Saw a great historian speak Friday night (James Kloppenberg) on Obama's connection to broader political philosophical trends. He made several really great points, but one was how Obama was unconvinced by the idea of "original intent" after noting the intense compromise necessary to get the constitution through. How could there be "one" intent?
During a post-talk discussion, he also spoke to the legacy of Roosevelt and the economic boom of the 1950s. (This column speaks to that as well.) Real quickly, as I run out the door to teach, I am reminded of what seems to be the biggest bit of conservative blind faith--that the middle class came out of some historical ether. The middle class that so many of us grew up in, was a creation of government programs dedicated to a more shared prosperity. That is derided by today's conservatives as "socialism" or worse, but it allowed one hell of a lot of Americans to live the middle class dream. Removing that government hand has led to the decline of that middle class (not the only reason, obviously) and conservatives seem to hold to some fantasy that a libertarian approach to governing will bring it back.
It won't.
10 comments:
The idea that the "government hand" has been removed from ANYTHING is an absurdity. Even liberals can't be stupid enough to believe that, can you?
Nice comment, Troll. Either give me something substantive or go away.
Is it just me, or is the signal to noise ratio of anonymous comments really freaking low?
I gave you something substantive, you're just such a dumbass you can't recognize it.
To hear you socialists tell it, the government has withdrawn from society and that's the reason we are in such trouble. How stupid can you become?
Obviously, you operate this blog just to hear yourself talk.
Hear that, Leighton? We are just stupid socialists.
Ok. Obviously the blog has another carbon monoxide leak, or else one of Palin's fans has discovered how to type.
Better be careful, Streak, I think somebody's got a crush on you. The words may imply contempt, but when it's coming from someone who either has this blog on an RSS reader or compulsively refreshes the front page...well, socially astute people can read between the lines.
Closeted commenters aside, I think Kloppenberg has a good point--I would go further and suggest that even things like judicial rulings that are authored by a single person often don't have a single intention. Even in the clearest situations, the law is a balancing act.
Streak- Correct me historically where needed, While our history and middle class formation is surely a mix of forces involving government involvement as well as private enterprise, some of the government impact that comes to mind that stimulated the growth of the middle class (primarily the white middle class) would include the GI bill, investment in highway and interstate systems, the formation and ramping up of FHA and Fannie Mae, and I'm sure there's more.
Granted, none of these have been problem free and some could argue that private enterprise could have filled the niches- but they didn't.
FWIW
BB
Exactly, BB. Add to that a progressive taxation system and strong unions, and you have the makings of a middle class.
Current conservatives want to gut all of that, and still assume that the middle class will survive. I am actually curious if any culture has had a middle class without government action. I would bet not.
I agree with BB, it is a mixture and there are certainly examples where regulation and laws have hurt an industry (trucking, airlines). That being said, I am all for highlighting the positive gov't programs and bashing the ones that are harmful. On the positive side, the much maligned Unions gave us the 40 hour work week and the weekend off.
As for original intent, you have hit upon a valid critique. There isn't one single original intent, but that doesn't make OI useless. I think it is possible, in many cases, to find some kind of consensus or broad concepts from looking at the record and the debates. Personally, I think that an approach that uses OI, focusing on the text, and has some degree of pragmatism, is the best. As always, it depends on the issue being decided. In some places, the Constitution is purposefully vague.
I think it is also problematic when we water down some aspects, as in the case of the right to bear arms, search and seizure, and creul and unusual punishment. Eventually, we run the risk of making them rights that exist only on paper.
Another more widely accpeted notion is that original meaning is a better approach. This looks at what a reasonable person at that time would have believed the meaning to be. Obviously, this leaves huge room for debate.
I found a recent article that shows Original Meaning and the Living Consitiution to not be all that far apart.
Post a Comment