Or is it political lobbying?
You be the judge....
>Dear Colleagues,
>Come join us! ---- College's sociology department is taking part in a nation wide teach-in addressing climate change on January 31st, 2008. Over 1300 universities, schools and civic organizations are participating in this historic event. Because the date is so early in the semester, it may not be the best date for ----- College, but by focusing our activity around January 31st, our efforts will link with Focus the Nation's campaign. They have organized what may end up being the largest teach-in ever in U.S. history-reminding us of the fantastic reception to the first Earth Day in 1970.
>What can you do? (if viewed previously please note room change!)
>1. Save the date! On January 31st, From 11 until 1 the sociology department will host a short program in ---- Lounge Student Center involving local politicians, citizen groups, and a Frontline documentary, Hot Politics, on the history of climate change policies in the U.S.
>2. Take your class to view Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. There will be multiple screenings in the xxxxx Auditorium on January 30th and 31st. Show times at: 9:30 a.m., 12:15, 2:00, 3:45 and 6:30 p.m. No 12:15 showing on the 31st! Please RSVP to xxxx@xxxx.xxxx.edu.
>3. Plan to teach about climate change in your regular courses on (or around) January 31st. Our goal is to expand our attention to how climate change can be understood and addressed through our many disciplines. Climate change touches on issues as diverse as poverty, power, media discourses, politics, philosophy, human rights, social infrastructure, religion and more every discipline has something to add to the conversation.
>What can you do now?
>1. Let us know that you are joining our project. We will add your name, your course title, and your department to our list of participants. When you join our project, we will put you on a distribution list for additional materials and other updates.
>2. You can visit the website www.focusthenation.org for discipline specific teaching suggestions. Or for a social science focus try ASA's teach-in website http://www.linfield.edu/soan/et/teachin.html.
>3. If you have course material (readings, assignments, projects) share them with us and we will share them with all who participate.
>4. On Jan. 31st come to our teach-in focusing on climate change policies.
>5. Organize your own event and let us know.
>Please send your intention to participate and suggestions for materials to Professor xxx, xxx@----.xxx.edu.
-----------
Visiting Assistant Professor
Friday, January 18, 2008
Selected Blogs of Candace de Russy
Candace de Russy blogs at Phi Beta Cons at National Review.com and she has been productive of late. De Russy uncovers, courageously and without prejudice, scams, shams, swindles, stings, and sucker games that are essential to the postmodern university. The "cons" in phi beta cons are the universities themselves, as a review of de Russy's blogs reveals.
Item: Michael Bloomberg, the INO (independent in name only) presidential candidate, contributed $200 million to the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, which has just produced a fraudulent report concerning the Iraqi War. Undoubtedly, the Mayor's affiliation with the public health school contributes to his interest in progressive-liberal health fascism. De Russy notes that Bloomberg remarked that the Johns Hopkins researchers “are just some of the great, honest academics, the most talented academics around". Rumor has it that Mayor Bloomberg made similar remarks when he awarded a large pay and retirement bonus to a school principal who, it turned out, had falsified the test results for which he had rewarded her.
As well, de Russy notes that George Soros may have funded the bogus Johns Hopkins story.
(Also see discussion in Dan Stover's Northern Alliance Wannabe Blog.)
Item: de Russy deconstructs the motives of Columbia University, the politically correct institution that refuses to pay taxes on the large number of New York City properties and the the trust fund that it owns, even as its left-wing faculty argues for higher taxes. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, in 2006 Columbia's tax-exempt endowment totaled $5.9 billion and earned a return of 14.4% or $840 million, enough to provide all of its students with free tuition (24,000 students x $35,000 tuition = $840 million).
Academics claim that they care about the poor, minorities' rights and the oppressed. But instead of using its endowment to provide education to its students, or to provide much needed job training and remedial education to the large number of minority poor people in its community, Columbia utilizes the services of Mayor Bloomberg to indulge in private use eminent domain, aiming to loot land from the people of Harlem, throwing the poor on the streets to benefit its progressive-liberal faculty, which advocates taxing others to benefit themselves.
De Russy quotes the New York Sun, which notes that Columbia is busily reinforcing its progressive-liberal credentials:
"'Virtual empires benefiting private interests — secured through government force — are springing up especially across New York City,'” notably, at Columbia University, which 'seeks land that rightfully belongs to its West Harlem neighbors so it can expand its campus.'"
I can't wait until Mayor Bloomberg becomes president so that politically connected swindlers will have access to land from Peoria to Pennsylvania.
Item: de Russy blogs about Major Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon analyst who has been fired "for his politically incorrect but “hard-to-refute views on the relationship between Islamic law and Islamist jihad doctrine." Let us hope that the Pentagon's resort to political correctness will be rectified.
Item: de Russy notes that:
"The president of Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, Sari Nusseibeh, made anti-Semitic remarks during a rant against the presence of Jews in any future Palestinian state. Al-Quds has partnered with several American and Canadian universities to offer programs, classes, and research opportunities. These schools include the University of Michigan at Dearborn, Northeastern University, York University in Ontario, Brandeis, and George Washington University. Al-Quds also receives U.S. government support."
Here is one more nail in the coffin of Alan Colmes's argument that progressive-liberals aren't really Nazis. Of course, they are, Jonah Goldberg. Of course they are.
Item: de Russy notes that the Anti-Racist Blog has:
"obtained a series of e-mails promoting a despicable campaign to de-legitimize Israel on college campuses across the United States that will be waged in the coming months. As you will see, anti-Zionist conspirators from student groups such as MSA, and SJP are preparing for a coordinated and unprecedented nationwide assault on the Jewish State and its supporters."
Here is yet one more nail in the coffin of Alan Colmes's argument that progressive-liberals aren't really Nazis.
Item: de Russy notes that there has been a proposal for a Russell Kirk University.
I hope that they have a business school!
Item: de Russy notes that:
"John Yoo, a Yale Law School graduate who served at the Justice Department, has been sued by convicted terrorist Jose Padilla, who is being represented by lawyers at Yale. As the editors of the Wall Street Journal observe, “Perhaps if Mr. Yoo had decided to pursue a life of terrorism, he too could be represented by his alma mater.”
I guess when they're not stealing land from poor African Americans, universities keep themselves busy by harming their alumni!
Item: de Russy notes an Anti-Racist Blog recount of a Chicago Tribune story by Jim Tankersley which mentions that:
"U.S. government officials authorized giving nearly $1 million in foreign aid to a Palestinian university with links to the terrorist group Hamas, despite vetting the school eight times for ties to terrorism, according to a government audit."
Item: de Russy provides still more evidence of the progressive-liberal/Nazi link:
"Norman Finkelstein, a critic of Israel who resigned last year as a political science professor at DePaul University, met this week with a senior official of Hezbollah in south Lebanon.
"Although the U.S. government has labeled Hezbollah a terrorist organization, Finkelstein portrays the group as standing for “hope.”
"...In the past, Finkelstein has maintained that some Jewish groups have exploited the Holocaust for political and financial gain.(AP)"
De Russy consistently demonstrates excellence in blogging. Please, please keep up the good work, Candace. We love you even if our drooling governor showed you the door.
Item: Michael Bloomberg, the INO (independent in name only) presidential candidate, contributed $200 million to the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, which has just produced a fraudulent report concerning the Iraqi War. Undoubtedly, the Mayor's affiliation with the public health school contributes to his interest in progressive-liberal health fascism. De Russy notes that Bloomberg remarked that the Johns Hopkins researchers “are just some of the great, honest academics, the most talented academics around". Rumor has it that Mayor Bloomberg made similar remarks when he awarded a large pay and retirement bonus to a school principal who, it turned out, had falsified the test results for which he had rewarded her.
As well, de Russy notes that George Soros may have funded the bogus Johns Hopkins story.
(Also see discussion in Dan Stover's Northern Alliance Wannabe Blog.)
Item: de Russy deconstructs the motives of Columbia University, the politically correct institution that refuses to pay taxes on the large number of New York City properties and the the trust fund that it owns, even as its left-wing faculty argues for higher taxes. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, in 2006 Columbia's tax-exempt endowment totaled $5.9 billion and earned a return of 14.4% or $840 million, enough to provide all of its students with free tuition (24,000 students x $35,000 tuition = $840 million).
Academics claim that they care about the poor, minorities' rights and the oppressed. But instead of using its endowment to provide education to its students, or to provide much needed job training and remedial education to the large number of minority poor people in its community, Columbia utilizes the services of Mayor Bloomberg to indulge in private use eminent domain, aiming to loot land from the people of Harlem, throwing the poor on the streets to benefit its progressive-liberal faculty, which advocates taxing others to benefit themselves.
De Russy quotes the New York Sun, which notes that Columbia is busily reinforcing its progressive-liberal credentials:
"'Virtual empires benefiting private interests — secured through government force — are springing up especially across New York City,'” notably, at Columbia University, which 'seeks land that rightfully belongs to its West Harlem neighbors so it can expand its campus.'"
I can't wait until Mayor Bloomberg becomes president so that politically connected swindlers will have access to land from Peoria to Pennsylvania.
Item: de Russy blogs about Major Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon analyst who has been fired "for his politically incorrect but “hard-to-refute views on the relationship between Islamic law and Islamist jihad doctrine." Let us hope that the Pentagon's resort to political correctness will be rectified.
Item: de Russy notes that:
"The president of Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, Sari Nusseibeh, made anti-Semitic remarks during a rant against the presence of Jews in any future Palestinian state. Al-Quds has partnered with several American and Canadian universities to offer programs, classes, and research opportunities. These schools include the University of Michigan at Dearborn, Northeastern University, York University in Ontario, Brandeis, and George Washington University. Al-Quds also receives U.S. government support."
Here is one more nail in the coffin of Alan Colmes's argument that progressive-liberals aren't really Nazis. Of course, they are, Jonah Goldberg. Of course they are.
Item: de Russy notes that the Anti-Racist Blog has:
"obtained a series of e-mails promoting a despicable campaign to de-legitimize Israel on college campuses across the United States that will be waged in the coming months. As you will see, anti-Zionist conspirators from student groups such as MSA, and SJP are preparing for a coordinated and unprecedented nationwide assault on the Jewish State and its supporters."
Here is yet one more nail in the coffin of Alan Colmes's argument that progressive-liberals aren't really Nazis.
Item: de Russy notes that there has been a proposal for a Russell Kirk University.
I hope that they have a business school!
Item: de Russy notes that:
"John Yoo, a Yale Law School graduate who served at the Justice Department, has been sued by convicted terrorist Jose Padilla, who is being represented by lawyers at Yale. As the editors of the Wall Street Journal observe, “Perhaps if Mr. Yoo had decided to pursue a life of terrorism, he too could be represented by his alma mater.”
I guess when they're not stealing land from poor African Americans, universities keep themselves busy by harming their alumni!
Item: de Russy notes an Anti-Racist Blog recount of a Chicago Tribune story by Jim Tankersley which mentions that:
"U.S. government officials authorized giving nearly $1 million in foreign aid to a Palestinian university with links to the terrorist group Hamas, despite vetting the school eight times for ties to terrorism, according to a government audit."
Item: de Russy provides still more evidence of the progressive-liberal/Nazi link:
"Norman Finkelstein, a critic of Israel who resigned last year as a political science professor at DePaul University, met this week with a senior official of Hezbollah in south Lebanon.
"Although the U.S. government has labeled Hezbollah a terrorist organization, Finkelstein portrays the group as standing for “hope.”
"...In the past, Finkelstein has maintained that some Jewish groups have exploited the Holocaust for political and financial gain.(AP)"
De Russy consistently demonstrates excellence in blogging. Please, please keep up the good work, Candace. We love you even if our drooling governor showed you the door.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Optimism Abounds
The Campbell Apartment at Grand Central Station.My good friend Cortes DeRussy is optimistic about our economic future. In contrast to my pessimism over drinks and dinner two nights ago at the Campbell Apartment at Grand Central Station and Cafe Centro in the MetLife Building, Mr. DeRussy sent me the following quote from Alex Tabarrok writing in Forbes:
"People used to think that more population was bad for growth. In this view, people are stomachs--they eat, leaving less for everyone else. But once we realize the importance of ideas in the economy, people become brains--they innovate, creating more for everyone else.
"New ideas mean more growth, and even small changes in economic growth rates produce large economic and social benefits. At current income levels, with an inflation-adjusted growth rate of 3% per year, America's real per capita gross domestic product would exceed $1 million per year in just over 100 years, more than 22 times higher than it is today. Growth like that could solve many problems."
The Campbell Apartment and Cafe Centro illustrate free market change. The Campbell Apartment had been built as John W. Campbell's office and reception hall in Grand Central Station in the 1920s. Now it is a public bar and reception hall. Cafe Centro used to be Pan Am's airline ticket office. Now it is an excellent restaurant.
But is there reason for optimism? The past 40 years have seen the Fed's unrelenting expansion of the money supply despite reputed monetary policy change*; an increasing addiction to publicly manufactured credit; and virtually no movement toward repeal of the Progressive and New Deal regulatory regime. While liberals have mostly won on free trade, there is a strong impulse to revoke the gains and even stronger resistance to further progress. On balance, liberals have been successful on trade but failures with respect to money, permitting the Federal Reserve Bank to reallocate real resources in debtors' interest, in turn causing income inequality that the progressive-liberals now emphasize in agitating for additional taxes and regulation. Yet there is little movement toward further deregulation. The reason for lack of public debate about monetary inflation, which has caused serious disruption in countries like Germany, may be interest group capture of the Republican Party. The nation is reaching a stale mate. Future progress will require new strategies.
The US has been able grow, but there is no guarantee that growth can continue. How much misallocation is too much?
In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has conceptualized a new scope for government regulation: personal wellness and fitness. Nationally, the emphasis is on adding environmental regulation. There is no impulse this year to discuss elimination of the massive waste in government in areas like the department of education.
Like Mr. DeRussy, David Boaz, head of the Cato institute, is optimistic. In response to my blog this morning on Mugwumps and libertarian strategy Mr. Boaz writes:
"I think Bill Niskanen would disagree with your suggestion that libertarians and conservatives haven’t had any effect. A couple of years ago he wrote, 'after a decade or so of gestation, almost all of the major economic policy proposals made during the past 30 years originated on the libertarian right'."
