After the Civil War, and especially after the impeachment of 17th President Andrew Johnson, Congress tended to dominate government during this time. Congress has always been the more manipulable branch of government, the branch of government that is easier to capture by special interests and factions, but it is also the branch of government where reason and persuasion play a larger role in making decisions The executive branch, as intended by the Constitution, is to be more independent and further removed from the influence of powerful social groups.
It should be no surprise then that progressive Presidents like Woodrow Wilson favored the expansion of executive power at the expense of the legislature. Wilson had this to say about the House of Representatives (the more democratic house of Congress):
divided up, as it were, into forty-seven seignories, in each of which a Standing Committee is the court-baron and its chairman lord-proprietor. These petty barons, some of them not a little powerful, but none of them within reach [of] the full powers of rule, may at will exercise an almost despotic sway within their own shires, and may sometimes threaten to convulse even the realm itself.
Notice how Wilson compares them to feudal institutions which implies that they are corrupt systems of privilege that work against the public interest. This marks a huge shift in the functioning of government. Where previously 19th century politics characterized by a strong Congress was based much more on reason and persuasion; 20th century politics is characterized more by force and coercion. That's what expanding the power of the presidency over the Congress means, government will be based more on force than on persuasion, that politics based on persuasion is antiquated, that certain groups and interests cannot be persuaded and must use force, but if it is done in the public interest is it a bad thing? Progressives like Wilson and FDR would say no.
The largest expansion of government power in U.S. history happened under the New Deal program of Franklin D. Roosevelt. There is still debate over the effectiveness of the New Deal program in American history. Here is a negative evaluation of it from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html
The historical legacy of the New Deal is crucial in understanding politics today. If it was successful, then it validates the progressive argument that economic growth and stability are best achieved when the government regulates market forces and corporate oligopolies. If it was not successful as the article argues then it strengthens the conservative argument that the market is the best way of generating growth and creating stability, and that any government interference will distort this.
The article only looks at the immediate period of the New Deal in the 30s and 40s and doesn't look at it as it continued to be the driving force behind government into the 50s and 60s. No surprise there, since that period of time is considered a "golden age" in American history (although as we talked about in class, this golden period was possible because most of the rest of world was bombed out from WWII). The legitimacy of the fundamental aspects of the New Deal was not really questioned during this early period (late 40s into the 60s) debate at the establishment level was not over whether or not government should intervene in the economy, but to what extent. The textbooks uses the terms corporate liberals and welfare liberals to emphasize the difference between Republicans and Democrats during this period of time. Both accepted government management of the economy but Republicans emphasized growth more and sided with corporations more; Democrats emphasized the social welfare aspects of the government. Probably the most lasting legacies of the New Deal are Social Security and Medicare (which came into effect in the 60s but was clearly inspired by the New Deal program and if you recall FDR's Economic Bill of Rights, healthcare is clearly marked as one of the goals).
This golden age period forms the background of the Kennedy administration, and is a big reason why JFK is remembered well. However, views on Kennedy tend to fall along generational lines, in other words, people who were actually alive during his presidency remember him better than people who came afterwards. A big reason for this is that lot of the "Kennedy mystique" has worn out. Kennedy's persona was that of a young intellectual president, yet it turned out that books that he authored like Profiles in Courage were written by someone else, and although educated at Harvard, his father helped pay his way through.
Kennedy was a WWII veteran, and a war hero too, and this part of him may have been more authentic and reflected the mood of the country at the time. Optimism in America was at an all time high (if you were a white heterosexual male), having won World War II and having a thriving economy at home (which according to the Wall Street Journal had nothing to do with the New Deal), many Americans felt strongly about their liberal ideals of freedom, justice, and human rights. That combined with "socialistic" programs like the G.I. Bill that allowed veterans to go to college for free, and the Federal Housing Authority that gave people cheap mortgages, helped keep the economy growing that translated into actual increases in the incomes of working Americans. At the same time, the civil rights movement is gaining steam and other marginalized social groups are beginning to become more confrontational with the status quo. By Kennedy's election in 1960, Martin Luther King Jr. had already been on the national stage for about five years, and civil rights did become one of the focuses of the Kennedy administration. Many of the big civil rights bill of the mid 60s were initiated by the Kennedy administration but completed by the Johnson administration who became president after Kennedy was assassinated.
Since the 20th century has been marked by the growth of the politics of force, and the expansion of presidential power, it makes sense that our last section we cover three American presidents: Kennedy, Reagan, and Obama. These presidents are influential in themselves but also represent a specific period of time. This is a good opportunity to talk about dialectical thinking again since this approach grew out of historical studies. Thinking dialectically means understanding development or evolution as a conflict or tension between opposites. The move from Kennedy to Reagan to Obama illustrates this process. The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 was seen as a reaction against the revolutionary energy of the 60s. Many Kennedy Democrats in 1960 became Reagan Republicans in 1980. So the revolutionary 60s gives way to the conservative 80s, and this period creates the conditions for the election of Obama in 2008, another change into opposites. And by the way that means that election of Obama also marks the end of a conservative period of politics stretching from 1980-2008 (which encompasses all of our lifetimes). Had George W. Bush not wrecked the country as much as he did, it is unclear that Barack Obama would have become president, and really can you think of two more opposite people than W. and Obama?
That brings out another important point about dialectical thinking, the interaction between opposites does not mean balance but means one extreme turning into another. The conservative backlash of the 80s was not a balancing out of the 60s, but an extreme reaction against it, just as much as the election in 2008 was an extreme reaction against the Republicans under Bush. To go even further back, the 60s were a reaction against the conservatism and conformity of the 50s. What this does is call your attention to things in relation to each other: you can't understand how Obama won without understanding how the Republicans fell apart; and just as you can't understand the "Reagan Revolution" without understanding how the New Deal system decayed.
There are no assignments for Wednesday just do the readings. Here is a video of JFK's inauguration:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment