Tom Tancredo has long been rumored to be flirting with the Constitution Party. Rumors have abounded since roughly 2004 that Tancredo might make runs for the House, Senate, or President as the Constitution Party nominee. Now, it seems, the rumor has become reality. Tom Tancredo, the former House member from Colorado and anti-illegal immigration firebrand, is now threatening to run as the gubernatorial candidate of the American Constitution Party (Colorado’s Constitution Party affiliate) unless the scandal plagued GOP nominee drops out.
Polling that was released just one week ago showed that Tom Tancredo was then the preferred GOP nominee of most Colorado Republicans. Just yesterday, Tancredo penned an editorial called “The case for impeachment” for the Washington Times.
Tom Tancredo raised over $8,000,000 in his 2008 run for President and still has $138,481 cash on hand from that race.
170 responses so far ↓
1 Vaughn // Jul 23, 2010 at 12:01 pm
How about don’t threaten just do it! (not that I agree with anything he stands for)
2 Trent Hill // Jul 23, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Vaughn,
I think virtually everyone expects Tancredo to jump in with both feet.
3 Sieg Heil // Jul 23, 2010 at 12:57 pm
WHITE POWER!
4 Larry Johnson // Jul 23, 2010 at 1:01 pm
You are stupid. Tancredo is not white, he is italian.
5 Trent Hill // Jul 23, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Um, Italian is considered white, or Caucasian, by most.
6 redalert // Jul 23, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I love what Mr. Tancerdo said about hussein obama in today’s “America Live” with Megyn Kelly. He is right. hussein obama is the enemy within.
Whatever you name is, you commented: “white power.” That’s so nazi. it’s so old. Try some. new!
7 George Phillies // Jul 23, 2010 at 1:16 pm
A Tancredo campaign, especially a successful one, would in many ways be a very positive outcome for our party, if not for Tancredo’s blood pressure as he discovers the joys of having a legislature dominated by a very different political party.
He would show that third parties can win major elections. He would tend to revive the Constitution Party, and lead into it the right wing xenophobes, religious fanatics, and several other types that are currently a good chunk of the Republican Party, thus weakening the Republicans and giving those people a political home not near the Watergate building.
8 Beth Faircloth // Jul 23, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Thanks,Tom- it’s about time someone see’s that obama IS in opposition to everything this nation was founded upon!! Unfortunately – congress is seemingly in COLLusion with his destruction of AMERICA ideology– they ALL need to GO!!!
9 Erik G. // Jul 23, 2010 at 1:24 pm
I wonder if historians will someday look back at all this ‘Obama infiltration’ paranoia and declare this period the Third Red Scare.
10 Jerry Mieto // Jul 23, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Time to take America back!
First of all…we need to seal the borders and send all the wetbacks home. And no more anchor babies! If you sell, smuggle or use dope, do not pass go, do not collect $200, and never mind jail, you go directly to the gallows!
Second…stop sending money to israel, outlaw usury, nationalize the federal reserve, bring the troops home and clean up the cultural sewage pouring out of Hollywood. The Jews may not be happy but so what??
Third…no more outsourcing American jobs. Impose heavy quotas and keep the jobs at home, even if the chinks don’t like it.
Fourth…end political correctness. Women should not wear the pants and faggots should not be parading their mental disease like it is something to be proud of.
Fifth: Abortion is murder. Facts are facts.
Sixth: Bail out the American workers and farmers, not the Wall Street Jews.
Seventh: We are a Christian nation. We need Jesus in our public schools and courts.
Eighth: Environmental whackos should be hunted…just like animals. And their is nothing wrong with eating meat, including pork!!!!
Ninth: Islam is not a religion, it is a terrorist fascist attack on America! Islamics must not be allowed to live among us!
Last: Every American should own a gun…or two…or more!
Thanks for reading and God bless!
11 Jason // Jul 23, 2010 at 1:39 pm
I’m nothing George described as a Constitution Party member. I proudly joined the party in 2009 (after voting for Chuck Baldwin in 2008 while still technically an LP member) & Michigan’s U.S. Taxpayers Party this year. I’ve never been happier and I was a dues paying LP member for 8 years.
I knew nothing of the CP when I joined the LP in 2000 but over time as I’ve grown and learned more, it was the right choice for me. Plus, I’m not seeing the infighting I saw with the LP, at least at the state & local level. I remained with the LP as long as I did simply because I didn’t want to leave the local group, which I helped build up, fall on its face.
I think Dr.Phillies should know there are quite a few open minded folks in the CP.
12 Osama Lopez // Jul 23, 2010 at 1:55 pm
I am not happy about this.
13 Oops, Opeach Obama ..... Lake // Jul 23, 2010 at 1:57 pm
redalert // Jul 23, 2010:
I love what Mr. Tancerdo said about hussein obama in today’s “America Live” with Megyn Kelly. He is right. hussein obama is the enemy within.
[well I would not go that far, but almost]
Whad Ever youse name are, try some ting new! Large Italian Fog: ‘Bigamist’
*personal experience* Bigoted Americans of Eye – talian decent are senitive on this issue per the mother land’s location to North AFRICA and the pre Christian slave trade.
Ultimate joke, the Grand Mother Land IS Africa. We are all African Americans!
I’m just sayin ………
Hey, Beth, red, Trent, Vaughn, what have you done to Opeach Obama today!
Don’t blame Don Lake, Perot, Perot, Nader, Nader, Nader voter.
Erik G. // Jul 23, 2010:
“……. historians will someday look back at all this ‘Obama infiltration’ paranoia and declare this period the Third Red Scare.”
more like the turd term of George W!
14 Trent Hill // Jul 23, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Jason–you’ll find you aren’t the only one. If you ever go to a national meeting, look for the chairman of Idaho and introduce yourself. He’s good people.
15 NOBAMA 12 // Jul 23, 2010 at 2:23 pm
What have you done to repatriate a Mexican today?
16 Don lake where are you? // Jul 23, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Don Lake what the current status on Chelene Nightingale for governor ballot access for november? Is the AIP still going to deny her ballot designation?
17 Oops, Opeach Obama ..... Lake // Jul 23, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Various sources, independent, Two Marks and an Ed, said yes; SOS / Debra Bowen have been dodging me, or at least the issue. I also have been told that she is not on the General Ballot at all, or that she is as an independent independent.
At this very point in time it seems to be ‘as clear as mud’.
If Nightmare Nightingale does get on as the California American Independent Party candidate in Nov I hereby do offer my name as the named party plaintiff in getting her sorry ass removed (at least from the AIP ‘endorsement’ ‘label’ ‘party’ ‘ballot access’ what ever)!
18 Obamarxist Obamuslim Obamaniac // Jul 23, 2010 at 3:41 pm
This must not be allowed!
If this sort of thing keeps up I will get impeached and then deported, along with all the other illegals.
We must put a stop to this now!
19 OogaBoogAMAn // Jul 23, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Oh oh. Time to shit my pants!
20 George Phillies // Jul 23, 2010 at 3:53 pm
@11
You miss the point. Whether you resemble the people I described does not matter. The Constitution Party platform resembles those people, Tom Tancredo resembles those people, and if he lures them all into the Constitution Party that weakens the Republicans.
21 Opeach Obama ..... Lake // Jul 23, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Headed for the ‘dust bin of history’ :
BOTH CP and GOP!
22 Jason // Jul 23, 2010 at 5:39 pm
No I got your point George. You missed mine. If you read the LP platform, much of what you see isn’t reflected with many of it’s leaders.
Opinions should be made of people, not platforms.
23 Don Grundmann // Jul 23, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Chelene Nightingale will be the gubinatorial candidate beside the American Independent Party name. She represents the non-corruption faction of the party which is why she is opposed by the corruption faction of fake ” Chairman ” Robinson and associated supporters of corruption such as Don Lake.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
24 Opeach Obama ..... Lake // Jul 23, 2010 at 7:28 pm
News to me, not saying you are wrong, just saying ‘news to me’!
She only won because the legitmate operations of the California American Independent Party allowed you, Nightmare Nightingale, Jim King, and others, to show if you could ‘shift it’ into ‘reasonable people’ gear!
Gee Saint Louis County Thomas Knapp (Libertarian) and I called Chelene Ward Nightingale ‘on it’ as early as August of last year! She does not/ did not respond to other than folks scribbling in a check book. Her partner describes him self as both ‘Hustler’ and ‘Huckster’. Her staff gins up an endorsement —– by a dead person. She originally claimed to be a working actress with a valid SAG card, then modified such when the truth was exposed.
Various ‘truth seeking’ [my words] organizations [including INDEPENDENT Political Report] refused to up date her profile, including, and especially her dismissal as director of ‘Save Our State’ ——— months ago! IPR brags of their increasing broad cast range and then allows voters to be mislead toward election period.
You keep talking about the ability of persons filing for bankrupcy while a chorus of folks yells louder and louder about the FRAUD conviction related to same.
[None are so deaf that do not wish to hear!]
This is one lame pony, and she should not be in the race at all, and especially under false colors.
If she is not printed up in the Secretary of State’s media center as an independent independent, then let her run as a champion of the Constitution Party of California, a non existent entity, as Cody Banks Quirk declares, ‘for legal reasons’!