While I do not doubt that Messrs. Boaz and Niskanen are correct (and the Cato Institute has certainly been a crucial voice for reform), the reason is in no small part the Democratic Party's incompetence, with a resulting dearth of ideas. Naturally, the few good ones have come from the libertarian right, Milton Friedman and the Cato Institute.
Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies of the Cato Institute, also kindly responds to my blog. Mr. Cannon writes that the repeal of all campaign finance laws and instant-runoff voting are two changes that could improve libertarians' voice. He also notes a second Cato article by William Niskanen who 18 months ago offered the same idea that I proposed yesterday (although the Mugwumps beat Mr. Niskanen by 122 years):
"Increased outrage about the state of American politics and the prospect for a larger number of close elections increases the potential effectiveness of a different libertarian party — one that sometimes endorses one or the other major party candidate but does not run a party candidate for that position."
"The Libertarian Party’s efforts to promote their policy positions by running Libertarian candidates is counter-productive when they reduce the vote for their favored major party candidates. A disciplined group that is prepared to endorse one or the other major party candidate in a close election, however, can have a substantial effect on the issue positions of both major party candidates... conditions must be met to achieve this effectiveness...This is a strategy to increase the approval of libertarian policy positions rather than the usually counter-productive effort to increase the number of votes for Libertarian candidates. Maybe it is better to term the organization that I have described as a libertarian political action group, not a libertarian party."
Mr. Niskanen's idea is similar to what the Mugwumps did in the 1880s. It is true that there have been some policy successes, and perhaps I am unfairly pessimistic.
But where is the liberal momentum in this year of increasing inflation and monetary instability?
*Despite considerable PR about monetary targets, the inflation rate since 1979 has averaged 3.7%, considerably higher than it was before the establishment of the Fed in 1913. The 3.7% inflation rate may be understated because of exclusion of home purchase prices. At the same time, several foreign governments have acquired dollar denominated assets each equaling the total US money supply of $1.4 trillion.
The Libertarian Party Should Become a Voter Block Brokerage Organization
I would like to bring a crucial point about strategy to the attention of Ron Paul voters, libertarians and especially members of the Libertarian Party. The LP might reconsider its three-decade old strategy and adopt an interest group approach that worked well for the Mugwumps, or independent Republicans, in the 19th century.
David Tucker has written an excellent book on the Mugwumps. The name Mugwumps comes from a term that Algonquin Indians used for young chieftain. They were upper-class north easterners, many of whom had been abolitionists. Many died just before World War I, and their last major battle involved opposition to US imperialism and the Spanish-American War, which the early progressive-liberals, such as Theodore Roosevelt, supported.
The Mugwumps were the first industrial age libertarian movement. The chief issues with which the Mugwumps were concerned were:
1. Sound money and reestablishment of a pure gold standard
2. Free trade
3. Elimination of corruption from government by establishment of civil service
The Mugwumps have not always received favorable press from left-wing historians. In spirit, they were the American branch of the anti-Corn Law movement of Cobden and Bright. Several of them corresponded with John Stuart Mill.
1. The Mugwumps constituted a smaller percentage of the population than the Libertarian Party reflects today, but their effect on American politics was much larger than the combined Libertarian and conservative movements of the past 40 years.
2. It is true that the Mugwumps had far greater media support, namely Harper's Weekly, the Nation, the New York Post and the New York Times as well as several other publications than today's libertarians.
3. In that period, voters were more committed to party-line voting than today, so although the Mugwumps could leverage greater publicity, their ability to influence voting was smaller as a percentage of the vote than the Libertarian Party's today. If you add Ron Paul's Republican followers, then the total number of today's libertarians would be many times greater than the votes that the Mugwumps could leverage
4. The Mugwumps ran separate presidential candidates only twice: Horace Greeley in 1872 and John M. Palmer in 1896.
5. The Mugwumps' greatest success came in 1884, when they refused to back the Republican candidate, James Blaine, and instead backed the hard money, free trade Democrat Grover Cleveland.
6. Because the race in New York was decided by less than one percent, some credited them with winning the 1884 election for Cleveland.
7. They saw many of their ideas accepted. These included official de-politicization of the money supply; free trade and reduction of the tariff; and the civil service.
8. They failed circa 1900 because economists trained in the German historical school came to dominate university economics departments, depriving them of universities' imprimatur, and because of widespread support for imperialism in the 1890s. Imperialism and government economic intervention were more attractive to turn of the century Americans, especially the generation born after the Civil War. The loss of academia to the progressive-liberals caused the Mugwumps to die. They have been largely forgotten because of the loss of continuity, but they were prominent in my grandfather's lifetime.
9. The Mugwumps were repeatedly successful when they brokered between the political parties and served as a special interest group. They were repeated failures when they ran third party candidates.
The Libertarian Party has served an important educational function since the 1970s in education in the principles of free markets and civil freedom. Although classical liberalism has numerically and percentage-wise a greater base now than it did in 1884, it has not succeeded anywhere near as much as the 19th century movement succeeded. The problem has been tactical.
The Mugwumps believed that the Republicans were the "party of principle", but they were willing to broker deals to support either party, as they did with the Democratic candidacy of Grover Cleveland. They did this because in their view the Republicans failed to live up to its promise and did not support liberal principle following the Civil War.
Conservatives and libertarians today have been dismayed at the choices that the mainstream parties present. But with five to ten percent of the vote, and possibly more, believers in classical liberalism constitute a powerful voting block.
The Libertarian Party is making a mistake by not offering compromise deals to the major parties, and going with the better of the two (not necessarily one or the other).
The Mugwumps were able to leverage say 100,000 votes by brokering between parties. There is no reason why classical liberals, libertarians and free market conservatives, who may represent 20 to 45 million votes, cannot do the same.
Partisan support for the Republicans and/or the third party approach has failed. The time has come for a change in strategy.
David Tucker has written an excellent book on the Mugwumps. The name Mugwumps comes from a term that Algonquin Indians used for young chieftain. They were upper-class north easterners, many of whom had been abolitionists. Many died just before World War I, and their last major battle involved opposition to US imperialism and the Spanish-American War, which the early progressive-liberals, such as Theodore Roosevelt, supported.
The Mugwumps were the first industrial age libertarian movement. The chief issues with which the Mugwumps were concerned were:
1. Sound money and reestablishment of a pure gold standard
2. Free trade
3. Elimination of corruption from government by establishment of civil service
The Mugwumps have not always received favorable press from left-wing historians. In spirit, they were the American branch of the anti-Corn Law movement of Cobden and Bright. Several of them corresponded with John Stuart Mill.
1. The Mugwumps constituted a smaller percentage of the population than the Libertarian Party reflects today, but their effect on American politics was much larger than the combined Libertarian and conservative movements of the past 40 years.
2. It is true that the Mugwumps had far greater media support, namely Harper's Weekly, the Nation, the New York Post and the New York Times as well as several other publications than today's libertarians.
3. In that period, voters were more committed to party-line voting than today, so although the Mugwumps could leverage greater publicity, their ability to influence voting was smaller as a percentage of the vote than the Libertarian Party's today. If you add Ron Paul's Republican followers, then the total number of today's libertarians would be many times greater than the votes that the Mugwumps could leverage
4. The Mugwumps ran separate presidential candidates only twice: Horace Greeley in 1872 and John M. Palmer in 1896.
5. The Mugwumps' greatest success came in 1884, when they refused to back the Republican candidate, James Blaine, and instead backed the hard money, free trade Democrat Grover Cleveland.
6. Because the race in New York was decided by less than one percent, some credited them with winning the 1884 election for Cleveland.
7. They saw many of their ideas accepted. These included official de-politicization of the money supply; free trade and reduction of the tariff; and the civil service.
8. They failed circa 1900 because economists trained in the German historical school came to dominate university economics departments, depriving them of universities' imprimatur, and because of widespread support for imperialism in the 1890s. Imperialism and government economic intervention were more attractive to turn of the century Americans, especially the generation born after the Civil War. The loss of academia to the progressive-liberals caused the Mugwumps to die. They have been largely forgotten because of the loss of continuity, but they were prominent in my grandfather's lifetime.
9. The Mugwumps were repeatedly successful when they brokered between the political parties and served as a special interest group. They were repeated failures when they ran third party candidates.
The Libertarian Party has served an important educational function since the 1970s in education in the principles of free markets and civil freedom. Although classical liberalism has numerically and percentage-wise a greater base now than it did in 1884, it has not succeeded anywhere near as much as the 19th century movement succeeded. The problem has been tactical.
The Mugwumps believed that the Republicans were the "party of principle", but they were willing to broker deals to support either party, as they did with the Democratic candidacy of Grover Cleveland. They did this because in their view the Republicans failed to live up to its promise and did not support liberal principle following the Civil War.
Conservatives and libertarians today have been dismayed at the choices that the mainstream parties present. But with five to ten percent of the vote, and possibly more, believers in classical liberalism constitute a powerful voting block.
The Libertarian Party is making a mistake by not offering compromise deals to the major parties, and going with the better of the two (not necessarily one or the other).
The Mugwumps were able to leverage say 100,000 votes by brokering between parties. There is no reason why classical liberals, libertarians and free market conservatives, who may represent 20 to 45 million votes, cannot do the same.
Partisan support for the Republicans and/or the third party approach has failed. The time has come for a change in strategy.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Democratic versus Achievement Motives in American History
David M. Tucker. Mugwumps: Public Moralists of The Gilded Age. Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri Press, 1998. 139 pp.
David M. Tucker's Mugwumps: Public Moralists of the Gilded Age is an excellent overview of the Mugwumps. It is sympathetic to its subject, unlike others who have written about the Mugwumps. Phrases like "Old Right" abound in the post-war libertarian literature, but the image often is vague. Tucker's book shows that the 19th century classical liberals, known as independent Republicans, were former abolitionists, not bigots in any sense of the word (the few that turned out to be, such as Henry Adams ceased to be considered Mugwumps and became associated with Populism), and were very conscious of their libertarian ideology, their commitment to Adam Smith, the Manchester liberals and John Stuart Mill, with whom several corresponded. The Mugwumps were:
-A small movement, no larger than today's Libertarian Party as a percentage of the voting public, and probably smaller
-sharply differentiated from the two major parties in terms of their commitment to liberal or libertarian ideas, specifically tariff reduction (which the Democrats tended to support and the Republicans tended to oppose); hard money and the gold standard (which neither party really supported); and opposition to imperialism
-support for the newly formed (under the Pendleton Act) federal civil service, which they thought would end corruption in government and reduce the opportunity for spoils, which led the public to support corrupt government (in other words, they wanted to end special interest capture of government)
The book is very well written (although at times there could have been slightly better transitioning and linkage of ideas) and of serious interest to libertarians, conservatives, and those with an interest in the decline of morals in business and government.
Although the Mugwumps were the first post-industrial libertarian movement, they also were at the root of today's progressive-liberalism, as Richard Hofstadter has pointed out. The effectiveness of their tactics, the use of social control and groupthink to effectuate a uniform party platform, served as a model to the next generation's emphasis on big government, imperialism and state intervention in the economy. Most of all, Mugwumps pioneered the use of groupthink as a political tactic. This has been copied not only by the progressive-liberals but also by today's Libertarian Party, which borrows the Mugwumps' appellation for the Republican Party, "the party of principle".
Tucker's perspective on the Mugwumps is sharply from John R. Dobson's Politics in the Gilded Age which I blog here. Tucker has more respect for the Mugwumps.
David Riesmann has argued that in the twentieth century Americans turned from a 19th century inner directedness that involves a goal and future orientation to an other directedness that involves a focus on peers, influence from popular media, fashion and interpersonal relationships at work. But the tension between these two impulses was already evident in the 1870s.
Several of the Mugwumps, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, sacrificed their Mugwump ideals for conformity to the Republicans' political demands. They refused to join the other Mugwumps in exiting the Republican Party in 1884. Both Roosevelt and Lodge had much more successful political careers than the other Mugwumps because they put politics over principle, and they did so by adopt the other-directed progressive-liberal ideas of the early twentieth century. Theodore Roosevelt may be thought of as the first other-directed American.
A few of the Mugwumps, such as Henry Adams, who rejected Mugwumpery in favor of anti-Semitism, Populism and free silver (Tucker suggests that the Adamses' exit from Mugwumpery was related to their failure in real estate speculation in Spokane and Kansas City and their hope for a silver inflation). Henry Adams became a Populist who blamed Jewish bankers for his business failings.
The most effective Mugwumps were those who played off the two-party system, favoring one or the other party depending on who was following the most libertarian course. They became famous for this in 1884, when they contributed to the defeat of James G. Blaine in favor of Grover Cleveland, who was a largely libertarian president.
The Mugwumps ran only two independent candidates in their roughly 35-year history: Horace Greeley of the Liberal Republicans in 1872 and John M. Palmer of the National Democrats in 1895. Neither fared well. There is a lesson for the Libertarian Party here. The LP would function more effectively as an election spoiler than as an independent political party.
The Mugwumps (or Independent Republicans) were mostly upper class northeasterners, mainly from New England and New York. They tended to have been educated in religious, Protestant schools and to have had a strong moral sense. Many were former abolitionists. They were not religious themselves, but their grounding and education was. They were concerned with the decay of morals in American politics, and were inclined to foresake personal gain and office on behalf of their ideals, which did not match their economic interests. In other words, many of them benefited from paper money and inflation, but they opposed it on moral grounds, and the same is true of tariffs. Many left wing historians, who lack grounding in economics and ethics, look for class or personal motives in the Mugwumps' position. Ironically, support for inflation, free silver, greenbacks and Keynesian economics is very much the position that favors the upper class, banking interests, Wall Street, hedge fund billionaires, large coroporations and corporate executvies. It was Theodore Roosevelt who benefited from his cynical adoption of progressive-liberalism, the ideology of the American upper class from 1900 to 2007. EL Godkin, Carl Schurz, Horace White and the other Mugwumps paid dearly for their idealistic commitment to morality in politics. The fact that historians have often treated them shabbily suggests shabbines in academia more than anything else.
The Independent Republicans had one advantage over today's libertarians and conservatives: the intellectual support of mainstream universities. Relatively few Americans were capable of thinking through monetary issues even in the 1870s. Today, probably even a smaller percentage of the population is willing to expend the effort to do so. However, when the Mugwumps could say that their ideas had the backing of Harvard economists, the public was much more likely to defer. In this sense, they provided a role model to today's progressive-liberals, who dominate our society through their control of higher education. This intrigues me because it suggests a tighter link between the ideology of higher education, economic interests and what Howard S. Katz calls "the paper aristocracy" than I used to think.
The Mugwumps had limited data on which to base their arguments, and they fell into a number of errors. The most grievous Mugwumps fell were their support for the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank and their belief that the civil service would end special interest politics and government corruption. Their emphasis on the Fed came from three factors: (1) they believed that the Fed would be constrained by the gold standard, which Roosevelt abolished in the 1930s; (2) they believed that separating money from politics would reduce the temptation to inflate (they overrated the institutional separation of the Fed from Congress; (3) they did not anticipate Keynesian economics, which provided an ideological rationale for the inflationist view which (not to blame them, who could would have known?).
Their notions of morality led to their belief in free trade, the gold standard and honest government, notably via civil service reform. Their advocacy of sound money and free trade, which they explicitly linked to the elimination of special privilege, favoritism for the rich (the debtor class, according to their arguments, being the chief beneficiaries of paper money, then as now) was explicitly rooted in their moral sense. They saw individual achievement, self sufficiency and hard work as moral principles that protectionism and paper money would debase.
Then as now there were powerful forces arrayed against moralist and hard money positions. There was strong western agitation for greenbacks and then silver inflation by landowners (much as the subprime crisis today has been a strong motivation of reallocation of wealth to wealthy investment bankers and landowners), and politicians were inclined to support the demands for inflation. In fact, there were several greenback and free silver bills passed, that Mugwump agitation was able to stop, and some that the Mugwumps could not stop.
The Mugwumps saw the debate as one involving moral principle against personal gain. Those who favored personal gain over morals joined the regular party ranks. Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, are cited as two examples of reformers who chose to emphasize their careers as opposed to their morals. When James G. B
Gain in democracatic politics is linked to popular appeal. Hence other directedness results from focus on public opinion. However, the advances in American society came not from the political but from the creative, scientific, engineering and management fields, which do not depend on public opinion. Theodore Roosevelt was among the first other-directed, twentieth century men. In choosing personal gain and political advantage over moral belief, he set the stage for the progressive-liberalism of the twentieth century, its moral vacuity and the economic decline that will result from focus on relationships and opinion rather than achievement.
David M. Tucker's Mugwumps: Public Moralists of the Gilded Age is an excellent overview of the Mugwumps. It is sympathetic to its subject, unlike others who have written about the Mugwumps. Phrases like "Old Right" abound in the post-war libertarian literature, but the image often is vague. Tucker's book shows that the 19th century classical liberals, known as independent Republicans, were former abolitionists, not bigots in any sense of the word (the few that turned out to be, such as Henry Adams ceased to be considered Mugwumps and became associated with Populism), and were very conscious of their libertarian ideology, their commitment to Adam Smith, the Manchester liberals and John Stuart Mill, with whom several corresponded. The Mugwumps were:
-A small movement, no larger than today's Libertarian Party as a percentage of the voting public, and probably smaller
-sharply differentiated from the two major parties in terms of their commitment to liberal or libertarian ideas, specifically tariff reduction (which the Democrats tended to support and the Republicans tended to oppose); hard money and the gold standard (which neither party really supported); and opposition to imperialism
-support for the newly formed (under the Pendleton Act) federal civil service, which they thought would end corruption in government and reduce the opportunity for spoils, which led the public to support corrupt government (in other words, they wanted to end special interest capture of government)
The book is very well written (although at times there could have been slightly better transitioning and linkage of ideas) and of serious interest to libertarians, conservatives, and those with an interest in the decline of morals in business and government.
Although the Mugwumps were the first post-industrial libertarian movement, they also were at the root of today's progressive-liberalism, as Richard Hofstadter has pointed out. The effectiveness of their tactics, the use of social control and groupthink to effectuate a uniform party platform, served as a model to the next generation's emphasis on big government, imperialism and state intervention in the economy. Most of all, Mugwumps pioneered the use of groupthink as a political tactic. This has been copied not only by the progressive-liberals but also by today's Libertarian Party, which borrows the Mugwumps' appellation for the Republican Party, "the party of principle".
Tucker's perspective on the Mugwumps is sharply from John R. Dobson's Politics in the Gilded Age which I blog here. Tucker has more respect for the Mugwumps.
David Riesmann has argued that in the twentieth century Americans turned from a 19th century inner directedness that involves a goal and future orientation to an other directedness that involves a focus on peers, influence from popular media, fashion and interpersonal relationships at work. But the tension between these two impulses was already evident in the 1870s.
Several of the Mugwumps, such as Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, sacrificed their Mugwump ideals for conformity to the Republicans' political demands. They refused to join the other Mugwumps in exiting the Republican Party in 1884. Both Roosevelt and Lodge had much more successful political careers than the other Mugwumps because they put politics over principle, and they did so by adopt the other-directed progressive-liberal ideas of the early twentieth century. Theodore Roosevelt may be thought of as the first other-directed American.
A few of the Mugwumps, such as Henry Adams, who rejected Mugwumpery in favor of anti-Semitism, Populism and free silver (Tucker suggests that the Adamses' exit from Mugwumpery was related to their failure in real estate speculation in Spokane and Kansas City and their hope for a silver inflation). Henry Adams became a Populist who blamed Jewish bankers for his business failings.
The most effective Mugwumps were those who played off the two-party system, favoring one or the other party depending on who was following the most libertarian course. They became famous for this in 1884, when they contributed to the defeat of James G. Blaine in favor of Grover Cleveland, who was a largely libertarian president.
The Mugwumps ran only two independent candidates in their roughly 35-year history: Horace Greeley of the Liberal Republicans in 1872 and John M. Palmer of the National Democrats in 1895. Neither fared well. There is a lesson for the Libertarian Party here. The LP would function more effectively as an election spoiler than as an independent political party.
The Mugwumps (or Independent Republicans) were mostly upper class northeasterners, mainly from New England and New York. They tended to have been educated in religious, Protestant schools and to have had a strong moral sense. Many were former abolitionists. They were not religious themselves, but their grounding and education was. They were concerned with the decay of morals in American politics, and were inclined to foresake personal gain and office on behalf of their ideals, which did not match their economic interests. In other words, many of them benefited from paper money and inflation, but they opposed it on moral grounds, and the same is true of tariffs. Many left wing historians, who lack grounding in economics and ethics, look for class or personal motives in the Mugwumps' position. Ironically, support for inflation, free silver, greenbacks and Keynesian economics is very much the position that favors the upper class, banking interests, Wall Street, hedge fund billionaires, large coroporations and corporate executvies. It was Theodore Roosevelt who benefited from his cynical adoption of progressive-liberalism, the ideology of the American upper class from 1900 to 2007. EL Godkin, Carl Schurz, Horace White and the other Mugwumps paid dearly for their idealistic commitment to morality in politics. The fact that historians have often treated them shabbily suggests shabbines in academia more than anything else.
The Independent Republicans had one advantage over today's libertarians and conservatives: the intellectual support of mainstream universities. Relatively few Americans were capable of thinking through monetary issues even in the 1870s. Today, probably even a smaller percentage of the population is willing to expend the effort to do so. However, when the Mugwumps could say that their ideas had the backing of Harvard economists, the public was much more likely to defer. In this sense, they provided a role model to today's progressive-liberals, who dominate our society through their control of higher education. This intrigues me because it suggests a tighter link between the ideology of higher education, economic interests and what Howard S. Katz calls "the paper aristocracy" than I used to think.
The Mugwumps had limited data on which to base their arguments, and they fell into a number of errors. The most grievous Mugwumps fell were their support for the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank and their belief that the civil service would end special interest politics and government corruption. Their emphasis on the Fed came from three factors: (1) they believed that the Fed would be constrained by the gold standard, which Roosevelt abolished in the 1930s; (2) they believed that separating money from politics would reduce the temptation to inflate (they overrated the institutional separation of the Fed from Congress; (3) they did not anticipate Keynesian economics, which provided an ideological rationale for the inflationist view which (not to blame them, who could would have known?).
Their notions of morality led to their belief in free trade, the gold standard and honest government, notably via civil service reform. Their advocacy of sound money and free trade, which they explicitly linked to the elimination of special privilege, favoritism for the rich (the debtor class, according to their arguments, being the chief beneficiaries of paper money, then as now) was explicitly rooted in their moral sense. They saw individual achievement, self sufficiency and hard work as moral principles that protectionism and paper money would debase.
Then as now there were powerful forces arrayed against moralist and hard money positions. There was strong western agitation for greenbacks and then silver inflation by landowners (much as the subprime crisis today has been a strong motivation of reallocation of wealth to wealthy investment bankers and landowners), and politicians were inclined to support the demands for inflation. In fact, there were several greenback and free silver bills passed, that Mugwump agitation was able to stop, and some that the Mugwumps could not stop.
The Mugwumps saw the debate as one involving moral principle against personal gain. Those who favored personal gain over morals joined the regular party ranks. Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, are cited as two examples of reformers who chose to emphasize their careers as opposed to their morals. When James G. B
Gain in democracatic politics is linked to popular appeal. Hence other directedness results from focus on public opinion. However, the advances in American society came not from the political but from the creative, scientific, engineering and management fields, which do not depend on public opinion. Theodore Roosevelt was among the first other-directed, twentieth century men. In choosing personal gain and political advantage over moral belief, he set the stage for the progressive-liberalism of the twentieth century, its moral vacuity and the economic decline that will result from focus on relationships and opinion rather than achievement.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Opiate of the Masses
Merv of PrairiePundit posts Mark Steyn's article about capitalism and change (thanks to Larwyn). He notes that whereas the presidential candidates say that they favor change:
"it's capitalism that's the real "agent of change. Politicians, on the whole, prefer stasis, at least on everything for which they already have responsibility. ts."
But the change thatReInflateoCrat politicians advocate is not make believe. Politicians do create change. Progressive-liberal or political change is reactionary and exploitative. The name "progressive-liberal" refers not to progress or liberalization for the public, rather progress and liberalization for its privileged beneficiaries: lawyers, big business, academics and hedge fund managers.
In aiming to "deconstruct" American values, progressive-liberals aim to supplant them with values that serve their ends. Progressive liberals aim not only to staunch general progress and technological advance, which threatens established economic interests, but to intensify income inequality; shore up inept businesses; protect inefficient health care; make the poor poorer; and make the rich richer. All of this is done in the name of making the economy more efficient; reducing income inequality; providing general health care; and helping the poor. Progressive-liberalism is a vicious philosophy.
Universities have played a critical role in reinforcing exploitative political change . In the 1970s Milovan Djilas argued that communism and left wing ideology served the interests of a new class of journalists and intellectuals.
In America, political use of intellectuals to advocate and support economic exploitation of the poor takes on a specific pattern. American academics argue for cultural change that reinforces their power. They attack religious institutions and traditional values, and argue for a pattern based on groupthink, the "liberal Borg", whereby the New York Times sets an agenda which progressive-liberal cult members mindlessly follow. The progressive-liberal groupthink mentality is a social control process that serves specific economic interests. The new class, academics and journalists, is paid for this pattern with academic jobs, funding and the like.
The effect of the academics' purposed cultural domination and hegemony is to distract the public from state violence and exploitation. The public is made poorer by inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve Bank, while the media advises them that inflation is low. The dollar is artificially propped up and some jobs leave the country, and the media tells the public that free trade is to blame. There is massive waste in government, and the public is told that taxes are too low.
All the while, academia distracts from its exploitative purposes by raising crank political issues: terrorism is justice; defending America is imperialism; crime is justice; taxation creates wealth; free trade makes us poorer, and so on.
The Republicans have been too often part of this process. Republicans, such as Theodore Roosevelt, supported progressive-liberalism. This element never left the Republican Party. In those days, the Democrats were free traders and the Republicans supported exploitative tariffs. Support for hard money was a minority voice in both parties. It was not until 1896 that the Republicans became the hard money party.
It is primarily because of capture of academia that the progressive-liberals have been triumphant in the last century. Now that their ideas have been discredited, it is even more crucial to them to retain control of academia. Without the reinforcement of academic propaganda, it will be difficult for the progressive-liberals to appear to be anything other than what they are: the ideologists of corruption, narrow special interest and economic decline.
Conservatives need to state their case. The Republican Party is not necessarily a conservative or moderate conservative party. It has been a corrupt or progressive-liberal party for much of its history. Conservatives must ponder the way forward.
"it's capitalism that's the real "agent of change. Politicians, on the whole, prefer stasis, at least on everything for which they already have responsibility. ts."
But the change thatReInflateoCrat politicians advocate is not make believe. Politicians do create change. Progressive-liberal or political change is reactionary and exploitative. The name "progressive-liberal" refers not to progress or liberalization for the public, rather progress and liberalization for its privileged beneficiaries: lawyers, big business, academics and hedge fund managers.
In aiming to "deconstruct" American values, progressive-liberals aim to supplant them with values that serve their ends. Progressive liberals aim not only to staunch general progress and technological advance, which threatens established economic interests, but to intensify income inequality; shore up inept businesses; protect inefficient health care; make the poor poorer; and make the rich richer. All of this is done in the name of making the economy more efficient; reducing income inequality; providing general health care; and helping the poor. Progressive-liberalism is a vicious philosophy.
Universities have played a critical role in reinforcing exploitative political change . In the 1970s Milovan Djilas argued that communism and left wing ideology served the interests of a new class of journalists and intellectuals.
In America, political use of intellectuals to advocate and support economic exploitation of the poor takes on a specific pattern. American academics argue for cultural change that reinforces their power. They attack religious institutions and traditional values, and argue for a pattern based on groupthink, the "liberal Borg", whereby the New York Times sets an agenda which progressive-liberal cult members mindlessly follow. The progressive-liberal groupthink mentality is a social control process that serves specific economic interests. The new class, academics and journalists, is paid for this pattern with academic jobs, funding and the like.
