Skip to main content

I loved our president.  Loved him.  Walked neighborhoods for him (in a far-right county, too).  Defended him so vehemently that I lost some of my more liberal friends (Naderites).

But my love has faded.

With great regret, I can even see myself walking neighborhoods for a Democratic challenger in the 2012 primaries.

But I also recognize that, even if someone defeats Obama in the primaries, the new candidate isn't likely to win the general.  A primary challenge will split the party and cripple the winner.

Without presidential coattails, moreover, our liberal House candidates will lose.  And the Senate ... let's not even talk about that.  The math is terrible for us.

I hope that things somehow improve before 2012.  But even if they don't, let's follow in the fine tradition of the Cubs, the Red Sox, and my own Arizona Cardinals, and start rebuilding for 2014.

As part of that rebuilding effort, let's reclaim the founders from the Tea Party.  More below the fold.

As we well know, the Tea Party claims to be heir to the American Revolution.  The founders, insists Glenn Beck, promised that government would remain small.  Then, in the early 1900s, government lurched away from the Constitution, embracing a new authority to tax and to regulate.  Things have deteriorated ever since.

Beck’s philosophy comes from his spiritual guide, Joseph Smith, who foresaw a time when the Constitution would hang by a thread.  Beck is equally beholden to W. Cleon Skousen, the twentieth-century Mormon ideologue who held that President Eisenhower (a Republican) was a communist.

Now let me explain why Democrats are the true heirs to the founding legacy.  (and for those who already know these arguments, forbearance, please)

What liberals need to challenge is not necessarily the prophetic origins of Glenn Beck's ideology, but his understanding of the founders’ vision.  That understanding comes from Cold War era history textbooks written for students in junior high.  Textbook writers—-concerned about Soviet totalitarianism—-stressed the founders’ opposition to taxes and their love for small government, government that gave brave entrepreneurs unfettered liberty to create wealth.

The Cold War understanding of the founders is partly correct.  As the great historian Joyce Appleby has shown in several books, some of the founders, some of the time, espoused free markets.  But the Cold War understanding is simplistic.

Liberals have greater claims to the founding legacy, though few realize it.  Liberal politics originates in the visions of both Alexander Hamilton, the great Federalist, and Thomas Jefferson, the great Democratic-Republican.  True, Hamilton and Jefferson were bitter enemies, but both were our progenitors.

The first epic argument under the Constitution involved federal assumption of state war debts.  Hamilton lobbied for assumption in order to strengthen ties between creditors (holders of government securities) and the U.S.  A federal debt, he reasoned, would give rich creditors cause to support a strong central government.

Jefferson and his ally, James Madison, strenuously argued against assumption precisely because it would empower the rich.  To profit from their securities, the rich would require the government to tax the people.  Neither Jefferson nor Madison objected to taxes per se; they objected to taxes intended to redistribute wealth upward in order to create aristocracy.

The next big fight concerned the creation of the Bank of the United States.  Hamilton wanted a bank to hold federal deposits, to regulate currency, and to provide loans for industrial development.  Jefferson and Madison cried foul.  The Constitution, they argued, gave the government no right to create banks.  Behind their principled stand was their fear of aristocracy.  The bank, insisted Jefferson, would create inequality.  It would create wealthy industrialists and pauperized commoners.  "Let our workshops remain in Europe," he inveighed.

On both assumption and the bank, Hamilton won.  What occurred in the short term was a 1790s bubble much like that of 2007-08, but of course much briefer and smaller.  Credit was too loose; investors went bankrupt; no bailouts ensued.

Hamilton was nevertheless right:  the federal government needed to direct economic development through loans and subsidies.  Too, the federal government needed to regulate currency and lending.  Hamilton also won insofar as his "implied powers" interpretation of the Constitution prevailed over Jefferson’s literalist (Tea Party) interpretation.

Thanks to Hamilton’s vision, the economy flourished.  The Whig Party took up where Hamilton left off by pushing for high tariffs to protect American manufactures for and government-subsidized infrastructure (turnpikes, canals, railroads, harbors, telegraphs, postal services).  The result was dynamism.

Jefferson’s vision, meanwhile, animated the Democratic Party that grew up around President Andrew Jackson in 1832.  Jackson killed the second Bank of the United States, though the Supreme Court continued to recognize its constitutionality.  Though Jackson, in good Jeffersonian style, continued to insist that the bank was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court adhered to the "implied powers" interpretation.

More important, Jackson-—taking inspiration from Jefferson-—attacked the commercial and banking aristocracy.  Fighting aristocracy in one form or another consumed most of his presidency.  Historians debate, to be sure, whether Jackson really fought aristocracy or just fought a small elite centered in New York and Philadelphia.  Some very fine scholars, however,--namely Sean Wilentz and Charles Sellers--argue that Jackson really did fight the forces of entrenched wealth.