If the Secretary of State does not rubber stamp the legitimate operations of the California AIP; if they unethically interfer in partisan operations —- then may be the courts can kick her immoral rear off of the AIP ballot!
A wide, wide range of folks can just not tolerate her inappropriate behavior. I mean the woman does not know how many children she has given birth to! Deffinately Los Angeles County High Desert low life!
25 Thomas L. Knapp // Jul 23, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Per the Colorado Constitution, one must “have resided within the limits of the state two years next preceding his election” to be eligible to serve as governor.
Unless Colorado annexed Mars without telling anyone, Tancredo’s not qualified.
26 Don Grundmann // Jul 23, 2010 at 8:03 pm
” A wide, wide range of folks can just not tolerate her inappropriate behavior. I mean the woman does not know how many children she has given birth to!”
Response – to ” The Fool ” – Like I have previously said – Don’t ever meet me. You continue to lie about Chelene regarding a ” fraud ” conviction which never happened and you continue to insult her family. As I have said, it is no accident that you were promoted to the State Central Committee of the AIP by fellow liars like Robinson and Seidenberg. You are all the most ultra corrupt rats around. There is certainly so one that is sicker than you. You are the poster boy for ” inappropriate behavior ” but you have not the slightest bit of conscience for continually lying. Chelene is a wonderfully honorable lady of fantastic integrity and courage. YOU are the dregs of humanity; just a walking pile of feces that is a total disgrace to the human race.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
27 Bump Nightmare Nightingale ..... Lake // Jul 23, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Like I have repeatedly said, Chelen Ward Nightingale is on record of claiming different number of children on different occassion[s]!
AOK, Delusional Doctor Grundmann, it is now time to rant and rave about the right of Americans to file for bankrupcy, while not so secretly hoping less than a million folks do not notice that it is the COVICTED inappropriateness of said paper work!
Close your eyes (tight!)
click your heels:
We’re not in Kansas any more
we’re not in Kansas any more
we’re not in Kansas any more
28 Bump Nightmare Nightingale ..... Lake // Jul 23, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Don Grundmann // Jul 23, 2010:
– “Like I have previously said – Don’t ever meet me…..”
Yet another threat of physical violence. Yet another trampling of my First Amendment rights. Yet another few moments lingering in the dark shadows!
Come on, CHP, IRS, FTB, FBI
29 Don Grundmann // Jul 23, 2010 at 8:46 pm
to ” The Fool ” – What a staggering idiot you are. A) Chelene has never been convicted of any crime and has never been accused of any crime of which she could be convicted. Bankruptcy is not a crime. But you are too stupid to realize this. B) I have done nothing to ” trample your first amendment rights.” As this website shows you are free to be as monumentally and galactically stupid as you are. It is unbelievable how moronically stupid you are.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
30 Larry Breazeale // Jul 23, 2010 at 11:30 pm
THIS IS GREAT NEWS! Tom Tancredo was never really a “party man” (yes man) to the slop GOP. He is his own man. Tom has already endorsed CHELENE NIGHTINGALE (AIP/Constitution party) candidate for California Governor 2010 , 100%. Be prepared to see Tom possibly coming out to California to make some support appearances for Chelene and, possibly Chelene going to Colorado to make some appearances! BOTH , and the CP will gain from all of this.
The ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION issue, the economy, Taxes, and jobs are the REAL issues confronting our country NOW. BOTH corrupt, monopoly political parties are manipulated by “LIARS-WHORES & THEIVES” and “TRAITORS” who give us just MORE “waste, fraud and abuse”. WE in the Constitution Party (American Independent Party in California) WELCOME patriot TOM TANCREDO into our party of principle.
NO AMNESTY!
Courtesy of Larry Breazeale, Msgt. USAF (ret.)
Nat. Chrm. National Veterans Coalition of the Constitution party, http://www.nvets.org
Deputy Sheriff retired,
Orange County (Ca.) AIP
31 Deran // Jul 24, 2010 at 12:28 am
I think Tancredo running is a great thing. It will bring out all the racists into the light of day. All the crypto-fascist Know Nothings, like Jerry Mieto et al above.
This exposure to the public eye will either end the neo-fascist tide, or it will sweep on through, and they’ll take away my firearms, and I’ll end up in a “summer camp”.
32 Brian // Jul 24, 2010 at 1:36 am
Yeah brown people suck! Get rid of em. Vote Tank 2010
33 Mark Seidenberg // Jul 24, 2010 at 1:50 am
It looks like Larry Breazeale is in a memory worp.
He was removed from the AIP State Central Committee on July 21, 2007. The AIP affliated with the America’s Independent Party on June 27, 2008. The American Independent Party
has no current connection with the Constitution
Party.
As for Don Grundmann, his last date on the AIP
State Central Committee was September 2, 2008. Grundmann has never been the Vice Chairman of the AIP.
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg,
Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party
34 Erik G. // Jul 24, 2010 at 2:24 am
How does Mr. Tancredo plan to get around the Colorado law that states you must be a registered member (i.e. your party identification with the state) of a party for a year prior to running for office? He would have had to switch his party affiliation with the state last November.
35 Catholic Trotskyist // Jul 24, 2010 at 3:20 am
Thanks Tom. By running you will hand the governorship to the Democrats. Thus showing your affiliation with Catholic Trotskyism and the Obama world government revolution. All your anti-immigration, conservative statements are really just to get the racist conservatives to defend you and show who they are, and to one day ruin an election for the Republicans. Tancredo is really an Obama supporter, just as Ralph Nader is really a supporter and mastermind of Bush crime family. Thanks Tom for your support.
36 Mark Seidenberg // Jul 24, 2010 at 9:36 am
Erik G.
You need to read the Constitution and By-Laws of the American Constitution Party, before coming to the view that Tancredo has to be
one year in the party. Note 1-4-1304(2).
Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party.
37 Erik G. // Jul 24, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Mark,
You need to read Colorado law. As a resident of Denver, I can tell you straight up that he has to have marked on his voter registration card before last November that his party affiliation is the CP. Whether the CP considers him a member is irrelevant in the eyes of the State of Colorado.
38 citizen1 // Jul 24, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Trent Hill // Jul 23, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Jason–you’ll find you aren’t the only one. If you ever go to a national meeting, look for the chairman of Idaho and introduce yourself. He’s good people.
Trent you must be talking about that racist tea partier who is on the list of the most dangerous patriots. I would like to see him as chairman of the national party he has done great work in Idaho.
39 Green Party Conservative // Jul 24, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Who does the Green Party have running in Colorado?
Green Party Watch
http://www.GreenPartyWatch.org/
shows
•Colorado
US Senate:
•Bob Kinsey
http://www.kinseyforsenate.org/
US House of Representatives:
•Gary Swing – District 1
http://www.swingvoters.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=1479
40 Green Party Conservative // Jul 24, 2010 at 3:37 pm
The Green Party U.S. Senate candidate is a retired U.S. Marine, a minister, a retired teacher..
For stopping the wars, cutting and stopping war spending…
Good video..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQL7i-L3wA
41 To citizen1 ..... Lake // Jul 24, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Huh?
42 Mark Seidenberg // Jul 24, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Erik G. I have read Colorado Election Law. You need to
read it also. Please read in Title 1, Article 4, section 1304(2). Then get back to me. That is why I posted at #36, 1-4-1304(2).
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
American Independent Party.
43 George Phillies // Jul 25, 2010 at 5:29 pm
The Colorado Republican Party Attorney, who both ought to know and has a serious motive for making the answer out to be ‘can’t be done’ says that there is not a legal way to keep Tancredo off the ballot.
If I follow the discussion, the issue is that Colorado State law says that it will enforce party rules on this question, and the Constitution party repealed its internal rule requiring membership.
YMMV. TWAGOS. ICOERICSAS.
44 paulie // Jul 25, 2010 at 7:37 pm
I know what the first one stands for.
45 Erik G. // Jul 25, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Mark S. @42,
I’m aware of the section in reference. Perhaps you have not read it properly, however. Please show me something that says the American Constitution Party’s (CO’s CP branch) party rules that says candidates do not have to first be a member of the ACP for 12 months prior.
Just because the CP considers him a member, it does not mean that there are written party rules allowing a candidate such as Tancredo to run for office under the CP label. I have yet to be shown a written copy of party rules allowing for this to occur.
To clarify, it has to be written into party rules that those registered with major parties may run on the CP label , not just some vague “we consider him a member” statement. Also, the American Constitution Party would have to rush together a new assembly to nominate him, and somehow invalidate their previous nomination of Ben Goss for Governor, which may or may not be legal.
For those wondering what Mark and I are arguing about, here’s the text for Minor Party Designation for Governor from the Colorado Secretary of State:
MINOR PARTY DESIGNATION
ELIGIBILITY:
To be eligible for designation by assembly, a
person must be affiliated with the minor
political party holding the assembly for at least
twelve (12) months before the assembly, as
shown by the registration books of the county
clerk and recorder, unless party rules state
otherwise. [Sections 1-4-1304(2)(a), (b), C.R.S.]