The effect of the academics' purposed cultural domination and hegemony is to distract the public from state violence and exploitation. The public is made poorer by inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve Bank, while the media advises them that inflation is low. The dollar is artificially propped up and some jobs leave the country, and the media tells the public that free trade is to blame. There is massive waste in government, and the public is told that taxes are too low.
All the while, academia distracts from its exploitative purposes by raising crank political issues: terrorism is justice; defending America is imperialism; crime is justice; taxation creates wealth; free trade makes us poorer, and so on.
The Republicans have been too often part of this process. Republicans, such as Theodore Roosevelt, supported progressive-liberalism. This element never left the Republican Party. In those days, the Democrats were free traders and the Republicans supported exploitative tariffs. Support for hard money was a minority voice in both parties. It was not until 1896 that the Republicans became the hard money party.
It is primarily because of capture of academia that the progressive-liberals have been triumphant in the last century. Now that their ideas have been discredited, it is even more crucial to them to retain control of academia. Without the reinforcement of academic propaganda, it will be difficult for the progressive-liberals to appear to be anything other than what they are: the ideologists of corruption, narrow special interest and economic decline.
Conservatives need to state their case. The Republican Party is not necessarily a conservative or moderate conservative party. It has been a corrupt or progressive-liberal party for much of its history. Conservatives must ponder the way forward.
Milton Friedman and the Federal Reserve Bank
I will ask my business seminar course to read Milton Friedman's 1962 Capitalism and Freedom, which was re-published in a 2002 40th anniversary edition. I was just re-reading it and cannot praise it highly enough. On page 44 Friedman writes:
"It is instructive to compare experience as a whole before and after (the Fed's) establishment--say from just after the Civil War to 1914 and from 1914 to date,to take two periods of roughly equal length.
"The second period was clearly the more unstable economically, whether instability is measured by the fluctuations in the stock of money, in prices, or in outputs...(E)ven if the war and immediate postwar years are omitted, and we consider only the peacetime years from, say, 1920 through 1939 and 1947 to date, the result is the same. The stock of money, prices and output was decidedly more unstable after the establishment of the Reserve System than before...
"...the crude comparison should at least give the reader pause before he takes for granted, as is so often done, that an agency as long established, as powerful, as pervasive as the Federal Reserve System is performing a necessary and desirable fundtion and is contributing to the attainment of the objective for which it was established."
Things have recently become worse than they've been in a long time. Perhaps it is time to abolish the Fed. Since the Democrats are asking for change, and an elimination of the Fed's disruptive inflationary cycles would certainly constitute change, this is the year to do it.
"It is instructive to compare experience as a whole before and after (the Fed's) establishment--say from just after the Civil War to 1914 and from 1914 to date,to take two periods of roughly equal length.
"The second period was clearly the more unstable economically, whether instability is measured by the fluctuations in the stock of money, in prices, or in outputs...(E)ven if the war and immediate postwar years are omitted, and we consider only the peacetime years from, say, 1920 through 1939 and 1947 to date, the result is the same. The stock of money, prices and output was decidedly more unstable after the establishment of the Reserve System than before...
"...the crude comparison should at least give the reader pause before he takes for granted, as is so often done, that an agency as long established, as powerful, as pervasive as the Federal Reserve System is performing a necessary and desirable fundtion and is contributing to the attainment of the objective for which it was established."
Things have recently become worse than they've been in a long time. Perhaps it is time to abolish the Fed. Since the Democrats are asking for change, and an elimination of the Fed's disruptive inflationary cycles would certainly constitute change, this is the year to do it.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Origins of Progressive Liberalism
The modern progressive-liberal movement may be said to have its earliest origins in the presidential campaign of 1884 when the Independent Republicans or Mugwumps (named after the word for young Algonquin Indian chieftain) bolted the Republican Party to fight the candidacy of James G. Blaine (R-ME), whom they associated with corruption and feared would scotch the Pendleton Act that had recently established the federal civil service. Instead of Blaine, whom they hated, they supported Grover Cleveland (D-NY). Theodore Roosevelt was linked to the Independent Republicans as was Harvard University's president, Charles Eliot, the New York Times, the Nation, the New York Evening Post, and Harper's Weekly. John M. Dobson* writes of the Mugwumps, the progressive-liberals' precursors:
"In their energetic promotion of Cleveland and their unstinting criticism of Blaine, the Mugwump journalists sometimes exceeded the bounds of objectivity. If they avoided telling outright lies, they were guilty at least of telling only part of the truth. Seldom content with straightforward statements of fact, the Mugwumps interpreted and twisted their stories to suit themselves. Editorializing about Blaine in late September, for example, the New York Times stated, 'There is no speculation which he can resist, but, rich as he is, he has never earned money by any business or profession...' Blaine did initiate a libel suit against and Indianapolis Democratic newspaper...But many Americans considered it somewhat unsportsmanlike to go that far..."
Mugwumpery may be viewed as the roots of liberalism not because the Mugwumps' ideas were like the twentieth century's progressive-liberals' (they were more like today's conservatives') but rather because their approach to ad hoc adoption of a singular idea, intense social pressure to conform to politically correct doctrine and the use of the media to create social conformity to their ideology is very much the technique that the progressive-liberals adopted in the early twentieth century and continue to use today.
*John M. Dobson, Politics in the Gilded Age: A New Perspective On Reform. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972. p. 141.
"In their energetic promotion of Cleveland and their unstinting criticism of Blaine, the Mugwump journalists sometimes exceeded the bounds of objectivity. If they avoided telling outright lies, they were guilty at least of telling only part of the truth. Seldom content with straightforward statements of fact, the Mugwumps interpreted and twisted their stories to suit themselves. Editorializing about Blaine in late September, for example, the New York Times stated, 'There is no speculation which he can resist, but, rich as he is, he has never earned money by any business or profession...' Blaine did initiate a libel suit against and Indianapolis Democratic newspaper...But many Americans considered it somewhat unsportsmanlike to go that far..."
Mugwumpery may be viewed as the roots of liberalism not because the Mugwumps' ideas were like the twentieth century's progressive-liberals' (they were more like today's conservatives') but rather because their approach to ad hoc adoption of a singular idea, intense social pressure to conform to politically correct doctrine and the use of the media to create social conformity to their ideology is very much the technique that the progressive-liberals adopted in the early twentieth century and continue to use today.
*John M. Dobson, Politics in the Gilded Age: A New Perspective On Reform. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972. p. 141.
HBO Should Remake Twin Peaks
I recently re-watched Twin Peaks and still believe that the show is among the top five TV sci-fi/thrillers of all time. I would also include Twilight Zone, One Step Beyond, Outer Limits and X Files.
I have just written to HBO and suggested that they remake the series, perhaps with co-creators David Lynch and Mark Frost. They could also employ the same stars, notably Kyle MacLachlan. Some of the younger actors might play their previous roles grown up. James Hurley (James Marshall) might be the town's auto mechanic and similar roles could be played by Sherilyn Flynn (Audrey Horne, who might be the owner of the Great Northern) Madchen Amick (Shelley Johnson, who might be the new owner of the RR Diner), Dana Ashbrook (Bobby Briggs, who might be a military man) and so on.
One of the tragedies of television is that Twin Peaks aired for only two years (I think 2 1/2 seasons) because of low ratings in its second year. Part of the problem may have been ABC Television's restrictions on Lynch's creativity, which HBO would sidestep. Conversely, the show would attract viewers to HBO because of its cult following.
Sadly, some of the actors, such as Jack Nance (who played Piper Laurie's bumbling husband, Pete Martell), have passed away. In the original series Frank Silva played Killer Bob, the evil parasite spirit who comes from the Black Lodge to inhabit innocent hosts and cause them to become sociopathic murderers, the chief example being Leland Palmer, Laura Palmer's father. Sadly, Silva died of AIDS at the age of 45 in 1995.
I have thought of the ideal replacement for Silva in the new series: Hillary Clinton. Much like Killer Bob, Hillary's spirit aims to inhabit and create havoc and sociopathic behavior. She would fit the Killer Bob role perfectly, and it would keep her from doing harm in the real world. Plus the temperament would be a perfect match. She would not need to act.
Friday, January 11, 2008
John M. Dobson's Politics in the Gilded Age
John M. Dobson. Politics in the Gilded Age: A New Perspective on Reform. New York: Prager Publishers. 1972. 200 pp.
Professor John M. Dobson retired from Iowa State University in 1999 and published Politics in the Gilded Age when I was a college sophomore in 1972. This is a good, timeless book. I read it because it sheds light on important issues: how past generations have pressured the established political parties; what strategies they have used; and how the American public has reacted to political corruption.
The politics of the gilded age was in some ways more naive than today, but in some ways it was more sophisticated. The reform-minded Republicans, who were well educated, affluent and often former abolitionists, believed that the corruption associated with the political machines would be ended through establishment of a civil service system. This belief turned out to have been naive. They believed that since the political machines depended on spoils, a civil service system would limit spoils and so end the machines. The civil service was adopted via the Pendleton Act, and even though the Presidents of the gilded age, notably Chester Alan Arthur, were part of the corrupt local machines (Arthur had been head of New York's customs house, among the most corrupt federal jobs) the Pendleton Act was implemented in good faith.
But the civil service did not end the political machines and it did not end the corruption. This was an early instance of reformers' believing that more government would end corrupt government, but it was not to be the last. This idea has been carried forward by today's progressive-liberals, who also have faith in the idea that lobbying, political favors, corrupt government contracts and the like can be ended through bigger programs.
In other ways, though, the politics of the gilded age were more sophisticated than today's. The chief issues that faced America were protectionism and the monetary system. These are still important issues, but today they are debated and discussed in a less sophisticated manner than in the 1880s. Unlike today, there were proponents of hard money in both the Republican and Democratic Parties. The Democrats who favored the gold standard included business-oriented conservatives known as the Bourbon Democrats. But the Republicans were also divided until the 1896election. Grover Cleveland, a Bourbon Democrat, supported the gold standard. It was in the 1896 election that William Jennings Bryan adopted the position of the Populist Party (ending the Populist Party's insurgency) and praised the use of silver for money, equivalent to the inflationist Keynesian ideology of today that both Democrats and Republicans favor.
Because of Bryan's candidacy, gold standard advocates moved from the Democratic to the Republican Party, and the Republican Party remained the hard money party until the 1960s. In 1971, President Richard Nixon adopted the Keynesian/Populist position, driving the hard money position to the fringes of American politics. This was reinforced by President Ronald Reagan, who was as inflationist as William Jennings Bryan. Hence, the insurgent Populist Party, which was a minor third party with wide public appeal, probably had more influence than any of the other major players in 1884.
Because the Federal Reserve Bank took control of the money supply away from politicians, the surviving Independent Republicans or Mugwumps from 1884 supported the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. As with the civil service, the Mugwumps were naive about the importance of innovative government programs like the Fed. They thought that setting up a body separate from the politicians would make the creation of money independent from political pressure.
Dobson does not emphasize the crucial debates of that period about hard money versus soft and protectionism versus free trade, but he mentions enough to paint a rough picture. The Republicans favored protectionism because high prices are in business's interest, and the Democrats favored free trade because low prices are in everybody else's interest. Some business-oriented Democrats also supported free trade. At the same time, the Republicans were able to convince some wage earners that protectionism was in their interest because higher prices might mean higher wages.
Dobson divides his interesting narrative into two parts. In the first, he describes how the highly structured Democratic and Republican Parties (that have continued until today) came about in the late nineteenth century. In the second, he describes how the Mugwumps fought the established Republicans, helping to give the 1884 Presidential election to Grover Cleveland and stopping the election of James Blaine.
Although Blaine may not have been particularly corrupt, the Mugwumps identified Blaine with corruption. The Mugwumps' failure to end corruption through their activism and through the establishment of the Civil Service led the early twentieth century to progressive-liberalism. Progressive-liberalism was a further response to political corruption.
Summary
The radical Republicans of the post-Lincoln era aimed to retaliate against the South and impeached President Andrew Johnson. They were dominant for the twenty years following the Civil War, in part because of what was called the Bloody Shirt, their use of the memory of the Civil War to win elections. The Republicans of this era included Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens, Benjamin Butler and Roscoe Conkling (p.23). The Republicans' early big-government laws during the Civil War, such as the Homestead Act, appealed to landless farmers, and the Republicans also appealed to the recently freed slaves in the South.
Having been discredited by the Civil War, the Democrats appealed to white southerners, workers in the north and those concerned with local issues (p. 24). The parties quickly became very similar in ideas(p. 25), and their appeal was primarily sectional. Local political activists, ward healers, were the basis of the parties' strength. People interested in becoming professional politicians joined political clubs such as New York's Tammany Hall (p. 27). The political machines gained support by providing services, and these included things like being able to tell a judge to give a not guilty verdict on behalf of a political contributor. Government workers gave kickbacks from their salaries to support the machines as well. Patronage was even more important then than it is now, although Dobson argues that it was not essential to the functioning of the machines (p. 33), which was what the Mugwumps thought.
US Senators were elected by state legislatures in that period, so Senators were intimately involved with state politics. Dobson writes (p. 33) that "the Senate resembled a sort of federation of state bosses."
The federal government spent less after than during the Civil War than, and the sum of states' spending exceeded federal spending. In 1880 the federal government collected $360 million in tariffs, but the entire federal budget was only $260 million, half of which went to Civil War veterans, while the states spent $300 million (p. 35). The federal government had a $100 million surplus.
The public tended to be loyal to a single party (p. 38). However, each party had divergent beliefs internally. There was more divergence within the parties than between them. Samuel J. Tilden, the New York governor who ran for president in 1876, was an advocate of the gold standard, while Thomas Hendricks of Indiana, the Democrats' 1876 vice-presidential nominee, favored greenbacks, which would be the same as the pro-inflation stance that leading politicians have adopted today.
The post-Civil War period experienced an inflationary boom because of the of the greenbacks that financed the War. In the monetary sense, the post Civil War period was like a milder version of the post-World War II period, the ReInflateoCrat period, which has been associated with a mild inflationary boom. Also similar to the post-World War II period, the Civil War had expanded government.
In 1872, Senator Carl Schurz (R-Mo), a German immigrant, led an anti-Grant crusade (p. 41) within the Republican Party, which led to the formation of the Liberal Republican movement, which became a separate party for a while. The Democrats backed the Liberal-Republicans in 1872 because they were so weak in the immediate post-Civil War era.
The pro-Grant forces within the Republican Party were known as Stalwarts, and the anti-Grant forces within the Republican Party were later known as Half-Breeds. The Half Breeds were in favor of what Dobson calls (p. 64) "Northern moral attitudes". The Liberal Republicans formed a separate party that nominated Horace Greeley, once editor of the New York Tribune. However, the Liberal Republicans and Greeley were ineffective, a trait that Dobson argues the Mugwumps shared.
In 1873, the greenback boom led to a depression, and the Democrats won Congress for the first time since the Civil War. There were intermittent recessions through the late 19th century as the effects of the greenbacks wore off. (Then, in the 1890s, the Populists' free silver movement took root.) However, the deflation of the late 19th century was accompanied by rising real wages, a feat the that the ReInflateoCrats of the late twentieth century have been unable to duplicate. Unlike the 19th century, in the late twentieth century the American public has been too poorly educated to understand that its dollar buys two thirds less than it did 30 years ago.
In 1876, Governor Samuel J. Tilden (D-NY), who had ousted Boss Tweed and was known as an anti-corrupton governor, ran for president. The Stalwarts wanted Grant to run again, but the Half-Breeds favored James G. Blaine, a former Speaker of the House (p. 47). As a compromise, the Republicans nominated Rutherford B. Hayes. The vote was very close, and was decided by an electoral commission. In return for agreeing to a partisan commission's findings and agreeing to let Hayes become president, the Democrats asked that all northern troops be withdrawn from the South (p. 48).
Dobson argues that President Hayes was "mixed" on civil service reform, in part because he appointed Carl Schurz as Secretary of the Interior and allowed Schurz to establish a merit-based system for the Department of Interior. He also appointed Theodore Roosevelt, Sr. (President Roosevelt's father) to be head of the New York Customs House (p. 63), firing Chester A. Arthur and Alonzo B. Cornell, who had been the corrupt heads. Senator Roscoe Conkling (R-NY) complained angrily, and the Senate vetoed the new appointments. However, President Hayes put through the Roosevelt appointment when the Senate was out of session.
The three Republican factions that were forming at this time were the Stalwarts, the Half Breeds and the much smaller Independent Republican faction. When Alonzo B. Cornell successfully ran for governor, the Independents handed in Republican ballots (ballots were printed by partisan newspapers in those days) but scratched Cornell's name from the ballots. Thus they became known as scratchers. The Independents hated patronage and corruption on moral grounds. They were unlike the Half-Breeds, who were moralistic but interested in partaking in the corruption. Today, the Stalwarts and the Half Breeds have mostly succeeded within the parties, although voters are not so party-focused as before. But the absence of effective third parties means that although there are more independent voters, with the parties being so dominated by partisan posturing, the independent voters have little choice. This is not so much a matter of right versus left or social conservative versus social liberal. It is, rather, a matter of an absence of intellectual innovation in both parties with no alternative to today's independent voter.
James Garfield won the 1880 presidential election but was assassinated by an insane Stalwart Charles Guiteau, on June 2, 1881. Garfield was a Half-Breed but his vice-president, Chester Alan Arthur, was a Stalwart. In response to Arthur's ascension to the presidency, the Independent Republicans created the National Civil Service Reform League in 1881. In 1882 Congress passed the Pendleton Act, empowering the president to appoint a Civil Service Commission that was charged with establishing a set of rules involving competitive examinations and objective selection of job candidates. The law applied only to some federal employees. Soon after the Pendleton Act, state legislatures passed similar state laws.
Dobson quotes (p. 74) the work of Gerald McFarland, who studied the backgrounds of 400 prominent Independent Republicans in 1884. Almost all of the Independent Republicans were professionals and independents, and a substantial number were millionaires (a million dollars in 1880 was worth about $45 million today). The Republicans had been a party of abolitionists and moralists, and they were disgusted by the corruption of the party machines. The leading state for Independent Republicans was Massachusetts closely followed by New York and then Connecticut and other New England states.
The leader was George William Curtis, who was a friend of Ralph Waldo Emerson, editor of Harper's Weekly, an abolitionist, a supporter of Radical Reconstruction and opponent of the Tweed ring. Dorman B. Eaton, another Independent Republican was a Harvard Law School graduate whom President Arthur appointed to head the Civil Service Commission. Edwin Lawrence Godkin edited the New York Evening Post (now owned by Rupert Murdoch) and the Nation. The New York Times, at that time a Republican paper, also supported the Independent Republicans. As well, Teddy Roosevelt, who was only 25 in 1884 was a supporter of the Independent Republicans, although he did not break with the Republican Party in 1884 as many of them did.
In 1884, the Stalwarts supported a third term for Grant, while the Half-Breeds supported James G. Blaine (p. 87). Dobson notes of the Independent Republicans (p.88):
"The Independents' anti-Blaine campaign of 1884 illustrates the irrationality that often accompanies an emotional crusade. The reformers started out with a reasonable complaint abut the way political affairs were developing...Through their leagues and reform clubs, the Independents had developed a reputation for rational and intelligent action...They lost that and more in the 1884 campaign as they gradually turned into one-sided partisans."
Thus, the Mugwumps' reaction to James G. Blaine was probably irrational, much like much of the media buzz about politics today. They were subject to groupthink and were obsessed with preventing Blaine's election, even though his ultimate opponent, Grover Cleveland, was not demonstrably better than Blaine and owed party hacks in the Democratic Party.
The Independent Republicans backed George F. Edmunds of Vermont, and refused to compromise with the two major candidates, James Blaine and Chester Alan Arthur. When Blaine won the nomination, many of the Independents dropped out. These included many Harvard-connected activist such as President Charles Eliot. Then as now, there was considerable groupthink in the progressive camp. Although the Mugwumps preceded the progressives, you can see the intense social pressure. Those who did not drop out of the Republican Party enjoyed better subsequent careers. Examples are Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, who eventually became a Senator and remained one until he died in 1924. However, Lodge was socially ostracized by the Mugwumps. This intense social pressure to conform to a whimsical ideological position (hatred of James Blaine) and inept tactics very much presaged today's progressive-liberals' attitudes and methods. The groupthink and emotional pressure were very similar to today's liberal Borg.
The Bourbon Democrats were (p. 122) "a loose aggregation of Southern and Northern conservatives". While the Republicans favored government intervention to support business, much as they do now, the Bourbon Democrats "wanted to limit the government's activities to the bare minimum, much as Jefferson and Jackson had. A low tariff advocate almost invariably supported the Bourbon philosophy. Influential and wealthy businessmen, particularly railroad owners and traders, who derived much of their income from foreign commerce, became Bourbons and gave the Democratic Party the financial support so essential to its political success."
Grover Cleveland reflected this libertarian orientation. However, the Bourbon Democrats were ended by William Jennings Bryan and the free silver movement of 1896. It is unfortunate that the advocates of laissez faire were thereby shunted into one party.
One of the key points that Dobson makes is that even though the Mugwumps knew little about Grover Cleveland, who came from Buffalo and had served as New York's Governor for only two years, they were obsessed with supporting him. They were truly the forerunners of today's progressive-liberals.
During the Blaine-Cleveland campaign of 1884, the Mugwumps established political action clubs throughout the Northeast (p. 140). Like today's progressive-liberals, the Mugwumps were closely linked to the media of that time. Dobson's description of the Mugwump press sounds very much like today's liberal media. Mugwumpery may be viewed as the roots of liberalism not because the Mugwumps' ideas were like the twentieth century's progressive-liberals' (they were more like today's conservatives') but rather because their approach to ad hoc adoption of a singular idea, intense social pressure to conform to politically correct doctrine and the use of the media to create social conformity to their ideology is very much the technique that the progressive-liberals adopted in the early twentieth century and continue to use today.
Professor John M. Dobson retired from Iowa State University in 1999 and published Politics in the Gilded Age when I was a college sophomore in 1972. This is a good, timeless book. I read it because it sheds light on important issues: how past generations have pressured the established political parties; what strategies they have used; and how the American public has reacted to political corruption.
The politics of the gilded age was in some ways more naive than today, but in some ways it was more sophisticated. The reform-minded Republicans, who were well educated, affluent and often former abolitionists, believed that the corruption associated with the political machines would be ended through establishment of a civil service system. This belief turned out to have been naive. They believed that since the political machines depended on spoils, a civil service system would limit spoils and so end the machines. The civil service was adopted via the Pendleton Act, and even though the Presidents of the gilded age, notably Chester Alan Arthur, were part of the corrupt local machines (Arthur had been head of New York's customs house, among the most corrupt federal jobs) the Pendleton Act was implemented in good faith.
But the civil service did not end the political machines and it did not end the corruption. This was an early instance of reformers' believing that more government would end corrupt government, but it was not to be the last. This idea has been carried forward by today's progressive-liberals, who also have faith in the idea that lobbying, political favors, corrupt government contracts and the like can be ended through bigger programs.
In other ways, though, the politics of the gilded age were more sophisticated than today's. The chief issues that faced America were protectionism and the monetary system. These are still important issues, but today they are debated and discussed in a less sophisticated manner than in the 1880s. Unlike today, there were proponents of hard money in both the Republican and Democratic Parties. The Democrats who favored the gold standard included business-oriented conservatives known as the Bourbon Democrats. But the Republicans were also divided until the 1896election. Grover Cleveland, a Bourbon Democrat, supported the gold standard. It was in the 1896 election that William Jennings Bryan adopted the position of the Populist Party (ending the Populist Party's insurgency) and praised the use of silver for money, equivalent to the inflationist Keynesian ideology of today that both Democrats and Republicans favor.
Because of Bryan's candidacy, gold standard advocates moved from the Democratic to the Republican Party, and the Republican Party remained the hard money party until the 1960s. In 1971, President Richard Nixon adopted the Keynesian/Populist position, driving the hard money position to the fringes of American politics. This was reinforced by President Ronald Reagan, who was as inflationist as William Jennings Bryan. Hence, the insurgent Populist Party, which was a minor third party with wide public appeal, probably had more influence than any of the other major players in 1884.
Because the Federal Reserve Bank took control of the money supply away from politicians, the surviving Independent Republicans or Mugwumps from 1884 supported the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. As with the civil service, the Mugwumps were naive about the importance of innovative government programs like the Fed. They thought that setting up a body separate from the politicians would make the creation of money independent from political pressure.
Dobson does not emphasize the crucial debates of that period about hard money versus soft and protectionism versus free trade, but he mentions enough to paint a rough picture. The Republicans favored protectionism because high prices are in business's interest, and the Democrats favored free trade because low prices are in everybody else's interest. Some business-oriented Democrats also supported free trade. At the same time, the Republicans were able to convince some wage earners that protectionism was in their interest because higher prices might mean higher wages.
Dobson divides his interesting narrative into two parts. In the first, he describes how the highly structured Democratic and Republican Parties (that have continued until today) came about in the late nineteenth century. In the second, he describes how the Mugwumps fought the established Republicans, helping to give the 1884 Presidential election to Grover Cleveland and stopping the election of James Blaine.
Although Blaine may not have been particularly corrupt, the Mugwumps identified Blaine with corruption. The Mugwumps' failure to end corruption through their activism and through the establishment of the Civil Service led the early twentieth century to progressive-liberalism. Progressive-liberalism was a further response to political corruption.
Summary
The radical Republicans of the post-Lincoln era aimed to retaliate against the South and impeached President Andrew Johnson. They were dominant for the twenty years following the Civil War, in part because of what was called the Bloody Shirt, their use of the memory of the Civil War to win elections. The Republicans of this era included Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens, Benjamin Butler and Roscoe Conkling (p.23). The Republicans' early big-government laws during the Civil War, such as the Homestead Act, appealed to landless farmers, and the Republicans also appealed to the recently freed slaves in the South.
Having been discredited by the Civil War, the Democrats appealed to white southerners, workers in the north and those concerned with local issues (p. 24). The parties quickly became very similar in ideas(p. 25), and their appeal was primarily sectional. Local political activists, ward healers, were the basis of the parties' strength. People interested in becoming professional politicians joined political clubs such as New York's Tammany Hall (p. 27). The political machines gained support by providing services, and these included things like being able to tell a judge to give a not guilty verdict on behalf of a political contributor. Government workers gave kickbacks from their salaries to support the machines as well. Patronage was even more important then than it is now, although Dobson argues that it was not essential to the functioning of the machines (p. 33), which was what the Mugwumps thought.
US Senators were elected by state legislatures in that period, so Senators were intimately involved with state politics. Dobson writes (p. 33) that "the Senate resembled a sort of federation of state bosses."
The federal government spent less after than during the Civil War than, and the sum of states' spending exceeded federal spending. In 1880 the federal government collected $360 million in tariffs, but the entire federal budget was only $260 million, half of which went to Civil War veterans, while the states spent $300 million (p. 35). The federal government had a $100 million surplus.
The public tended to be loyal to a single party (p. 38). However, each party had divergent beliefs internally. There was more divergence within the parties than between them. Samuel J. Tilden, the New York governor who ran for president in 1876, was an advocate of the gold standard, while Thomas Hendricks of Indiana, the Democrats' 1876 vice-presidential nominee, favored greenbacks, which would be the same as the pro-inflation stance that leading politicians have adopted today.
The post-Civil War period experienced an inflationary boom because of the of the greenbacks that financed the War. In the monetary sense, the post Civil War period was like a milder version of the post-World War II period, the ReInflateoCrat period, which has been associated with a mild inflationary boom. Also similar to the post-World War II period, the Civil War had expanded government.
In 1872, Senator Carl Schurz (R-Mo), a German immigrant, led an anti-Grant crusade (p. 41) within the Republican Party, which led to the formation of the Liberal Republican movement, which became a separate party for a while. The Democrats backed the Liberal-Republicans in 1872 because they were so weak in the immediate post-Civil War era.
