is bitter. There can be no community of interest in a society where one half of the public hates the values of the other; where progressive-liberals reject the conditions for progress, i.e., markets and the entrepreneurial creative destruction; and where progressive-liberals hold their own country as well as conservatives in contempt. Likewise, it is unfair to those progressive-liberals who would like to be subject to government control; who want the guidance of a powerful executive leader and do not care about the independence of entrepreneurship and self employment to have freedom thrust upon them. It is unfair to ask progressive-liberals who need social and political guidance to think for themselves.

The solution to this dilemma of war of all against all, of economic interest against economic interest, is separation. A separation of state powers to enhance competing models. Through competition the states can serve as laboratories of experiment for both conservative and progressive-liberal ideas. A libertarian state can be juxtaposed to one that is progressive-liberal. Differing ideologies and the mutual contempt in which the advocates of liberty and the advocates of state power hold each other need not be brought into overt conflict. Instead, let them separate. Let them experiment. Let us see which state flourishes: the state that extols private use emininent domain, central banking and government intervention; or that state that dispenses with these institutions, views them as failed and frees entrepreneurial talent from government control. Will the anarchic state or the totalitarian state flourish? It is only through experiment that the answer can be found.

The separation of power into separate states would have advantages beyond the role of experimentation. The brokerage of special interests would be diminished with more local control. Special interest pleading depends in large part on asymmetry of resources and organization costs. As political entitites diminish in scope, the asymmetries become smaller and the advantages of wealth and concentrated power diminish as well. Perhaps progressive-liberalism will perform to a better degree should it cover a smaller geographic expanse. Perhaps European states manage themselves more professionally because of their smaller scale and lesser concomitant corruption.

Woodrow Wilson's The New Freedom: Hoisted By His Own Petard

Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Classics in History series. 173 pages. $1.95.

Woodrow Wilson was a Mugwump and was, according to Frank E. Leuchtenberg's introduction to this book. an advocate of liberal (libertarian) ideas until he was elected governor of New Jersey. Even then and thereafter much of his rhetoric is couched in the philosophies of individualism and laissez faire. This book is a compilation of articles in a magazine called World's Work that Wilson wrote in 1912 (the original edition was published in 1913) when he was campaigning for president against Theodore Roosevelt (running on the Progressive Party ticket) and William Howard Taft. The Republican vote was divided between Roosevelt and Taft, and Wilson, a Democrat, won.

Unlike the Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who argued for close government regulation and licensure of "trusts", Wilson argued for a loose regulatory regime. Wilson passionately believed in entrepreneurship and the importance of Americans' working for themselves. Arguably, he was more free market and individualist in orientation than any post-New Deal president, including Ronald Reagan. Of the major post-World War II political figures only Barry Goldwater would have been more interested in economic freedom. It is ironic that Wilson inadvertently did as much as any president to stall economic freedom and laissez faire during his administration notably thorugh the installation of the federal income tax as part of the United States Revenue Act of May 1913 and the Federal Reserve Act in December 1913. It is noteworthy that the federal income tax was an addendum to a tariff reduction bill (the Revenue Act of 1913)that reduced tariffs to their lowest levels in more than 50 years. Moreover, the income tax applied to only one percent of the population (those couples earning over $4,000 per year) and had been authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment, also ratified in 1913. The top rate of 7% was payable by those earning over $500,000 per year, which would be equivalent to more than $10 million per year today.

As much as any man's, Wilson's career reflects human inability to foretell the future or to grasp the facts. Wilson saw the trusts (not so much big business as the conglomerate trusts) as a threat to human freedom. He believed that government subsidies to big business, to include tariffs and land grants, permitted inefficient trusts to flourish. Wilson believed that the kind of close regulation of the trusts that Roosevelt advocated in the 1912 election would have resulted in regulatory capture of government by business. He believed that access to credit should be democratized and likely believed that establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank would loosen the control of credit by big business and Wall Street and improve availability of credit to entrepreneurs. He saw progressivism as a way to protect the rights of entrepreneurs and small business. He did not anticipate that special interests would capture Fed policy and he did not anticipate that the Federal Reserve Bank would serve to narrow access to credit ever further.