Candidates who have been registered as a
member of a major political party for at least
twelve (12) months prior to the date of
nomination are not eligible, unless party rules
state otherwise. [Section 1-4-1304(2)(c), C.R.S.]
http://www.elections.colorado.gov/Content/Documents/Candidates/Governor%202010.pdf
46 paulie // Jul 25, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Erik,
I am far from being a legal expert, but as George said I would imagine the Republican Party has access to competent attorneys and would prefer to keep him out of the race. Just how incompetent do you think they are?
47 Red Phillips // Jul 25, 2010 at 8:59 pm
“and lead into it the right wing xenophobes”
Dr. Phillies, could you please name me a single person you know of who is clinically phobic of foreigners?
Xenophobia is a Cultural Marxist PC slur word. It is almost always applied only to white people in Western countries?
48 paulie // Jul 25, 2010 at 9:29 pm
I seem to see them all the time, in every medium there is and in person.
Does that make me a xenophobophobe?
LOL
49 paulie // Jul 25, 2010 at 9:37 pm
No. Many American xenophobes are “black”.
Many are “pull up the ladder” type immigrants, children of immigrants or of the same ethnicities as current/recent waves of immigrants.
There are xenophobes in every other country, as well.
For example, I know Israelis who came over from Russia in the 1970s and resent the more recent immigrants to Israel from Russia. Xenophobia is a strange phenomenon, from the outside.
50 Erik G. // Jul 25, 2010 at 9:42 pm
paulie @46,
That’s more or less my point. In my eyes, unless Mark offers compelling evidence to the contrary, there’s a 0% chance that Tancredo is allowed on the ballot with the American Constitution Party line.
51 Erik G. // Jul 25, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Red @47,
Xenophobia is actually a stronger phenomenon in non-Western countries, as Eastern countries tend to be more homogeneous (i.e. Japan, Korea, etc.) with a smaller history of diversity.
52 paulie // Jul 25, 2010 at 9:47 pm
That’s more or less my point. In my eyes, unless Mark offers compelling evidence to the contrary, there’s a 0% chance that Tancredo is allowed on the ballot with the American Constitution Party line.
OK, then why did the (NS)GOP leadership and attorneys back down from initial claims that he would not be allowed to run?
53 Michael H. Wilson // Jul 25, 2010 at 10:06 pm
re 47. Have you ever been to Japan?
54 George Phillies // Jul 25, 2010 at 10:34 pm
It is absurd to suggest that ‘xenophobe’ refers to hysterical fear of foreigners.
@50 So at worst they add a sentence to their bylaws and two minutes later give Tancredo their nomination, though I suspect the GOP Counsel knew what he was talking about.
55 Erik G. // Jul 25, 2010 at 11:42 pm
George @ 54 / paulie @52,
He’ s still ineligble until Ben Goss steps down as the nominee. The ACP had its convention already in May, and even if Tancredo received a 2/3rds vote of the ACP’s executive committee, Goss has to step aside first, which may or may not happen. This is certainly no given.
Also, just because the CO GOP doesn’t plan to file a lawsuit, it doesn’t mean someone else wouldn’t find cause to.
56 paulie // Jul 26, 2010 at 2:15 am
The NSGOP pretty clearly does not want him to run as ACP. They have lawyers and they have money. So if there is a case to be made, what would keep them from making it?
57 Red Phillips // Jul 26, 2010 at 8:59 am
“It is absurd to suggest that ‘xenophobe’ refers to hysterical fear of foreigners.”
Really? What is the DSM definition of a phobia?
That is my point. The term does not indicate anything real. It is a slur word used against people who hold certain political opinions regarding immigration.
58 paulie // Jul 26, 2010 at 10:50 am
wikipedia: A phobia (from the Greek: ?????,phóbos, meaning “fear” or “morbid fear”) is an irrational, intense and persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, animals, or people. The main symptom of this disorder is the excessive and unreasonable desire to avoid the feared stimulus.
p: Seems entirely applicable to xenophobes.
59 Larry Breazeale // Jul 26, 2010 at 12:50 pm
TOM TANCREDO is ours now! There is no turning back, going back, to the corrupt GOP slop. He has stated he can raise 2-5 million dollars for his Constitution Party run for Colorado governor. He CAN do it!
ALL THIS, will help the Constitution party “candidates” across the country. Already, the GOP slop leaders (republican leadership)in Colorado are ‘crying the blues’, urging Tancredo to stop his ‘foolishness’. Foolishness??
These pompus Gop slop racteteers are running around like a bunch of chickens with their heads off- in a panic mode because, even they know Tom has “NAME RECOGNITION” that is associated with the TEA PARTY movement and the ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MOVEMENT “nationwide”. Let THEM sweat it. They deserve it. As much as they are sweating it, they will try and smear Tom and the CP and ANYONE associated with it, as CP or American Independent candidates running for various offices nationwide like- CHELENE NIGHTINGALE in California.
Speaking of CHELENE…..she is doing a real back up job here in California. Her “Money Bomb” is starting off great! She just did a campaign tour of central California with VERY positive results…..TV and RADIO appearances etc. CHELENE is the BEST AIP (CP) candidate for Governor that we ever had. “SHE IS” now, the true rising star in the AIP (CP) and California’s AIP populist LEADER, hands down.
She will be the main AIP leader taking the California AIP into the next decade and beyond.
The “very few” misfit obstructionists, loonie tune wackos that just spread lies and un-professional skullduggary tactics….YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE…will be left behind in the dust…with NOTHING to account for.
EVEN NOW, 99% of the AIP do not pay any attention to them because, they are nobodies.
THEY do not matter anymore. IT IS ALL ABOUT “MIND OVER MATTER”….we don’t mind because, THEY don’t matter!
The AIP in California and the nationwide Constitution Party are going forward to victory, together, as it should be and as it will be, despite the feeble efforts of a “few obstructionists”.
Larry Breazeale, Msgt. USAF (ret.)
Deputy Sheriff retired,
Nat. Chrm. NATIONAL VETERANS COALITION http://www.nvets.org
Orange County Calif. (AIP)
60 Red Phillips // Jul 26, 2010 at 1:01 pm
“Xenophobia is actually a stronger phenomenon in non-Western countries, as Eastern countries tend to be more homogeneous (i.e. Japan, Korea, etc.) with a smaller history of diversity.”
Eric G., I wouldn’t conceed the term xenophobia, but you’re right, and it helps make my point. Ever look into how hard it is to immigrate to Japan? It is virtually impossible. But the Cultural Marxist PC Gestapo isn’t protesting demanding Japan and Korea let in millions of culturally disimilar Mestizos, West Asians, Middle Easteners, etc. Only predominately white Western countries like England, France, the Netherlands, America, etc. are supposed to do that. Because the very point of Cultural Marxism is to undermine the West.
61 Red Phillips // Jul 26, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Above conceed = concede
“Seems entirely applicable to xenophobes.”
Yeah, if you are someone who obviously needs to get outside your PC echo chamber. Go to an anti-immigration rally and find me a single person there who is clinically “phobic” of foreigners. Xenophobia, like its close cousin homophobia, is a slur word meant to demonize people who hold traditional opinions. It is not meant to communicate some sort of mental health state in the same way agoraphobia, claustrophobia, arachnophobia, etc. do.
62 paulie // Jul 26, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Cultural Marxism? What is that, exactly? The Soviet Union enforced socially conservative policies.
As for immigration, the same principle applies everywhere. I want all nations to allow migration freedom.
Since I currently live in the US, naturally I pay most attention to US policies on any given issue.
Since I may wish to some day leave, and have as many choices as possible as to where I go, to whatever extent I can, I hope all nations open their borders and stop standing in the way of supply and demand for labor and property.
63 paulie // Jul 26, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Larry Breazeale, as far as I know, the Keyes-connected faction still controls the ballot line.
Has that changed?
64 paulie // Jul 26, 2010 at 1:26 pm
While the degree of phobia varies, it’s palpably present. The hysterical ravings about “invasion” blah blah blah….many of them actually do sound like mental patients.
Is an entirely accurate description of widely prevalent mindsets, among some people who are afraid of “the other” contaminating their perceived purity. Generally xenophobia stems from the fear of those who can’t adequately compete that they will lose their jobs and/or wives or girlfriends to a Latino, while homophobia is usually most prevalent in those who are insecure in their own heterosexuality or are actually self-hating closet gays.
65 Larry Breazeale // Jul 26, 2010 at 1:35 pm
HEY “PAULIE” ! NOT FOR LONG! We are only dealing with just” THREE THUGS “, at TEMPORARY(VERY temporary) AIP positions.
Once their house of cards falls….their little nazi regime materializes into thin air.THE DUST HAS NOT SETTLED ON THIS “TEMPORARY” SITUATION IN CALIFORNIA. I really believe these “THREE THUGS” are republican party paid spies, placed there to TRY and create havoc for the AIP. THEY never did ANYTHING to help the AIP prosper. All they do is spread MORE LIES and put real viable AIP (CP) candidates down and try and smear them.
Instead of helping CHELENE NIGHTINGALE and all the rest of the statewide candidates (ALL certified by the Calif. Sec. of State) ..all these thugs do is spread their LIES on the internet.