The pro-Grant forces within the Republican Party were known as Stalwarts, and the anti-Grant forces within the Republican Party were later known as Half-Breeds. The Half Breeds were in favor of what Dobson calls (p. 64) "Northern moral attitudes". The Liberal Republicans formed a separate party that nominated Horace Greeley, once editor of the New York Tribune. However, the Liberal Republicans and Greeley were ineffective, a trait that Dobson argues the Mugwumps shared.
In 1873, the greenback boom led to a depression, and the Democrats won Congress for the first time since the Civil War. There were intermittent recessions through the late 19th century as the effects of the greenbacks wore off. (Then, in the 1890s, the Populists' free silver movement took root.) However, the deflation of the late 19th century was accompanied by rising real wages, a feat the that the ReInflateoCrats of the late twentieth century have been unable to duplicate. Unlike the 19th century, in the late twentieth century the American public has been too poorly educated to understand that its dollar buys two thirds less than it did 30 years ago.
In 1876, Governor Samuel J. Tilden (D-NY), who had ousted Boss Tweed and was known as an anti-corrupton governor, ran for president. The Stalwarts wanted Grant to run again, but the Half-Breeds favored James G. Blaine, a former Speaker of the House (p. 47). As a compromise, the Republicans nominated Rutherford B. Hayes. The vote was very close, and was decided by an electoral commission. In return for agreeing to a partisan commission's findings and agreeing to let Hayes become president, the Democrats asked that all northern troops be withdrawn from the South (p. 48).
Dobson argues that President Hayes was "mixed" on civil service reform, in part because he appointed Carl Schurz as Secretary of the Interior and allowed Schurz to establish a merit-based system for the Department of Interior. He also appointed Theodore Roosevelt, Sr. (President Roosevelt's father) to be head of the New York Customs House (p. 63), firing Chester A. Arthur and Alonzo B. Cornell, who had been the corrupt heads. Senator Roscoe Conkling (R-NY) complained angrily, and the Senate vetoed the new appointments. However, President Hayes put through the Roosevelt appointment when the Senate was out of session.
The three Republican factions that were forming at this time were the Stalwarts, the Half Breeds and the much smaller Independent Republican faction. When Alonzo B. Cornell successfully ran for governor, the Independents handed in Republican ballots (ballots were printed by partisan newspapers in those days) but scratched Cornell's name from the ballots. Thus they became known as scratchers. The Independents hated patronage and corruption on moral grounds. They were unlike the Half-Breeds, who were moralistic but interested in partaking in the corruption. Today, the Stalwarts and the Half Breeds have mostly succeeded within the parties, although voters are not so party-focused as before. But the absence of effective third parties means that although there are more independent voters, with the parties being so dominated by partisan posturing, the independent voters have little choice. This is not so much a matter of right versus left or social conservative versus social liberal. It is, rather, a matter of an absence of intellectual innovation in both parties with no alternative to today's independent voter.
James Garfield won the 1880 presidential election but was assassinated by an insane Stalwart Charles Guiteau, on June 2, 1881. Garfield was a Half-Breed but his vice-president, Chester Alan Arthur, was a Stalwart. In response to Arthur's ascension to the presidency, the Independent Republicans created the National Civil Service Reform League in 1881. In 1882 Congress passed the Pendleton Act, empowering the president to appoint a Civil Service Commission that was charged with establishing a set of rules involving competitive examinations and objective selection of job candidates. The law applied only to some federal employees. Soon after the Pendleton Act, state legislatures passed similar state laws.
Dobson quotes (p. 74) the work of Gerald McFarland, who studied the backgrounds of 400 prominent Independent Republicans in 1884. Almost all of the Independent Republicans were professionals and independents, and a substantial number were millionaires (a million dollars in 1880 was worth about $45 million today). The Republicans had been a party of abolitionists and moralists, and they were disgusted by the corruption of the party machines. The leading state for Independent Republicans was Massachusetts closely followed by New York and then Connecticut and other New England states.
The leader was George William Curtis, who was a friend of Ralph Waldo Emerson, editor of Harper's Weekly, an abolitionist, a supporter of Radical Reconstruction and opponent of the Tweed ring. Dorman B. Eaton, another Independent Republican was a Harvard Law School graduate whom President Arthur appointed to head the Civil Service Commission. Edwin Lawrence Godkin edited the New York Evening Post (now owned by Rupert Murdoch) and the Nation. The New York Times, at that time a Republican paper, also supported the Independent Republicans. As well, Teddy Roosevelt, who was only 25 in 1884 was a supporter of the Independent Republicans, although he did not break with the Republican Party in 1884 as many of them did.
In 1884, the Stalwarts supported a third term for Grant, while the Half-Breeds supported James G. Blaine (p. 87). Dobson notes of the Independent Republicans (p.88):
"The Independents' anti-Blaine campaign of 1884 illustrates the irrationality that often accompanies an emotional crusade. The reformers started out with a reasonable complaint abut the way political affairs were developing...Through their leagues and reform clubs, the Independents had developed a reputation for rational and intelligent action...They lost that and more in the 1884 campaign as they gradually turned into one-sided partisans."
Thus, the Mugwumps' reaction to James G. Blaine was probably irrational, much like much of the media buzz about politics today. They were subject to groupthink and were obsessed with preventing Blaine's election, even though his ultimate opponent, Grover Cleveland, was not demonstrably better than Blaine and owed party hacks in the Democratic Party.
The Independent Republicans backed George F. Edmunds of Vermont, and refused to compromise with the two major candidates, James Blaine and Chester Alan Arthur. When Blaine won the nomination, many of the Independents dropped out. These included many Harvard-connected activist such as President Charles Eliot. Then as now, there was considerable groupthink in the progressive camp. Although the Mugwumps preceded the progressives, you can see the intense social pressure. Those who did not drop out of the Republican Party enjoyed better subsequent careers. Examples are Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, who eventually became a Senator and remained one until he died in 1924. However, Lodge was socially ostracized by the Mugwumps. This intense social pressure to conform to a whimsical ideological position (hatred of James Blaine) and inept tactics very much presaged today's progressive-liberals' attitudes and methods. The groupthink and emotional pressure were very similar to today's liberal Borg.
The Bourbon Democrats were (p. 122) "a loose aggregation of Southern and Northern conservatives". While the Republicans favored government intervention to support business, much as they do now, the Bourbon Democrats "wanted to limit the government's activities to the bare minimum, much as Jefferson and Jackson had. A low tariff advocate almost invariably supported the Bourbon philosophy. Influential and wealthy businessmen, particularly railroad owners and traders, who derived much of their income from foreign commerce, became Bourbons and gave the Democratic Party the financial support so essential to its political success."
Grover Cleveland reflected this libertarian orientation. However, the Bourbon Democrats were ended by William Jennings Bryan and the free silver movement of 1896. It is unfortunate that the advocates of laissez faire were thereby shunted into one party.
One of the key points that Dobson makes is that even though the Mugwumps knew little about Grover Cleveland, who came from Buffalo and had served as New York's Governor for only two years, they were obsessed with supporting him. They were truly the forerunners of today's progressive-liberals.
During the Blaine-Cleveland campaign of 1884, the Mugwumps established political action clubs throughout the Northeast (p. 140). Like today's progressive-liberals, the Mugwumps were closely linked to the media of that time. Dobson's description of the Mugwump press sounds very much like today's liberal media. Mugwumpery may be viewed as the roots of liberalism not because the Mugwumps' ideas were like the twentieth century's progressive-liberals' (they were more like today's conservatives') but rather because their approach to ad hoc adoption of a singular idea, intense social pressure to conform to politically correct doctrine and the use of the media to create social conformity to their ideology is very much the technique that the progressive-liberals adopted in the early twentieth century and continue to use today.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
John "Zippy" Callister, Doug Ross and the MSM's Three Biggest Lies
Doug Ross has an interesting blog about John "Zippy" Callister's letter to the Wall Street Journal (courtesy of Larwyn). Mr. Callister had written to the Wall Street Journal complaining that while his portfolio went up during the eight Clinton years, the S&P 500 has done little during the Bush years (actually it has done alot if, as Howard Katz and I have done, you bought in 2002 and sold last year). Mr. Callister, publicly-spirited as he is, complains that he does not care about terrorism, overseas wars, social security or income tax:
"...But, a 100 point gain in the S&P 500 means about $50,000 in my pocket... It is odd that so many people forget the stock market boom of the late 1990s."
Doug is annoyed at Zippy, and rightly so, although Zippy's argument is more revealing about the Democrats and the mainstream media than Doug suggests.
According to my broker at Smith Barney, the S&P 500 is currently at 1409. If 100 points (7% x 1409) means $50,000 to Zippy, that means his portfolio is roughly $50,000/ .07 = $714,000.
Zippy suggests that his portfolio hasn't increased since 2000, so I assume it was $714,000 in 2000. In contrast, the Census Bureau says that the median household net worth in 2000 was $55,000. The median household net worth for households in the highest income quintile was $185,000. In 2000, only 27.1% of households owned stocks and mutual fund shares at all, and these had an average value of $19,268. 29.9% of households had 401k plans with average assets of $29,900. Thus, Zippy's household wealth of $714,000 put him well above the median for the highest quintile in 2000. That Zippy favors the Democrats is revealing of the the MSM's three biggest lies:
Lie Number One: The Democrats are for wage earners, not the wealthy.
Lie Number Two: Corporate interests reflect the public interest.
Lie Number Three: The stock market goes up because of general prosperity.
MSM Lie Number One: The Democrats Favor Wage Earners, Not The Wealthy
Conservatives and libertarians often wonder why the wealthy, such as George Soros, Warren Buffett, Nancy Pelosi and Zippy, tend to prefer progressive-liberals and Democrats. The "Red" states, it has been noticed, are concentrated where there are many trust fund babies and millionaires, while the "Blue" states tend to be poorer. This is chalked up to left-wing education. But progressive-liberal dogma is consistent with the economic interests of the wealthy. The reason is that the Democrats tend to be even more inflationary than the Republicans, who are also inflationary, just not so much.
Yet, the MSM repeats the claim that inflationary, high-tax, high-regulation policies favor the average American rather than the wealthy, "Red State" trust fund babies whom such policies do favor. Zippy is merely the bull in the china shop who reveals to us that selfish impulses do matter. The Republicans' policies help the average working man while the Democrats, who claim to be for the poor, help Zippy.
MSM Lie Number Two: The Stock Market Reflects The General Prosperity
Advocates of mainstream finance theories argue that markets are rational. This has a clinical sound to it. However, even if true, rational markets do not require rationally run corporations. In fact, most big businesses aren't run rationally. They require subsidies at public expense. Even if large businesses were run efficiently without the need for government welfare, their interests would not coincide with the general public's for several reasons. Laws that protect business from competition serve corporate interests but do not serve the public interest. Since the 1850s, business has lobbied, often effectively, for protectionism, regulation to rationalize markets, easy credit, lucrative government contracts and the like. Public waste is private profit. Stockholders of firms that benefit from wasteful government contracts, protectionism, regulation and subsidies become wealthier as the public becomes poorer. Joint gains are only possible in a market economy. Yet, the MSM repeatedly claims that stock market increases are good for the general public. This is not the case in a mixed economy where government subsidies are common. They are certainly good for Zippy, who is wealthier than average and who benefits from secular stock market increases. They are also good for government contractors. But they are not good for the average person.
MSM Lie Number Three: The Stock Market Goes Up Because of General Prosperity
This is perhaps the most pernicious lie because it encourages the public to harm itself. The chief driver of the stock market is interest rates. Interest rates are chiefly influenced by the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank can raise interest rates by contracting the money supply and can reduce interest rates by increasing the money supply, i.e., printing money. The advocates of printing money were known as Populists in the 19th century. In the twentieth century they realized that if they pretended to be scientists their self-serving claims would be more convincing. Thus, they packaged their argument for increasing the money supply in the garb of "science", calling themselves "macro-economists". The "macro-economics" that they advocate is in substance the same as the arguments of the 19th century Populists, who advocated greenbacks and free silver. The macro-economists claim that they can adjust the money supply at different stages of the economic cycle, but the Fed doesn't do this. Although the Fed has never done this, the "scientists" do not revise their opinions, and when they gain power they do the same thing that the Fed has always done, namely, they support the stock and real estate markets at the expense of the general public. The money supply has gone in one consistent direction since the Fed was founded--UP. The US money supply is 16 times greater today than when the Fed was founded in 1913.
Stock and real estate markets inflate along with the money supply because of low interest rates. But increasing the money supply has another effect, namely, because the number of dollars in circulation is increased at a faster rate than the value of output increases (a painfully difficult fact for progressive-liberal advocates of the large-corporations-are-rational philosophy) there are general price increases, i.e., inflation in food, energy, labor and other prices. Prices have indeed gone up by 3.5% on average since 1979. A dollar in 1979 is worth 38 cents today. The mother of three must pay more for milk and her children might be hungry, but Zippy and his fellow Democrats gets to pocket the increase, and he is happy.
In the past six years the price of gold has gone from $250/oz. to nearly $900/oz. Thus, although the Republicans may not have been as good at inflating the stock market as the Democrats, they have been much better at inflating commodity prices. Of course, neither party is different from the other because they are both following the same inflationary policy. They are the ReInflateoCrat Party (the In stands for Bloomberg Independent). Howard S. Katz argues that there is a commodity "pendulum" which causes first declines in commodity prices and increasing stock market prices then increases in commodity prices. Katz argues that we are only at the beginning of the pendulum swing favoring commodity prices and that we still have a decade or even two to go. This will be true whether Democrats or Republicans win.
In other words, the stock market increases of the Clinton years are desirable only to trust fund babies, the wealthy, Democrats and Zippy. They are not beneficial to the average American.
What is perhaps most telling about Zippy's letter is his simple-minded selfishness, a characteristic of today's wealthy that did not characterize the wealthy of the late 19th century. I attribute this to progressive-liberal education and the general triumph of progressive-liberalism, which is a philosophy of pretended altruism coupled with the devastation of the average American through taxation and other violent state policies that progressive-liberals gleefully depict as altruistic when they are mostly self-serving.