Let's be clear with the American people.  Liberals are the true heirs to the founding tradition.  Liberals take the best from Hamilton, Jefferson, and Jackson.  Like Hamilton, they understand how important it is for government to regulate credit and to subsidize infrastructure (alternative energy, the internet, rapid transit).  Like Jefferson and Jackson, they battle against the forces of self-serving aristocracy (big business).

Republicans, by contrast,—-Glenn Beck among them-—take inspiration from the founders’ worst legacies.  From Hamilton they take a love for wealthy elites.  From Jefferson they borrow small-government rhetoric, though—thanks to Cold War textbooks—they are ignorant of its anti-aristocratic intent.

If the founder’s vision hangs by a thread, that thread is what's left of liberalism.  Neither Mormons nor the Tea Party, nor even "moderate" Republicans, are the bulwark of the founding tradition.  WE ARE.

And if the Constitution falls, it will be the Tea Party—-with its Paliny, Angly, Perryish talk of secession and rebellion—-that severs it.

Liberals:  take back the founders.  Please.  They're important.  Many were slaveholders.  Many were Indian haters.  But there is another legacy that liberals do well to recall:  the founders' fight against aristocracy and their fight on behalf of activist government.

When some fool shows up at a ball game with a t-shirt that says "Jefferson, Madison, Adams:  Right-wing extremists," tell them they do not know what they are talking about.  Leaving Adams aside, tell them that Jefferson and Madison were ARDENTLY against the aristocracy of entrenched wealth.

Jefferson got Virginia to abolish primogeniture and entail, laws that held large estates intact to be passed down to eldest male heirs.  He was very proud of that accomplishment.  Land, he believed, should be divided among heirs, else aristocracy ensued.

The same is true of any other sort of wealth.  When the wealthy become too powerful, Americans suffer.  That is what Jefferson, Madison, and Jackson understood, though Tea Partiers do not.

Hell, wear a T-shirt saying "Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton:  Left-wing extremists."

Let's rebuild.  Start over.  We'll come back.  The younger voters are with us.  They're far more open to progressive ideas than the generation who grew up reading Cold War textbooks.

Tell the Tea Partiers:   Your understanding of the founders comes from 1950s junior high.  They'll hate that accusation, but it's absolutely true.  They have a junior high understanding of the founders.  A schoolboy understanding.  And it matters!

The founders matter because, for better or worse, they are the founders.  They did give us a legacy.  Take the founders back from the stupid literalists out there--the ones that don't understand the founders dedication to activist government (Hamilton) or to fighting aristocracy (Jefferson, Madison).

Originally posted to doc durango on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:58 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Vision Probably CAME From Rightwing Think Tanks (0+ / 0-)

    designed and focus tested to resonate with 50's and 60's westerns, comic books and other pop culture.

    They're bower birds over there, they just string together anything that looks shiny and pretty together.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:21:02 AM PST

  •  Why wait until 2014? How many losses does it ... (0+ / 0-)

    take to wake us up?  We have somethng of value to defend already.  Are we going to just let it go then get off our asses to defend it?

  •  Maybe we should stop falling in love... (0+ / 0-)

    ...with politicians in the first place.

  •  shouldn't we go back to what the founders started (0+ / 0-)

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    In saying this the government is here to protect us, not to control us.

    We are:
    republic a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.)

    capitalism an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations. as contrasted to cooperatively(socialism  ) or state-owned means of wealth(Communism).

    We are not:

    Aristocracy: a class of persons holding exceptional rank and privileges, esp. the hereditary nobility.

    Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, wealth etc., in the community as a whole.

    Communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

    If we look at our system we have now it seems to me that we do not have a republic we are sliding into a socialism. With all recent bills that have been past  (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) (a one payer system the federal government), the bail outs of the banks (Fannie Mae and Freddie mac) and corporations (Gm motors etc.) and now with the bill s.510 FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

    Now if you want to talk about fighting aristocracy we should look at the people in charge when they make just as much as most "big corporate" CEO's per year.which starts out at $174,000 so who are the rich? These people are here to sever us to protect us in our daily "pursuit of Happiness." not to get rich off us. If the either side really wanted the the best for us they should make what our military make in a year their base pay is $19,983.60
    this is not what the American government should be.
    This is what i believe to be true in my heart. As a woman ask Benjamin Franklin when he came out of helping make these united states constitution " what have you given us sir? " Benjamin Franklin said " a republic if you can keep it."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site