They are miserable cowards, liars, traitors & theives.GOD BLESS RON PAUL, TOM TANCREDO, and CHELENE NIGHTINGALE.
-Larry Breazeale, Msgt. USAF(ret.)
Nat. Chrm. National Veterans Coalition
http://www.nvets.org,
Orange County , Ca. (AIP)
THE MAJORITY of the AIP in California are steadfest supporters of the nationwide CONSTITUTION PARTY.
66 Red Phillips // Jul 26, 2010 at 1:48 pm
“homophobia is usually most prevalent in those who are insecure in their own heterosexuality or are actually self-hating closet gays”
Or Christians who actually believe what their religion teaches. Crazy thought, I know.
“As for immigration, the same principle applies everywhere. I want all nations to allow migration freedom.”
I know, but that is because you are a libertarian ideologue immune to the reality of how the world actually works. Shared ethnicity, culture, history, religion, etc. has been the basis of spontaneous self forming nationhood since the dawn of man. But screw thousands of years of history and the innate nature of mankind. Paulie know best, and we can let such trivial things as human nature stand in the way of us establishing a libertarian Utopia.
67 paulie // Jul 26, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Or Christians who actually believe what their religion teaches. Crazy thought, I know.
Selectively, perhaps. The parts about loving your neighbor, praying quietly in private rather than making a show of it in public, removing the beam from your own eye, and many others usually tend to get lost.
you are a libertarian ideologue immune to the reality of how the world actually works.
Au contraire, I’ve been to may parts of the world, have been an immigrant myself more than once, have run an international trade business as well as some other businesses that employed immigrants, have lived in several majority-immigrant neighborhoods, etc., so I am more familiar than most with how the world actually works.
Shared ethnicity, culture, history, religion, etc. has been the basis of spontaneous self forming nationhood since the dawn of man. But screw thousands of years of history and the innate nature of mankind.
War, slavery, absolute monarchy and religious conversion at the point of a sword, inquisitions, torture, forced marriages, and many other evils have been around for thousands of years and prevalent all over the world. That does not make them good or inevitable. We can, and should, strive to do better.
we can['t] let such trivial things as human nature stand in the way of us establishing a libertarian Utopia.
There is nothing utopian about the centuries-long struggle to minimize coercion. The fight for migration freedom is part and parcel of that struggle, along with religious liberty, property rights, social freedoms, right to marry by choice, sexual freedom, freedom of speech, right not to be a slave, freedom from absolute monarch and dictators, etc, etc.
68 To idiooooooots every where ..... Lake // Jul 26, 2010 at 2:02 pm
miserable cowards, liars, traitors & theives? ——— Fake Veterans Advocate Larry Breazeale, CA
miserable, I will give you
coward? How, when, where?
liar? How, when, where?
traitor? To whom?
thief? Prove it!
69 To idiooooooots every where ..... Lake // Jul 26, 2010 at 2:10 pm
(NVC members are automatically dual-enrolled
into the Constitution Party,
and at a substantial discount.
Thank you for your service to our country.)
Not solving the problems of neglected veterans in any way, just a cynical recruitment tool for a ‘constitution’ party that cares little for the federal constitution —— based upon a ‘tax payer’ party that cared little for the taxed!
70 Red Phillips // Jul 26, 2010 at 2:38 pm
“Cultural Marxism? What is that, exactly?”
When the revolution of the proletariat failed to materialize in the West on economic grounds, some Marxist theorists decided that the problem that was holding revolution back was Christianity, Victorian morality, widespread acceptance of bourgeois culture, etc. So in order to usher in the revolution those things had to be undermined. So these Marxist stopped focusing so much on class struggle and started focusing on other forms of “oppression” (Christian morality, traditional gender roles, etc.) and other sorts of victim classes (minorities, women, gays, etc.). Some earlier Marxist had felt it unwise to stoke ethnic and racial resentments because it could interfere with the workers’ revolution.
Cultural Marxism is associated with the Frankfurt School and some of its prominent theorists were Horkheimer, Marcuse, Adorno, etc. Adorno is particularly relevant here because he wrote a book called The Authoritarian Personality where he essentially implied that anyone who held to traditional Western social norms and values was mentally ill and that Western society in general bred mental pathology. Good mental health was essentially measured by ones ability to throw off and get past his upbringing. This is why it applies to the use of mental health terms to describe political beliefs.
Cultural Marxism applies to the larger immigration debate, because it enshrines a double standard that is much in evidence in the immigration debate. Ethnic minorities are expected and encouraged to be ethnocentric and to act in accordance with their own group interests. But if whites do the same thing they are guilty of an unforgivable thought crime. Whites can only avoid the charge of wrongthink if they publicly profess their own self-loathing and ritualistically publicly flagellate themselves on command. Because we all know that whites are uniquely evil and responsible for all the ill in the world so the only appropriate white response is shame and welcoming his dispossession.
Anyway, I suggest you read up on the topic. You might learn something.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html
71 paulie // Jul 26, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Marx advocated nothing like “cultural Marxism” and Marxist countries did not practice it.
I find the allegation that it is Marxist to be unsupported by evidence.
Some self-professing Marxists may well have advocated ideas that you brand as “cultural Marxism,” but as far as I know none of these ideas originated with Marxists and all are far more in line with classical liberalism and the enlightenment than they are with Marx.
As best I can tell, “cultural Marxism” is politically correct jargon for neo-dark ages reactionaries.
72 Bill Georgio // Jul 26, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Nightingale for governor has not got a chance in California. She has 3 more months of fantasy then what? She’ll dream up a new ploy for money scheme. Good Luck you’ll need it.
73 Red Phillips // Jul 26, 2010 at 3:11 pm
paulie, Cultural Marxism is a well recognized phenomenon, and is in no way mysterious. Look up the Frankfurt School on Wikipedia. Look up any of the names I listed. Look up the book I listed. Educate yourself.
74 paulie // Jul 26, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Red,
The contention that there is such a thing as “cultural marxism” is in no way new to me, I’m familiar with the Frankfurt School and the names you listed, and I dispute that the term is accurate, just as you dispute that the well recognized phenomena of xenophobia and homophobia exist.
75 Don Grundmann // Jul 26, 2010 at 9:30 pm
” Bill Georgio // Jul 26, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Nightingale for governor has not got a chance in California. She has 3 more months of fantasy then what? She’ll dream up a new ploy for money scheme. Good Luck you’ll need it ”
Response – Mark Seidenberg – It has been a long time since you wrote under a fake name. Why come back and do the same old thing in bashing Chelene? Answer – Because you are still doing the bidding of your ADL and SPLC masters.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
76 Don Grundmann // Jul 26, 2010 at 9:35 pm
” Marx advocated nothing like “cultural Marxism” and Marxist countries did not practice it. ”
Response – Marx ” advocated ” according to what his banker controllers/handlers told him. He ” advocated ” destruction in the economic realm while his fellow banker lackeys worked on the destruction of culture; specifically, as Red Phillips said, Christianity since it is the greatest enemy of those who wish to enslave humanity.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
77 Don Grundmann // Jul 26, 2010 at 9:43 pm
” the well recognized phenomena of xenophobia and homophobia exist.”
Response – There is NO ” well recognized phenomena ” of, so-called, ” homophobia.” Just as ” gay ” is a Social Engineering marketing term regarding homosexuality so is ” homophobia.” It is a fake term used to demonize those who oppose the emotional pathology of homosexuality and as such is a psychological warfare term used by the enemies of humanity in their drive to destroy western civilization. The only place that ” homophobia ” is ” well recognized ” is among the drones, lackeys, and lemmings who support such cultural destruction due to their own hatred of Christianity.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
78 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 3:27 pm
“Cultural Marxism” refers to a point of view in critical theory that derives from Marxism.
Marxists argued that ideology is tied deeply into the class system, so people either believe what they do because of they’re a part of the class they’re in, or have a ‘false consciousness’ , beliefs that go against their interests. Any argument for universal truth or universal morality or universal aesthetics was considered wrong, ‘bourgeois’, and a kind of false consciousness. The idea that wealthy people should have a right to keep their money and use as they see fit, for instance, was ‘bourgeois’. ‘Rights’ are an invention of the government, and are whatever we want them to be, they would say.
In academia, Marxists sought to reinterpret history as a history of economic struggle, paint conservative actors as always supporting the interests of the rich over the interests of the poor. Art was also interpreted along economic grounds in the same way. Art was bad or good based on whether it supported the right economic interests.
Around the 60s, there were a lot of academics who agreed with that but thought that it was too narrow to only divide people by economic status. People could also be divided by race, gender, etc. Thats where the modern Feminist movement came from, along with Black Liberation theology. Many feminist academics today, for instance, believe in sexual liberation and think ‘heteronormativity’ is used as a tool by families to control women. The ultimate goal of conservative policies is thus ‘to control women’. Followers of Black Liberation theology think that mainstream Christianity is a ‘white person’s religion’, and they needed to develop their own Church which taught their members to be activists for progressive social and economic policies.
This isn’t a conservative conspiracy theory, a lot of academics are open about being Marxists. Not all of them agree with the postmodern POV though. Slavoj Zizek for example calls himself a Marxist, but has criticized postmodernism and defended Christianity.