"...But, a 100 point gain in the S&P 500 means about $50,000 in my pocket... It is odd that so many people forget the stock market boom of the late 1990s."
Doug is annoyed at Zippy, and rightly so, although Zippy's argument is more revealing about the Democrats and the mainstream media than Doug suggests.
According to my broker at Smith Barney, the S&P 500 is currently at 1409. If 100 points (7% x 1409) means $50,000 to Zippy, that means his portfolio is roughly $50,000/ .07 = $714,000.
Zippy suggests that his portfolio hasn't increased since 2000, so I assume it was $714,000 in 2000. In contrast, the Census Bureau says that the median household net worth in 2000 was $55,000. The median household net worth for households in the highest income quintile was $185,000. In 2000, only 27.1% of households owned stocks and mutual fund shares at all, and these had an average value of $19,268. 29.9% of households had 401k plans with average assets of $29,900. Thus, Zippy's household wealth of $714,000 put him well above the median for the highest quintile in 2000. That Zippy favors the Democrats is revealing of the the MSM's three biggest lies:
Lie Number One: The Democrats are for wage earners, not the wealthy.
Lie Number Two: Corporate interests reflect the public interest.
Lie Number Three: The stock market goes up because of general prosperity.
MSM Lie Number One: The Democrats Favor Wage Earners, Not The Wealthy
Conservatives and libertarians often wonder why the wealthy, such as George Soros, Warren Buffett, Nancy Pelosi and Zippy, tend to prefer progressive-liberals and Democrats. The "Red" states, it has been noticed, are concentrated where there are many trust fund babies and millionaires, while the "Blue" states tend to be poorer. This is chalked up to left-wing education. But progressive-liberal dogma is consistent with the economic interests of the wealthy. The reason is that the Democrats tend to be even more inflationary than the Republicans, who are also inflationary, just not so much.
Yet, the MSM repeats the claim that inflationary, high-tax, high-regulation policies favor the average American rather than the wealthy, "Red State" trust fund babies whom such policies do favor. Zippy is merely the bull in the china shop who reveals to us that selfish impulses do matter. The Republicans' policies help the average working man while the Democrats, who claim to be for the poor, help Zippy.
MSM Lie Number Two: The Stock Market Reflects The General Prosperity
Advocates of mainstream finance theories argue that markets are rational. This has a clinical sound to it. However, even if true, rational markets do not require rationally run corporations. In fact, most big businesses aren't run rationally. They require subsidies at public expense. Even if large businesses were run efficiently without the need for government welfare, their interests would not coincide with the general public's for several reasons. Laws that protect business from competition serve corporate interests but do not serve the public interest. Since the 1850s, business has lobbied, often effectively, for protectionism, regulation to rationalize markets, easy credit, lucrative government contracts and the like. Public waste is private profit. Stockholders of firms that benefit from wasteful government contracts, protectionism, regulation and subsidies become wealthier as the public becomes poorer. Joint gains are only possible in a market economy. Yet, the MSM repeatedly claims that stock market increases are good for the general public. This is not the case in a mixed economy where government subsidies are common. They are certainly good for Zippy, who is wealthier than average and who benefits from secular stock market increases. They are also good for government contractors. But they are not good for the average person.
MSM Lie Number Three: The Stock Market Goes Up Because of General Prosperity
This is perhaps the most pernicious lie because it encourages the public to harm itself. The chief driver of the stock market is interest rates. Interest rates are chiefly influenced by the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank can raise interest rates by contracting the money supply and can reduce interest rates by increasing the money supply, i.e., printing money. The advocates of printing money were known as Populists in the 19th century. In the twentieth century they realized that if they pretended to be scientists their self-serving claims would be more convincing. Thus, they packaged their argument for increasing the money supply in the garb of "science", calling themselves "macro-economists". The "macro-economics" that they advocate is in substance the same as the arguments of the 19th century Populists, who advocated greenbacks and free silver. The macro-economists claim that they can adjust the money supply at different stages of the economic cycle, but the Fed doesn't do this. Although the Fed has never done this, the "scientists" do not revise their opinions, and when they gain power they do the same thing that the Fed has always done, namely, they support the stock and real estate markets at the expense of the general public. The money supply has gone in one consistent direction since the Fed was founded--UP. The US money supply is 16 times greater today than when the Fed was founded in 1913.
Stock and real estate markets inflate along with the money supply because of low interest rates. But increasing the money supply has another effect, namely, because the number of dollars in circulation is increased at a faster rate than the value of output increases (a painfully difficult fact for progressive-liberal advocates of the large-corporations-are-rational philosophy) there are general price increases, i.e., inflation in food, energy, labor and other prices. Prices have indeed gone up by 3.5% on average since 1979. A dollar in 1979 is worth 38 cents today. The mother of three must pay more for milk and her children might be hungry, but Zippy and his fellow Democrats gets to pocket the increase, and he is happy.
In the past six years the price of gold has gone from $250/oz. to nearly $900/oz. Thus, although the Republicans may not have been as good at inflating the stock market as the Democrats, they have been much better at inflating commodity prices. Of course, neither party is different from the other because they are both following the same inflationary policy. They are the ReInflateoCrat Party (the In stands for Bloomberg Independent). Howard S. Katz argues that there is a commodity "pendulum" which causes first declines in commodity prices and increasing stock market prices then increases in commodity prices. Katz argues that we are only at the beginning of the pendulum swing favoring commodity prices and that we still have a decade or even two to go. This will be true whether Democrats or Republicans win.
In other words, the stock market increases of the Clinton years are desirable only to trust fund babies, the wealthy, Democrats and Zippy. They are not beneficial to the average American.
What is perhaps most telling about Zippy's letter is his simple-minded selfishness, a characteristic of today's wealthy that did not characterize the wealthy of the late 19th century. I attribute this to progressive-liberal education and the general triumph of progressive-liberalism, which is a philosophy of pretended altruism coupled with the devastation of the average American through taxation and other violent state policies that progressive-liberals gleefully depict as altruistic when they are mostly self-serving.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Ron Paul in Exile--A Generation in Disgrace
Newsmax reports that Fox will exclude Ron Paul from the New Hampshire debate. I watch Fox News for television news except when in my health club, surrounded by progressive-liberals from nearby Woodstock, NY. Then I watch Turner Classic Movies. In addition to watching Fox, though, I support Ron Paul despite his views on Iraq. I support Paul because he is the only Republican candidate who believes in shrinking government and ending inflation. He is not the only Republican candidate who says that he will shrink government. Most of them do.
But the Republicans gained control in 1980 and have had control of the White House for 19 of the past 27 years. They have had control of the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2006 and of the Senate from 1995 to 2001 and from 2003 to 2006. During that time, government spending has mushroomed and the departments of education and energy have been going strong. Which of the thousands of worthless government programs have the Republicans eliminated in the last ten years? I'm listening. I've heard the list is short. Very short. So short that it just went by, and I still haven't heard it.
As well, there has been a cornucopia of free credit, meaning counterfeit money, emanating from the Federal Reserve Bank since 1980. The exact amount is unclear because the M-3 statistic that includes foreign money has been eliminated. However, the past twenty-seven years has seen a 3.5% inflation rate if you exclude, as the Department of Labor did in the early 1980s, inflation in the value of home purchases. My friend has had to move from Queens because she cannot afford to purchase an apartment or house near New York City. Today, mostly millionaires live in Manhattan, once the nation's cultural center, but no longer because it is populated by non-English speaking peoples whose currency is sound. Creative cultural types have moved to North Carolina. Only the beneficiaries of the paper money bonanza can affored to live in Manhattan.
What is most astonishing about the crippling monetary expansion that has gone on during the past 27 years is that the public does not care. No cares that prices have gone up, that a dollar in 1979 is worth 38 cents today (excluding home purchases). No one seems to be aware that America cannot continue to be a great power with a currency that stands to be depreciated by 500% if chief dollar holders sell.
The effects of inflation in the past 27 years have been devastating, yet no one seems to mind. Certainly not the broadcasters on CNN, CBS, ABC or for that matter, Fox. We are a nation that, under Republican leadership, has given up our national purpose and independence for a flat screen TV and a cellular telephone. This generation of Americans is a disgrace.
Given America's suicidal pattern, where conservatives' main concern is immigration at a time when our money supply is owned by foreign governments, there has been only one candidate willing to question ReInflateoCrat (the "In" stands for Bloomberg Independent) monetary extremism, and that is Ron Paul. That Fox has excluded him from the debates suggests that there will be little serious debate of any kind in 2008.
John M. Dobson's "The Origins and Structures of the Major Political Parties"
From John M. Dobson, Politics in the Gilded Age: A New Perspective on Reform. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972, p. 37
"The leadership of both national parties during the last third of the nineteenth century consisted of alliances of bosses and local leaders. The parties lacked the central focus that had characterized Jefferson's Republicans and Jackson's Democrats. The most influential party leaders were those who devoted their attention to state politics rather than the Presidency. The series of lackluster Presidential contenders the Republicans nominated after 1872 did not represent an over-all weakness in the party so much as the strength of the regional bosses. Whether the party's Presidential campaign ended in victory or defeat, it did not radically alter the soundly functioning Republican machines throughout the nation.
"A partisan's attitudes on certain issues did more to define his political position than did his party designation. How, then did the parties manage to retain their members? No single leader attracted followers on a national basis, and, as Chapter 2 will show, after a time no single issue aligned the parties either. The persistence of the parties, then depended upon widespread and overpowering loyalty to an abstraction. Ironically, this loyalty appeared to be growing stronger at a time when the parties were becoming more and more similar in their stands. Many of the short-lived third parties formed to support a particular principle announced their position in their names--e.g., the Greenback, Free-Silver and Prohibition parties. None of these could abandon the basic principle for which it had been named, but the deliberately obscure Democratic and Republican titles could stand for little or nothing."
"The leadership of both national parties during the last third of the nineteenth century consisted of alliances of bosses and local leaders. The parties lacked the central focus that had characterized Jefferson's Republicans and Jackson's Democrats. The most influential party leaders were those who devoted their attention to state politics rather than the Presidency. The series of lackluster Presidential contenders the Republicans nominated after 1872 did not represent an over-all weakness in the party so much as the strength of the regional bosses. Whether the party's Presidential campaign ended in victory or defeat, it did not radically alter the soundly functioning Republican machines throughout the nation.
"A partisan's attitudes on certain issues did more to define his political position than did his party designation. How, then did the parties manage to retain their members? No single leader attracted followers on a national basis, and, as Chapter 2 will show, after a time no single issue aligned the parties either. The persistence of the parties, then depended upon widespread and overpowering loyalty to an abstraction. Ironically, this loyalty appeared to be growing stronger at a time when the parties were becoming more and more similar in their stands. Many of the short-lived third parties formed to support a particular principle announced their position in their names--e.g., the Greenback, Free-Silver and Prohibition parties. None of these could abandon the basic principle for which it had been named, but the deliberately obscure Democratic and Republican titles could stand for little or nothing."
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Candace de Russy Blogs Latest Developments in O'Malley v. Karkhanis
Candace de Russy blogs the latest developments in O'Malley v. Karkhanis on NRO online.
>"O’Malley v. Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe [Candace de Russy]
"CUNY Professor Susan O’Malley recently filed a formal defamation complaint against Emeritus Professor Sharad Karkhanis. Professor Mitchell Langbert has recorded the entire complaint in his blog, noting three aspects of the case that merit public scrutiny:
"One involves the scope of academic freedom. A second involves freedom of speech in a collective bargaining unit and the interaction of labor law with defamation and First Amendment rights. A third involves the extent to which the courts and public dispute resolution processes interact with collegial academic processes.
>"O’Malley v. Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe [Candace de Russy]
"CUNY Professor Susan O’Malley recently filed a formal defamation complaint against Emeritus Professor Sharad Karkhanis. Professor Mitchell Langbert has recorded the entire complaint in his blog, noting three aspects of the case that merit public scrutiny:
"One involves the scope of academic freedom. A second involves freedom of speech in a collective bargaining unit and the interaction of labor law with defamation and First Amendment rights. A third involves the extent to which the courts and public dispute resolution processes interact with collegial academic processes.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Paper Pushers Dominate Campaign Contributions
OpenSecrets.org lists useful data on campaign contributions for the 2008 campaign. I copied information for Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, Giuliani and Paul into the table below. Lawyers prefer the Democrats. They lead the list of donors for both Obama and Clinton, come in fourth for Romney (not shown), second for Giuliani and eighth for Paul.
Retired people are the chief donors to Huckabee, second largest donors to Obama, third to Clinton, third to Giuliani, first to Romney (not shown) and first to Paul. Securities and investment professionals are third on Obama's list, second on Clinton's list, third on Huckabee's first on Giuliani's, second on Romney's (not shown) and seventh for Paul. Educators prefer the Democrats, and appear in Paul's top ten list but not the leading Republicans'.
Retirees and lawyers seem to lead the list. People who work in manufacturing, technology and retail can expect government to exploit them in the years to come.
Ranks of Donors to Presidential Candidates
Rank / Obama / Clinton / Huckabee / Giuliani / Paul
1 / Lawyers / Lawyers / Retired / Sec. & Inv./ Retired
2 / Retired / Sec. & Inv. / Real Estate / Lawyers / Computers
3 / Sec. & Inv. / Retired / Sec. & Inv. / Retired / Misc. Bus.
4 / Misc. Bus. / Real Estate / Health / Real Estate/ Health
5 / Real Estate / Bus. Services / Lawyers / Misc. Fin. / Real Es.
6 / Entertainment / Misc. Bus. / Misc. Finance / Bus. Serv. / Fin
7 / Education / Entertainment / Misc. Bus. / Misc. Bus. / Sec.
8 / Bus. Services / Health / Business Serv. /Health / Lawyers
9 / Health / Education / Manufacturing / Comm. Banks / Educ.
10 / Fin. / Fin. / Civil Servants / Oil and Gas / Bus.Serv.
Retired people are the chief donors to Huckabee, second largest donors to Obama, third to Clinton, third to Giuliani, first to Romney (not shown) and first to Paul. Securities and investment professionals are third on Obama's list, second on Clinton's list, third on Huckabee's first on Giuliani's, second on Romney's (not shown) and seventh for Paul. Educators prefer the Democrats, and appear in Paul's top ten list but not the leading Republicans'.