Although Wilson argues for greater government assertiveness with respect to monopoly and the trusts, he does so in a way that emphasizes the importance of eliminating government intervention on behalf of the trusts and favoritism by government. In his essay "What Is Progress?" he argues that (p.36) "the laws have not kept up with the change of economic circumstances" and that the law had not adjusted to changes in business, but he is not overly aggressive, and somewhat obfuscatory, about the changes that he would have proposed. He argues (p. 40):

"I believe, for one, that you cannot tear up ancient rootages and safely plant the tree of liberty in soil which is not native to it. I believe that the ancient traditions of a people are its ballast...You must knit the new into the old...If I did not believe that to be progressive was to preserve the essentials of our institutions, I for one could not be a progressive."

Wilson's writing illustrates that progressivism was in large part empty of meaning. Roosevelt argued that progressivism meant that there should be centralized control and direction of industry. Wilson argued that progressivism meant the protection of the man on the make from big business and monopoly. Both called themselves "progressives". Wilson opposed tariffs and argued that they interfere with business competition. Roosevelt favored protection and government integration with big business. Wilson, unlike Roosevelt, was no friend to privilege for business, and he criticized Roosevelt for his close link to George W. Perkins, organizer the US Steel and International Harvester trusts (p. 117).

In his essay "The Old Order Changeth" Wilson illustrates the progressives' interest in "the new". Progressivism is the ultimate modernist philosophy. He writes (p. 20):

"We have come upon a very different age from any that preceded us. We have come upon an age when we do not do business in the way in which we used to do business...You know what happens when you are the servant of a corporation. You have in no instance access to the men who are really determining the policy of the corporation...Your individuality is swallowed up in the individuality and purpose of a great organization."

Yet Wilson does not advocate breaking up big business or excessively regulating it. He was as suspicious of government welfare as of employment in big business. He was no New Dealer. Many of the reforms he advocated, such as workers' compensation and disclosure requirements associated with the issuance of financial securities (p.28) were barely more than changes that modernized common law principles rather than being intrusively regulatory. Wilson emphasized bringing "light" to bear on business practice in order to make the economy fairer. But the remedies he proposed were not intrusive to the operation of business. On the other hand, they have not succeeded in his objectives. For as the late 1990s illustrated, unscruplous businesses can find their ways around regulations; and disclosure requirements are not protection against fraud. But having such requirements is not overly burdensome to business and likely encourages stability in the markets.

He argues vigorously for the importance of the entrepreneur and individual enterprise (p.26):

"The originative part of America, the part of America that makes new enterprises, the part into which the ambitious and gifted workingman makes his was up, the class that saves, that plans, that organizes, that presently spreads its enterprises until they have a national scope and character--that middle class is being more and more squeezed out...what alarms me is that they are not originating prosperity. No country can afford to have its prosperity originated by a small controlling class...There has come over the land that un-American set of conditions which enables a small number of men who control the government to get favors from the government; by those favors to exclude their fellows from equal business opportunity; by those favors to extend a network of control..."

Perhaps the most telling paragraph in the book is on page 56:

"For my part, I am very much more afraid of the man who does a bad thing and does not know it is bad than of the man who does a bad thing and knows it is bad; because I think that in public affairs stupidity is more dangerous than knavery, because harder to fight and dislodge."

Wilson established an income tax to compensate for the repeal of tariffs. At the time, he thought the top rate for those making over $10 million in today's dollars was 7%. He established a Federal Reserve Bank thinking that it would democratize credit. Within twenty years the Fed had caused the Great Depression and within 50 years both the Fed and the income tax had become the government's chief tools to suppress individual initiative, to steal from the populace to further the aims of elitist liberals who depend on a monopoly of power, and to suppress entrepreneurship. His legacy was hoisted by Wilson's own petard.