79 paulie // Jul 28, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Yes, I’ve already said that self-described Marxists push ideas that have been called cultural Marxism.
However, they didn’t originate these ideas and Marx never endorsed them, so I believe the term is a misnomer. Was that unclear?
80 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 3:52 pm
paulie,
Sure, the specific theories were developed by Marxists. György Lukács wrote about class consciousness, Lukács influenced Adorno, etc.
81 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:00 pm
“Is an entirely accurate description of widely prevalent mindsets, among some people who are afraid of “the other” contaminating their perceived purity. Generally xenophobia stems from the fear of those who can’t adequately compete that they will lose their jobs and/or wives or girlfriends to a Latino, while homophobia is usually most prevalent in those who are insecure in their own heterosexuality or are actually self-hating closet gays.”
Only as much as its accurate to say that people who fear Christians in government will impose their values on everyone is “Christianphobia”.
Its legitimate to believe that illegal immigration has an effect on the job market. Its also legitimate to have a more conservative view on sexuality. Its also legitimate to be skeptical about the influence of religion in public policy.
In each of these cases, theres a point of view that represents a legitimate concern, it only becomes a phobia when it becomes pathologically paranoid.
And from my experience, a lot more on the left are paranoid about Christians, than people on the right are paranoid about gays and immigrants.
82 paulie // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Yes, class consciousness is a Marxist concept.
However, “cultural Marxism” as it has been used in this thread refers to support for migration freedom, sexual freedom, separation of church and state, and other ideas which are part of the classical liberal tradition.
The fact that some Marxist academics have developed theories that link these ideas to Marxism does not make them Marxist concepts; Marx did not originate or endorse these views, Marxists don’t hold a monopoly on them, and Marxists regimes carry out the opposite policies.
In point of fact, while both some Marxists and some (racial) conservatives believe that migration freedom weakens the industrialized (quasi) capitalist nations, they are both wrong. Migration freedom strengthens the economy and culture of America, Europe, etc. I believe that religious freedom and sexual freedom does, too.
83 paulie // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Only as much as its accurate to say that people who fear Christians in government will impose their values on everyone is “Christianphobia”.
I don’t know of anyone who fears Christians in government per se. However, it’s true that some people who call themselves Christians (inaccurately, IMO) seek to govern on the basis of their religion and/or give their religion preferential treatment by government.
I don’t know of anyone who wants to force anyone else to be a homosexual through government force. Thus, there is no equivalence there.
There are in fact some people who use government to force people to hire, do business with or rent to people they don’t want to. I disagree with them. There are also people who want to use government to preclude people from hiring, doing business with or renting to people they do want to do business with. I disagree with them as well.
Its legitimate to believe that illegal immigration has an effect on the job market.
Yes, a positive one, although I agree that the illegal part of that is a problem (my solution being to legalize it).
Its also legitimate to have a more conservative view on sexuality.
I have nothing against anyone holding any view they wish. It’s the use of government force to enforce that view that I take issue with.
Its also legitimate to be skeptical about the influence of religion in public policy.
Yes, it is.
In each of these cases, theres a point of view that represents a legitimate concern, it only becomes a phobia when it becomes pathologically paranoid.
And from my experience, a lot more on the left are paranoid about Christians, than people on the right are paranoid about gays and immigrants.
My experience is the opposite, although I should add that my viewpoint is not necessarily either leftist or rightist – I disagree with both in significant areas of policy.
84 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Yea ‘cultural Marxism’ specifically refers to the application of theory about class consciousness to cultural issues.
If you’re taking a libertarian point of view that’s another matter.
But I’d still disagree with you on your analysis, modern libertarianism has nothing to do with classical liberalism. Its very much modern and a lot of it is influenced by the left.
Conservatives aren’t against religious freedom or sexual freedom or migration freedom. Conservatives don’t believe the goal of immigration policy for instance, isn’t to keep foreigners where they are and out of America, its there because we need an orderly process for people to come in.
85 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Yes, a positive one, although I agree that the illegal part of that is a problem (my solution being to legalize it).
Its also legitimate to disagree with you and believe it has a negative impact.
I have nothing against anyone holding any view they wish. It’s the use of government force to enforce that view that I take issue with.
What sexual issue do you think conservatives want to use government force on? Do you think they want to ban gay relationships and throw gays in jail?
86 paulie // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:27 pm
modern libertarianism has nothing to do with classical liberalism.
What do you see as the major differences?
Its very much modern and a lot of it is influenced by the left.
Libertarian ideas have evolved over many centuries, and indeed classical liberals such as Frederic Bastiat did sit on the left in European parliaments of the 18th and 19th centuries. Whether libertarianism can still be considered to be on the left is a different matter.
The split between the modern left and libertarians occurred in the early 20th century, A good history and analysis of that is at http://mises.org/story/2099 — I highly recommend reading it.
Conservatives aren’t against religious freedom or sexual freedom or migration freedom.
Many are. And willing to use government to limit voluntary interactions in these areas.
Conservatives don’t believe the goal of immigration policy for instance, isn’t to keep foreigners where they are and out of America, its there because we need an orderly process for people to come in.
Getting rid of migration quotas could still allow for an orderly process.
87 paulie // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:35 pm
What sexual issue do you think conservatives want to use government force on? Do you think they want to ban gay relationships and throw gays in jail?
Well, yes, some do. Others merely oppose equal marriage rights, while others split the difference and would allow government to officially discriminate. Some support media censorship – in fact there is even as we speak at least one pornographer in prison for “obscenity,” while another one just beat a lengthy and expensive prosecution for the same charge.
Many conservatives support existing bans on prostitution. Some would make divorce harder to obtain, and some even want to outlaw birth control.
In the area of religious freedom, many conservatives want their religion promoted through government courts and schools. Others would merely ban some practices of opposing religions, whether they be the proposed Islamic cultural center in downtown NYC or equal rights for Pagans in the US military to worship as they please.
Even in my own family, the government schools in Alabama told my sister she was not allowed to wear a Star of David to school because it is a “gang symbol” which has been expropriated by an African American-led street gang, even though Jews have been using it for thousands of years before that gang existed. Yet no one told the numerous Christian students that they could not wear crosses to school.
88 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:39 pm
redfish@85,
It may be ‘legitimate’ to disagree with paulie about the impact of immigration, but it would be incorrect to assert it has a negative impact. Economic studies have consistently shown that immigration (even illegal immigration) has a positive impact economically, does not lower wages, does not increase unemployment, and actually *increases* the availability of services to non-immigrants, as immigrants pay more in to the ‘system’ than they take out.
89 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:44 pm
paulie,
Libertarians are much more doctrinaire than classical liberals.
On economic policy it can be seen in that most of the framers in the US were heavy supporters of protective tariffs. Adam Smith even argued for such tariffs in the Wealth of Nations. Most people called classical liberals also supported government involvement in internal improvement programs.
Classical liberals also had no problem with the expression of religion in public life; no problem for example, with chaplains or prayers in Congress. They also weren’t concerned with the fact that marriage didn’t extend to gay relationships. They didn’t think of the fact that gays weren’t married as ‘an imposition of moral values’. They also accepted laws on abortion.
Classical liberals were more concerned about preventing tyranny than preventing all g0vernment involvement. In fact, they were big believers in the ability of man to have self-governance, and were skeptics of court power. Jefferson, for instance, was appalled when Justice Marshall declared that the court had the power of judicial review. Libertarians tend to be skeptical of self-government and are fine with pushing issues in the courts.
90 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:56 pm
paulie, I don’t want to debate all of the issues here right now, but I think the issues are more complex than that. The average conservative voter doesn’t support criminalizing all pornography for instance. And, as much as there are disagreements about prostitution and drug policy I think the discussion centers around concerns for what are considered negative social effects of those things and not about whether its ‘moral’.
91 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:56 pm
redfish @89:
That’s an interesting interpretation/re-interpretation of the Wealth of Nations. As I seem to recall from my reading of the work, Smith criticizes not only tariffs, but subsidies, non-free trade treaties, and the awarding of monopolies to major trading companies.
I believe you may be thoroughly confused on the difference between classical liberalism and the “American system” of economics as espoused by the American Whigs and others.
You also appear to have confused classical liberalism as an economic philosophy with American opinion-based beliefs on social philosophy, whereas the term are/were never considered intertwined among most political scientists, economists, and historians. To that extent, I heavily recommend Theodore Lowi’s “The End of Liberalism,” or an examination of ‘classically liberal’ parties in the Eastern Hemisphere.
92 paulie // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Libertarians are much more doctrinaire than classical liberals.
Both people described as classical liberals today and people described as libertarian today include some who were/are rather extreme and some who were/are quite moderate.
On economic policy it can be seen in that most of the framers in the US were heavy supporters of protective tariffs. Adam Smith even argued for such tariffs in the Wealth of Nations. Most people called classical liberals also supported government involvement in internal improvement programs.
Classical liberalism, as opposed to the conservatism of the time, was relatively opposed to tariffs and less in favor of government projects. At the time, getting government less involved in the economy was considered to be “liberalizing” the economy.