Retirees and lawyers seem to lead the list. People who work in manufacturing, technology and retail can expect government to exploit them in the years to come.
Ranks of Donors to Presidential Candidates
Rank / Obama / Clinton / Huckabee / Giuliani / Paul
1 / Lawyers / Lawyers / Retired / Sec. & Inv./ Retired
2 / Retired / Sec. & Inv. / Real Estate / Lawyers / Computers
3 / Sec. & Inv. / Retired / Sec. & Inv. / Retired / Misc. Bus.
4 / Misc. Bus. / Real Estate / Health / Real Estate/ Health
5 / Real Estate / Bus. Services / Lawyers / Misc. Fin. / Real Es.
6 / Entertainment / Misc. Bus. / Misc. Finance / Bus. Serv. / Fin
7 / Education / Entertainment / Misc. Bus. / Misc. Bus. / Sec.
8 / Bus. Services / Health / Business Serv. /Health / Lawyers
9 / Health / Education / Manufacturing / Comm. Banks / Educ.
10 / Fin. / Fin. / Civil Servants / Oil and Gas / Bus.Serv.
On The Fence Films Confirms That There Is No Indiana University Lawsuit
Mr. Langbert,
There is no lawsuit.
Best Regards,
Stuart Browning
On The Fence FIlms
There is no lawsuit.
Best Regards,
Stuart Browning
On The Fence FIlms
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
O'Malley v. Karkhanis: In Pursuit of the Acadmic Alfred E. Neuman
Professor Susan O’Malley’s attorney, Joseph Martin Carasso of New York City, filed her formal defamation complaint against Emeritus Professor Sharad Karkhanis 11 days ago. The complaint is well-written and Attorney Carasso deserves credit for clear, no-holds-barred writing. I have recorded the entire complaint in my blog.
There are several issues in O’Malley v. Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe that deserve public scrutiny. One involves the scope of academic freedom. A second involves freedom of speech in a collective bargaining unit and the interaction of labor law with defamation and First Amendment rights. A third involves the extent to which the courts and public dispute resolution processes interact with collegial academic processes. After mentioning these points, I review the blogger and media coverage of the O’Malley case. Then, I mention a couple of the key points in Professor O’Malley's complaint and offer some comments.
The O’Malley case is consistent with the long-observed deterioration of universities’ willingness to tolerate dissent. It may suggest an extension of this deterioration to universities’ use of the courts to suppress external criticism. Much as Singapore’s dictator Lee Kuan Yew and Saudi billionaire Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz have used litigation to silence Chee Soon Juan and Rachel Ehrenfeld, so universities may have begun to use tax-exempt and publicly financed assets to bring politically motivated law suits.
Another potential implication of the O’Malley case is that Professor O'Malley implicitly argues that academic freedom is more limited than the freedom of speech associated with public political discourse. In other words, academic freedom may be more rather than less constrained than public freedom with respect to discourse concerning public figures. Whether O’Malley is a public figure is debatable. The courts may choose to fashion a different standard of speech for academic discourse than for public discourse.
A third point is that there are potential labor issues. In union certification elections the National Labor Relations Board has attempted to establish the concept that there must be laboratory conditions whereby employers and unions cannot threaten or cajole bargaining unit members to vote for or against a union. The PSC is a creature of New York’s Taylor Law, not the National Labor Relations Act. The question in this case is whether an elected union officer, who shares interests in common with the union president (Barbara Bowen) and other officers, should have the right to suppress dissident speech and opinion through the transactions costs associated with law suits. The pro-union New York courts may well consider that this is acceptable.
A fourth point pertains to collegiality. Several officers of the faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), to include President Bowen and Professor O’Malley, have previously publicly attacked another member of the faculty, Professor KC Johnson, in part claiming that he lacked collegiality. Now, Professor O’Malley sues Professor Karkhanis, sidestepping collegial processes and turning her dispute with him into a matter of public record. Can law suits be viewed as part of academic governance processes? If so, can the public continue to support the expense of collegial processes given that academics cause additional dispute resolution costs also at the public's expense?
Media and Blogger coverage of O’Malley v. Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe
On October 31, Annie Karni of the New York Sun noted that Professor O’Malley said of her case that "it's all very, very silly". Karni also quotes Professor Karkhanis as saying that the law suit is “an attempt to infringe on his freedom of speech” and that all of his comments were meant as “satire”. The two statements are parallel. Professor O’Malley characterizes her case as “silly” because Professor Karkhanis’s statements about her were satirical.
As well, the Sun quotes Professor Karkhanis:
"She's a public figure, and I have a right to say that, based on the evidence I have and the pattern I've seen of this woman…Why would someone try to assist the terrorist people when you have good Americans who are looking for the job?"
The Sun notes that Professor Karkhanis criticized Professor O’Malley for defending the right of Susan Rosenberg to teach. Rosenberg had spent 16 years in prison for explosives possession. As well, Professor Karkhanis criticized Professor O’Malley’s statement in a University Faculty Senate (UFS) meeting that Mohammed Yousry, convicted of terrorist-related activity, ought to be given a job.
In the New York Post, Dareh Gregorian notes that much of Professor O’Malley’s complaint revolves around Professor Karkhanis’s statements concerning her “obsession with finding jobs for terrorists" and her support for Lynne Stewart, Mohammed Yousry and Susan Rosenberg. Gregorian also notes that Professor Karkhanis believes that what he wrote was satire and that his statements were “appropriate."
Candace de Russy notes that Professor Karkhanis made several accusations about Professor O'Malley after she proposed to rehire Mohamed Yousry, an Arabic-language translator convicted of supporting terrorist activities. He was fired from York College.
In FIRE’s the Torch, Luke Sheahan points out that Professor Karkhanis has been a critic of Professor O’Malley and that he had stated that she was trying to “bring in all her indicted, convicted, and freed-on-bail terrorist friends to the university”.
In Frontpagemag, Phil Orenstein notes that the PSC has a history of aiding and abetting terrorists. Phil also notes that the PSC has focused on left-wing political activity while bread and butter issues have languished and “welfare fund reserves fell by 97%”.
Phil also notes that past issues of Karkhanis’s newsletter, Patriot Returns, have attacked Professor O’Malley for supporting Professor Timothy Shortell, who claimed that all religious people are “moral retards”. Professor Karkhanis has also attacked Professor O’Malley for attempting to find Susan Rosenberg a job and her public statement that Mohammed Yousry was seeking a job at a faculty senate meeting. Phil argues that Professor Karkhanis’s newsletter is a check against abuses of power by the PSC and that the law suit is a free speech issue.
The United Federation of Teachers, Phil points out, has seen considerable internal rancor but has never seen a law suit by a union officer against a member, with the union openly taking the officer’s side. Phil also argues that O’Malley is a public figure and so is fair game for criticism.
In a recent blog in Democracy Project Phil Orenstein also notes that the Queens Village Republican Club in New York has named Professor Karkhanis “Educator of the Year” and will hand him an award for his ongoing struggle for freedom of speech and his refusal to be silenced by the PSC’s program of suppression of conservatives.
An example of the PSC's suppression of conservatives appears in History News Network. KC Johnson notes that Dorothee Benz,a PSC spokesperson argues that
“Free speech has limits, as any first year law student knows. O’Malley’s case concerns one of those limits, where the right to free speech comes up against the harm caused by libelous statements. Whether accusing someone of aiding and training terrorists, in a post-9/11 world, rises to meet the legal standards.”
The PSC sees conviction for explosives possession or conviction for colluding with terrorists as protected speech, but it views criticism of its officers as falling outside the limits of free speech, even when those accusations have factual basis.
Johnson adds that although Karkhanis’s rhetoric can be “over the top”, it played a key role in last year’s union election. Karkhanis’s newsletter has called O’Malley “Queen of Released time” and has criticized O’Malley for multiple office holding and “non-accomplishment” Johnson points out that
“unless O’Malley is going to claim that Yousry and Rosenberg were not convicted terrorists, Karkhanis’ statements about her urging CUNY colleges to hire terrorists were factually true. Rosenberg was a member of a terrorist organization; Yousry was accused and convicted of aiding a convicted terrorist. So what would motivate such a suit?"
Scott Jaschik of Inside Higher Ed notes that while “Karkhanis said that he does not believe O’Malley to be a terrorist (or a queen, which he calls her frequently)", Professor O’Malley’s attorney said that “falsely accusing or alleging someone is a terrorist or is aiding terrorists in the current year, post-9/11, is a serious charge”. Professor Karkhanis replies that “the factual basis behind the terrorism jabs — that O’Malley went to bat for these individuals — has been demonstrated by e-mail messages he posted on his Web site.”
The O’Malley Complaint
I blog the O’Malley complaint in its virtual entirety here. A few of the points are that Professor Karkhanis said that Professor Susan O’Malley comes from a wealthy background, which Professor O’Malley denies. He also said that she used “intimidation” and joining “radical groups” to become leader of the University Faculty Senate to avoid “dirtying her hands with chalk”. He said that O’Malley tried to help Susan Rosenberg, a convicted criminal. He said that O’Malley tried to pressure departmental chairs to help Yousry, who was convicted of abetting terrorism. He said that the “Queen of Released Time” (Professor O’Malley) was jockeying to have Lynn Stewart hired to the staff of the PSC union. In a second cause of action, Professor O’Malley complains that Professor Karkhanis’s newsletter used a headline:
“O'MALLEY-QUEDA TRAINING CAMP: FINDING JOBS FOR TERRORISTS A KCC EXCLUSIVE”
and that Professor Karkhanis called the New Caucus, the left-wing group that dominates the Professional Staff Congress, the “Never-Any-Action Caucus”. Professor Karkhanis states that:
“Her major goal is to establish a Training Camp to recruit and train, at Kingsborough, people like herself who are misguided, misdirected, misinformed. O'Malley seeks to find jobs at KCC and other CUNY colleges for Mohammed Yousry. 'O'Malley doesn't care about us--her only concern is that Yousry should teach at CUNY. O'Malley has also been job-searching for Susan Rosenberg…O'Malley, though, doesn't care about us--her only concern is that Rosenberg should teach at CUNY…We believe that the above mentioned KCC individuals [Susan Farrell, Robert Singer, Jack Arnow, Robert Putz, Patrick Lloyd] were selected for the O'Malley-Queda Recruitment Camp because she thinks that (1) they all are naive and gullible and (2) she can infiltrate the Department and College-wide P&Bs at KCC and at other CUNY colleges to push her PERSONAL AGENDA of finding jobs for Yousry, Rosenberg and other terrorists...Meanwhile remember: the Queen of Released Time is a devious, dangerous and More to come on the Queen."
There are eight additional causes of action, for a total of ten. Each of them refers to this sort of silly diatribe about Professor O’Malley. The entire complaint is here and it is evident that all of these statements were satirical. I would have referred any CUNY faculty member who said to me that they really thought that Professor O’Malley wore a crown and held a scepter as “Queen of Released Time” or actually ran an al-Queda Recruitment Camp to the university's counseling center.
Analysis
There are potential dangers to freedom of speech emanating from Professor O’Malley’s decision to bring this case, so although it seems likely that she will lose, it is important to take it seriously. Arguably, the case is frivolous. However courts are not always predictable.
It is evident that Patriot Returns is and always was considered to CUNY’s own Mad Magazine. It is funny, and although I disagree with the “New Caucus” union leadership, I and likely no one else ever concluded that the Patriot's satirical claims were true. On a few occasions, based on statements in the newsletter, I contacted the union leadership such as Steve London and Barbara Bowen for further details, and they did not choose to reply.
College professors don’t always have common sense, but they are not complete idiots. An audience of college professors is able to discern satire from fact. Also, the PSC has far more resources than Professor Karkhanis, while Professor O'Malley has the same, and both the PSC and Professor O'Malley could have responded openly through ordinary internal communication processes to any accusations. I do not recall receiving any communications from Professor O'Malley, although I have met her several times.
Along these lines, Professor O’Malley openly stated to the Sun's Annie Karni (kudos, Annie) that this is a “silly” case. As well, Karkhanis presents evidence in the form of minutes of the senate meeting that Professor O’Malley in fact made the comments he alleges. There is little debate about the underlying fact that Professor O’Malley has repeatedly and openly supported left wing kooks. The questions that the complaint raise focus on satirical hyperbole. In political discourse, should free speech be infringed? The New Caucus and the Professional Staff Congress think so. I disagree with them.
Arguably, by virtue of her becoming an ex-officio member of the Board of Trustees of CUNY, Chair of the University Faculty Senate, Executive Director of the Radical Caucus of the Modern Language Association, contributor and Editor of Radical Teacher and member of the CUNY union's Executive Committee, Professor O'Malley became a public figure. I am not sure of the definition of “public figure”. I have contacted a respected labor and fiduciary duty attorney I have known for many years and posed him the question whether a union officer and/or faculty senate officer who runs for office is considered a public figure in the same sense that a public politician is. I suspect that this is an open question, and that Professor O’Malley’s case might do serious damage to the cause of free speech if it is not viewed as frivolous.
As well, there is a serious question whether the kind of freedom of speech that applies to public discourse applies to private universities. As a public university CUNY is subject to the same First Amendment rules as apply to public discourse, in which case officials ought to be treated the same as they are ordinarily, although this is not certain. As a union officer and head of the faculty senate Professor O’Malley might be construed as a public official, but are these roles really public? I would hope that the answer is yes, but if Professor O’Malley has intended to institute additional avenues for suppression in American universities, she has been creative in selecting this avenue.
My opinion about the “John and Jane Doe’ defendants is that Professor O’Malley is reaching. In my conversations with Professor Karkhanis he never once mentioned a coauthor. In fact, the very use of the “John and Jane Doe” are a kind of legal slur. Perhaps Professor O’Malley is thinking that other satirist, Alfred E. Neuman, is John Doe.
In summary, Professor O’Malley probably has no case. If she does, it is one more stake in the heart of academic freedom and of universities. Clearly, she attempts to use the legal system to intimidate Professor Karkhanis. She does not want Professor Karkhanis to continue his writing of the Patriot to benefit of the PSC’s radical leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