Classical liberals also had no problem with the expression of religion in public life; no problem for example, with chaplains or prayers in Congress. They also weren’t concerned with the fact that marriage didn’t extend to gay relationships. They didn’t think of the fact that gays weren’t married as ‘an imposition of moral values’. They also accepted laws on abortion.
Again, classical liberals made moves in the direction of religious and sexual freedom. It’s true that those ideas were not carried as far in those times as they are today, but they were certainly more in favor than the conservatives of the time. Ending the practice of national religions was a liberal idea. Allowing marriage to the person of one’s choosing – although at that time that did only mean heterosexual marriages – was at one time a liberal idea. ETC.
Classical liberals were more concerned about preventing tyranny than preventing all g0vernment involvement. In fact, they were big believers in the ability of man to have self-governance, and were skeptics of court power.
The ideas of self-governance were not yet then carried to their logical conclusion of individual autonomy, but they were a step in that direction, compared with the traditionalist conservative ideas of blind obedience to tradition and absolute monarchy under the Divine Right of Kings and a merger of church and state power.
Jefferson, for instance, was appalled when Justice Marshall declared that the court had the power of judicial review. Libertarians tend to be skeptical of self-government and are fine with pushing issues in the courts.
Some libertarians are fine with “pushing ideas in the courts,” but that is not an issue that defines libertarianism. I’m not sure in what sense you are using self-government if you say libertarians “tend to be skeptical” of it.
93 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Also, redfish@89:
You stated, “Libertarians tend to be skeptical of self-government and are fine with pushing issues in the courts,” which alone makes me think you’re ill-qualified to be discussing the difference between libertarianism, classical liberalism, and conservatism (both modern and traditional). The foundation of libertarianism is the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression. I would argue it is actually all other groups that uncomfortable with the notion of self-governance, as they are always seeking to regulate the behavior of others.
94 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Erik,
Adam Smith has a section where he argues that the one case where tariffs are legitimate is where a nation needs to protect labor. I can try to find you the quote if you want.
I don’t think the Whig/Hamiltonian tradition is separate from classical liberalism, and I think you can see that in arguments like that by Smith. Like I said, its not that they didn’t support less government involvement, they just weren’t doctrinaire about it. They had no theory like many libertarians do that all government involvement was morally wrong.
And libertarians today do have that social policy perspective, and it wasn’t even in the minds of classical liberals, so is a point of departure. The social policy perspective and economic policy perspective is connected in libertarianism.
95 paulie // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:03 pm
The average conservative voter doesn’t support criminalizing all pornography for instance.
Any criminalization of consenting adults producing or watching pornography is, IMO, an abuse of government power. This includes consenting adults role-playing the parts of non-consenting and/or underaged participants in sexual acts.
And, as much as there are disagreements about prostitution and drug policy I think the discussion centers around concerns for what are considered negative social effects of those things and not about whether its ‘moral’.
We fundamentally disagree about the notion that it is the place of government to prevent all “negative social effects.” Additionally, I believe that government attempts at outlawing concensual activities, including drugs and prostitution, merely creates a black market for them which has far more negative social effects than legalization.
96 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:03 pm
The ideas of self-governance were not yet then carried to their logical conclusion of individual autonomy, but they were a step in that direction, compared with the traditionalist conservative ideas of blind obedience to tradition and absolute monarchy under the Divine Right of Kings and a merger of church and state power.
Thats your thesis, that libertarianism is the innevitable modern stage of classical liberalism. And I don’t agree with that. You can believe in classical liberalism in the exact same way the founders did.
97 paulie // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:15 pm
I don’t want to debate all of the issues here right now,
Fair enough. The thread will still be here several hours, days, or hopefully even months or years from now if you’d like to come back later. If you’d prefer to use a more recent or future thread, that’s fine too.
Thats your thesis, that libertarianism is the innevitable modern stage of classical liberalism. And I don’t agree with that. You can believe in classical liberalism in the exact same way the founders did.
I didn’t say anything about it being inevitable. I did say it is taking those same ideas further towards their logical conclusions. I pointed out that, relative to the conservatives of the time, classical liberals were more libertarian (although not more state-socialist). This doesn’t mean that they would be either liberal or libertarian by today’s standards. Given the way society has evolved over 200+ years, being “classically liberal in the same sense as the founders” – that is, allowing slavery, banning non-property owners from voting, second class citizenship for women, state churches at the state level, etc – would be quite radically reactionary.
98 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:18 pm
redfish @94,
Unless you’re speaking of Smith’s inconsistent ‘support’ for retaliatory tariffs (which are quite different than protective tariffs), you’re never going to find that quote. Even then, however, Smith only ‘favored’ such an idea as a political maneuver because he thought it would, in turn, lower the competing countries tariff until both countries eventually eliminated the tariff altogether. The fact that you don’t realize this (and that Smith wrote adamantly about the evils of tariffs) makes me think you don’t know much about Adam Smith.
And the Whig/Hamiltonian “American System” is vastly different than classical liberalism, despite your insistence otherwise. Hamilton appreciated Smith’s views on the division of labor, but they had vast differences of opinion on tariffs and other matters, as indicated by Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures.
99 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:25 pm
paulie,
Yea it would be reactionary to go back to the exact same laws they had back then but that isn’t the point.
I’m simply pointing out how libertarianism today is influenced by modern liberal thought. Libertarianism in fact came about in the late 19th c in reaction to socialist and progressive intellectuals. It fully accepted the cultural critique of the left while trying to connect that cultural critique to a conservative understanding of government. Libertarianism created a synthesis of those two things.
Although.. I’d disagree with you that going back to what people believed 200 years ago would mean we would have to reinstitute slavery, abolish women’s rights etc. Most people back then believed slavery was an immoral institution for instance, including in the South, and it was only ‘allowed’ because the economy in the South became so dependent on it.
100 paulie // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Libertarianism in fact came about in the late 19th c in reaction to socialist and progressive intellectuals.
Not so. Libertarian ideas go back as far as Lao Tzu (founder of Taoism) in China, and perhaps earlier.
It fully accepted the cultural critique of the left while trying to connect that cultural critique to a conservative understanding of government. Libertarianism created a synthesis of those two things.
Libertarianism did not create a synthesis – actually, the modern left created a synthesis of traditional leftist/classical liberal/libertarian goals with what up until then had been a right wing/conservative idea: heavy reliance on the use of state power. Prior to that, there was no “conservative understanding of government” as a bad/dangerous thing; that emerged only in reaction to the subsequent leftist use of big government. To the extent that classical liberal ideas formed a part of the American tradition, it then became “conservative” to harken back to those ideas.
However, it still remains true that classical conservatism was relatively authoritarian and classical liberalism was relatively libertarian.
Both were consistent views, unlike the modern left and modern right, which both see a large role for government in one area of policy and a much smaller one in others.
Although.. I’d disagree with you that going back to what people believed 200 years ago would mean we would have to reinstitute slavery, abolish women’s rights etc. Most people back then believed slavery was an immoral institution for instance, including in the South, and it was only ‘allowed’ because the economy in the South became so dependent on it.
If you mean literally that people today can “believe in the exact same way the founders did,” not taking into account how society has evolved in the meantime and applying the direction they were pushing things in to today’s issues, that would include all the above.
101 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Erik,
http://bartelby.org/10/402.html
There seem, however, to be two cases in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign, for the encouragement of domestic industry.
The first, is, when some particular sort of industry is necessary for the defence of the country.
…
The second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry, is, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter.
The second case is an argument for protective tariffs.
Another example of what I’m talking about is that the Constitution supports a public post office and the creation of postal roads, while libertarians disagree with this and consider that it be left to the private market.
It doesn’t matter that Hamilton had disagreements with Smith, a lot of people had both agreements and disagreements with Smith as they did with other writers. There was no concerted movement of ‘classical liberalism’, it was all a bunch of different views. There was no one uniting doctrine to ‘classical liberalism’, like libertarians have in saying “the state should never ever use coercive force”.
102 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:39 pm
paulie,
We wouldn’t be talking about ‘ideological conservativism’, if you describe someone as ‘conesrvative’ it just means someone who had conservative views relative to everyone else. Broadly, liberals are people who challenge traditions, conservatives are people who defend traditions. In the late 19th c, that meant defending classical liberal traditions.
As for ideological libertarianism, which is what I think we’re talking about, the idea that ‘all coercive force by the state is wrong’ is a very modern view.
103 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:44 pm
redfish @101:
Fairly disingenuous of you to take a quote out of context like that. It’s a good thing I’ve read the Wealth of Nations so I know better than to fall for that, unlike whomever else may be reading this. Also, your reading comprehension is pretty poor.
Smith says, ” The second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry, is, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter.” Now, when he said this, you do realize that he’s saying the ‘home’ has put a tariff on the ‘latter’ – the latter being the domestic industry and the home being the foreign country, i.e. the home of the tariff.
The next line following your supposed ‘proof’ is the following:
“In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former.”
Again, Smith is talking about *retaliatory* tariffs. Notice here he says that because the home originator of the tariff, i.e. the foreign country, has imposed a tariff, it is reasonable to impose an equal tariff in kind.
Smith continues,
“This would not give the monopoly of the home market to domestic industry, nor turn towards a particular employment a greater share of the stock and labour of the country, than what would naturally go to it. It would only hinder any part of what would naturally go to it from being turned away by the tax, into a less natural direction, and would leave the competition between foreign and domestic industry, after the tax, as nearly as possible upon the same footing as before it.”
Please, please, try to know what you’re talking about before you argue. It not only makes you look silly, but it wastes the time of everyone involved.
104 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:45 pm
If you mean literally that people today can “believe in the exact same way the founders did,” not taking into account how society has evolved in the meantime and applying the direction they were pushing things in to today’s issues, that would include all the above.
Going back to the beliefs of the founders wouldn’t mean reinstating slavery, since the founders didn’t particularly want slavery in the first place. They just tolerated it.
btw I don’t want to go back to the exact same positions of the founders, I’m just trying to argue against the pov that they supported everything that existed at the time.
105 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Also, redfish:
I’d highly recommend you actually read the difference between the mercantilist/Whig/Hamiltonian American system and the classically liberal economics of Adam Smith. Just wikipedia-ing ‘mercanitilism’ alone may do you some good on this matter.
They’re two vastly, VASTLY different systems of economic thought.
106 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Erik,
“when some tax is imposed at home”
“At home”, not imposed from a foreign power.
“In Great Britain, when any such tax is laid upon the produce of domestic industry, it is usual at the same time, in order to stop the clamorous complaints of our merchants and manufacturers, that they will be undersold at home, to lay a much heavier duty upon the importation of all foreign goods of the same kind.”
People opposed to free trade think the need for tariffs comes from regulatory differences between countries. For example, Mexico has laxer labor and environmental laws. Strong laws on those things wuold be considered a ‘tax at home’ in the way Smith discussed.
107 paulie // Jul 28, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Going back to the beliefs of the founders wouldn’t mean reinstating slavery, since the founders didn’t particularly want slavery in the first place. They just tolerated it.
We shouldn’t tolerate it now. Nor should we endorse anything else automatically because it was acceptable in the 1700s, or reject it out of hand because it was not yet an issue then.
Rather than looking at the issue stances of the founders, I think it’s more instructive to look at the general direction in which they were taking policy.
108 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:01 pm
paulie,
Yes and they tolerated it in just because they wanted to keep the Union together.
The point I’m trying to make is just going back to their views, if we were to do that, wouldn’t mean reinstating slavery, or taking away women’s rights or anything.
I agree with you that we shouldn’t automatically reject or accept everything that was acceptable in the 1700s, but it doesn’t mean you can extrapolate from what they believed then and imply that the difference between 1700s classical liberalism and modern libertarianism is that classical liberalism is just old and anachronistic. Nor can you argue that if you accept the ideals of classical liberals youre logically forced to accept the conclusions of libertarians.
109 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:03 pm
redfish @106:
Dude, seriously. I know that English today is vastly different than the English of the 18th century, but you are really missing the point.
“The second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry, is, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former.”
Notice that the the “latter” is domestic industry. Then try and re-read this until you grasp 18th century English enough to realize you’re wrong.
When Smith says “some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter,” he’s saying that someone abroad has put a tariff on the products of the domestic industry. As such, he then goes on to say that it’s reasonable that the people who’s product has a tariff on it abroad, in turn, put a tariff on the product from the foreign country.
Sorry that I apparently mangled what I was trying to explain @103, but seriously – re-read Smith’s text.
I should not have said “the ‘home’ has put a tariff on the ‘latter’ – the latter being the domestic industry and the home being the foreign country, i.e. the home of the tariff.” That was an incorrect phrasing of it. It would have been better to phrase it in the way that I just did. There is a tariff on the product produced at ‘home’ in a foreign country. Thus, if said foreign country tries to sell a similar product in the ‘home’ domestic country, it’s only fair to put a retaliatory tariff on it.
All you need to do is realize what the “latter” is (as well as the “former” for the next line) and keep reading the paragraph.
I understand what Smith is talking about, but in my rush to squash your incorrect assertion that mercantilism and classical liberalism are the same things, I didn’t read the line correctly. If you follow all the lines, however, you’ll see that my larger point is correct, and though I misrepresented what ‘home’ is, he’s still talking about a retaliatory tariff, not a protective one.
110 paulie // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Yes and they tolerated it in just because they wanted to keep the Union together.
It depends on which ones. Many were slave owners themselves and did not emancipate their slaves.
The point I’m trying to make is just going back to their views, if we were to do that, wouldn’t mean reinstating slavery, or taking away women’s rights or anything.
Why wouldn’t it mean taking away women’s rights?
111 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:19 pm
redfish,
In the second part, and to some degree in the first, Smith is also talking about a tariff that counteracts a tax at home. For example, if we had a tax on making chairs here of $1, he’d want a tax on chairs made abroad (without the $1 tax) of $1, but that’s not the same thing as a protective tariff, it’s a retaliatory tariff. A protective tariff is taxing foreign chairs $3 while taxing ours only $1, or not taxing ours at all.
Other offerings:
Wikipedia’s take on Book IV:
“Book IV: Of Systems of political Economy
Smith vigorously attacked the antiquated government restrictions which he thought were hindering industrial expansion. In fact, he attacked most forms of government interference in the economic process, including tariffs, arguing that this creates inefficiency and high prices in the long run. It is believed that this theory influenced government legislation in later years, especially during the 19th century. (However this was not an anarchistic opposition to government. Smith advocated a Government that was active in sectors other than the economy: he advocated public education of poor adults; institutional systems that were not profitable for private industries; a judiciary; and a standing army.)
Of the Principle of the Commercial or Mercantile System: The book has sometimes been described as a critique of mercantilism and a synthesis of the emerging economic thinking of Smith’s time. Specifically, The Wealth of Nations attacks, inter alia, two major tenets of mercantilism:
1. The idea that protectionist tariffs serve the economic interests of a nation (or indeed any purpose whatsoever) and
2. The idea that large reserves of gold bullion or other precious metals are necessary for a country’s economic success. This critique of mercantilism was later used by David Ricardo when he laid out his Theory of Comparative Advantage.”
112 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Erik,
Smith talks about many cases in which tariffs should be considered.
After he discusses taxes “at home”, he says:
As there are two cases in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign, for the encouragement of domestic industry; so there are two others in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation; in the one, how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods; and in the other, how far, or in what manner, it may be proper to restore that free importation after it has been for some time interrupted.
One of the cases that require consideration is retaliatory tariffs:
The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods, is, when some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country. Revenge in this case naturally dictates retaliation, and that we should impose the like duties and prohibitions upon the importation of some or all of their manufactures into ours.
His comments on retaliatory tariffs are a separate section of that chapter
113 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:26 pm
redfish,
From a page on “Mercantilism”:
“In spite of Adam Smith’s repudiation of mercantilism, prominent figures continued to favor it: in the U.S., the likes of Alexander Hamilton[30], Henry Clay, Henry Charles Carey….”
“In Europe, academic belief in mercantilism began to fade in the late 18th century, especially in England, in light of the arguments of Adam Smith and the classical economists.”
“Smith saw the mercantile system as an enormous conspiracy by manufacturers and merchants against consumers, a view that has led some authors, especially Robert E. Ekelund and Robert D. Tollison to call mercantilism “a rent-seeking society”.
“Adam Smith and David Hume are considered to be the founding fathers of anti-mercantilist thought. A number of scholars found important flaws with mercantilism long before Adam Smith developed an ideology that could fully replace it. ”
“Mercantilist regulations were steadily removed over the course of the Eighteenth Century in Britain, and during the 19th century the British government fully embraced free trade and Smith’s laissez-faire economics”
On the page for the American School of Economics, i.e. Hamilton’s mercantilist policies:
“The name, “American System,” was coined by Clay to distinguish it, as a school of thought, from the competing theory of economics at the time, the “British System” represented by Adam Smith in his work Wealth of Nations.[16]“
114 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:29 pm
From a page on the “Wealth of Nations”:
“For example, Alexander Hamilton was influenced in part by The Wealth of Nations to write his Report on Manufactures, in which he argued against many of Smith’s policies. Interestingly, Hamilton based much of this report on the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, and it was, in part, to Colbert’s ideas that Smith wished to respond with The Wealth of Nations.”
To say that Hamilton and Smith’s ideas were similar, when they were nearly as vastly different as Keynes and Hayek is intellectually dishonest and historically inaccurate.
115 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:33 pm
paulie,
It could mean taking away women’s rights but I don’t think people at the time were really invested in being against women’s rights, they were merely functioning within the social structure at the time. Social spheres between men and women were at that time separate and things are different today. So, would Jefferson or Hamilton today be doing a rallying call to reverse women’s rights? I doubt it.
On the other hand, I think Jefferson and Hamilton still wouldn’t agree with Libertarianism ideologically.
116 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Erik,
Yes, I’ve read about it. I’m not saying that Hamilton’s views and Smith’s views were the same thing, I’m just saying there was no concerted ‘classical liberal’ movement, it was a a range of views.
Hamilton was influenced by classical liberalism though, and felt that he was in the boundaries of it in the same way as say, a public postal system (in the Constitution), was operating in the boundaries of it. To him, a national bank wasn’t entirely different than a national postal system. Canals weren’t entirely different than roads etc.
The “American System” vs the “British System” represented an emerging split between different views. But both were influenced by classical liberalism.
Later, the “American System” viewpoint developed into what was dubbed as “neo-mercantilism”
117 paulie // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:38 pm
It could mean taking away women’s rights but I don’t think people at the time were really invested in being against women’s rights, they were merely functioning within the social structure at the time. Social spheres between men and women were at that time separate and things are different today. So, would Jefferson or Hamilton today be doing a rallying call to reverse women’s rights? I doubt it.
That was my point all along. If you look at what direction they were taking policy in, rather than the specific policies they advocated, it was libertarian.
118 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:38 pm
redfish @115,
Certainly Jefferson *and* Hamilton wouldn’t agree with Libertarianism ideologically. Of course, Jefferson and Hamilton didn’t agree on much of anything, and were bitterly opposed to each other.
I have no doubt that Hamilton, ever the central-state planner, would hate L-ism. Jefferson, however, I think would be much more receptive to it, especially the less extreme areas of the philosophy. To equate libertarianism with some of the ideas that you have (saying, for example, that Ls would intrinsically be opposed to postal service and roads) isn’t fair – there are many Ls who don’t see those ideas as major issues, and there are vastly more L minarchists than L anarchists.
119 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:39 pm
paulie,
Libertarianism doesn’t just try to apply classical liberalism to todays society, its also ideologically stricter. ie., like you said about applying those views to personal autonomy.
120 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:47 pm
redfish @ 116:
I’d reference you to this page on economic liberalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
“Economic liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism.[1] It is an economic philosophy that supports and promotes laissez-faire economics. Proponents of economic liberalism believe political freedom and social freedom are inseparable with economic freedom, and use philosophical arguments promoting liberty to justify economic liberalism and the free market. It opposes government intervention in the free market, and supporting the maximum of free trade and competition, it contrasts with mercantilism, Keynesianism, socialism,[2] and fascism.[3]”
Notice that it “contrasts with mercantilism.”
It goes on to say that,
“Theories in support of economic liberalism were developed in the Enlightenment, and believed to be first fully formulated by Adam Smith, which advocates minimal interference of government in a market economy, though it does not necessarily oppose the state’s provision of a few basic public goods with what constitutes public goods originally being seen as very limited in scope.”
Just because Hamilton existed in the time of classical liberal theory, it does not mean his ideas were classically liberal. What Hamilton represented was a vast departure from the other economic thought of his time.
121 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Erik,
The first laissez-faire supporters like Adam Smith and allowed for the possibility of protective tariffs.
So, there were some people who took the more doctrinaire approach, and departed from Smith and argued against protective tariffs, like Jean-Baptiste Say and David Ricardo. And there were others who expanded on the ideas that Smith discusses in that chapter.
But everyone by that point agreed, Hamilton and Ricardo, that the original system of Mercantilism had failed. The heavy state direction of industry by Jean-Baptiste Colbert shouldn’t be reproduced, and the restriction of trade that King George placed on the colonists was wrong. Hamilton and others like him were never arguing for a return to mercantilism.
122 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 7:13 pm
redfish @121:
You continue to use those terms incorrectly. Smith advocated *retaliatory,* not protective, tariffs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff#Types
“A PROTECTIVE tariff is intended to artificially inflate prices of imports and protect domestic industries from foreign competition (see also effective rate of protection,) especially from competitors whose host nations allow them to operate under conditions that are illegal in the protected nation, or who subsidize their exports.”
“RETALIARY TARIFF is one placed against a country who already charges tariffs against the country charging the retaliatory tariff (e.g. If the United States were to charge tariffs on Chinese goods, China would probably charge a tariff on American goods, also). These are usually used in an attempt to get other tariffs rescinded.”
Furthermore, you seem to be completely missing the point that Hamilton *was* a mercantilist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_on_Manufactures
“Hamilton’s “Report on Manufactures” laid forth economic principles rooted in both the Mercantilist System of Elizabeth I’s England and the practices of Jean-Baptiste Colbert of France”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)
“The American System was a mercantilist economic plan based on the “American School” ideas of Alexander Hamilton, expanded upon later by Friedrich List, consisting of a high tariff to support internal improvements such as road-building, and a national bank to encourage productive enterprise and form a national currency.”
123 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 7:21 pm
No, I’m just asserting Smith was clearly arguing about internal taxes, and adjusting tariffs to compensate for their effects.
And I’m saying there was a difference between Hamiltonianism and mercantilism. Hamilton opposed the kind of control of markets that the British were instituting — saying who could trade with who, preventing Americans from directly trading with other countries. He didn’t argue for quality restrictions like Colbert or other heavy hand policies that favored certain corporations over others. Hamilton was definitely influenced by liberalism and did not support reversion to policies by European monarchies.
124 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 7:33 pm
redfish @123:
Even if that *were* what you are arguing, it’s not a protective tariff. Moreover, what Smith is talking about with tariffs in line with internal taxes is due to foreign competition that is free of said taxation. In other words, he’s talking about a tariff to equal the tax the domestic industry faces, which is still retaliatory.
The nature of retaliatory tariffs is to keep a level playing field for the competition of goods and services.
The nature of a protective tariffs is to artificially price foreign goods and services out of competition with domestic services.
I’ve spelled this out for you many, many times now.
As for the ‘difference’ you’re arguing between mercantilism and the Hamilton system – it’s not a significant one. Virtually any economist will tell you that Hamilton’s ideas were mercantilist. Just because they weren’t the *exact* same theories/practices as what was done in Europe, it doesn’t mean they’re not mercantilist.
Moreover, I don’t care if Hamilton may have been ‘influence’ by liberalism (though I don’t think he was much), the point is that his policies were not classically liberal. The economics of classical liberalism are the economics of Smith and others, not Hamilton, Clay, and the American System.
125 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Erik,
But thats essentially what opponents of free trade today argue. That tariffs have to exist because there are regulations and taxes that put a greater burden on domestic industries than foreign industries. The regulatory systems of two countries aren’t always equal. When they’re not, one country will have greater burdens on it than the other. If that’s not protectionism, then there are few protectionists.
We may disagree about what counts as being classically liberal or not, but by your definition, it was represented by a minority in the creation of the US govt. Promoters of free trade, like Jefferson, were outnumbered.
And, ultimately, the main reason for the divide between the ‘British System’ and the ‘American System’ is that the British benefited from free trade, and the Americans benfited from protectionism.
126 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 7:54 pm
redfish @125:
I realize that’s what opponents of free trade today say – I didn’t say I agree with it. I’m merely pointing out that saying Smith was for ‘protective tariffs’ is blatantly false.
We could certainly have a conversation about modern economics, and you’d likely find that I probably agree with a lot of what you say/argue. However, we’ve been discussing the *history* of economic thought, and throughout that discussion you’ve continually mischaracterized what classically liberal economics were.
And yes, classically liberal economics *were* largely promoted by a minority in the early days of the United States’ founding. After scrapping the Articles for the Constitution, Hamilton quickly pulled the strings of Washington and others to create an instantly mixed-economy, which eventually (since govt. very rarely gives up power it’s already gained) advanced as the very mercantilist American System.
I would say that classical liberalism dominated the *thought* of the day, but not it’s practice. Just as what I’d consider to be very libertarian theory (Paine, Jefferson, etc.) also dominated the thought of the day, but not the practice (it needs little saying that Jefferson the philosopher and Jefferson the statesman were at contradiction with one another much of the time).
As for the differences in the ‘British’ and ‘American’ systems, you’re more or less correct, but not if you’re trying to say both were under the guise of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism was not an era, it was a school of thought, and that school of thought was aligned with the ‘British System’ – the system of Smith, the Wealth of Nations, etc. The mercantilist school of thought was aligned with Hamilton, his ‘American System,’ etc.
127 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Erik,
Earlier in the thread, when we started talking about ‘classical liberalism’ I was referring to it as a general philosophy about politics and not specifically economics. ie, when people talk about the founders ‘believing in classical liberalism’. They usually mean wanting to create restrictions on government to prevent tyranny in all spheres of life.
Certainly I think people like Hamilton were liberal in that sense. Hamilton, after all, wrote for protections of liberty in the Federalist Papers.
When we’re talking about economic liberalism, in particular, you can argue that certain people represented liberalism more than others. I simply think at one point classical mercantilism was dead. Its like when Nixon declared ‘we’re all Keynesians now’, it made clear that even his positions on economics were different from traditional conservative positions.
128 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 8:11 pm
redfish @127:
I don’t believe Hamilton was very liberal at all. Any writing he may have done on the subject was likely to pander to those who read and liked *actual* liberal works. In fact, in Federalist No. 84 Hamilton was opposed to the Bill of Rights, which he tried (weakly) to argue against by claiming the Constitution did well enough to protect one’s liberty. Needless to say, classic liberals like Mason, Paine, Jefferson, etc. disagreed.
It could also be argued that Hamilton’s entire purpose of writing his portions of the Federalist Papers were very un-liberal. The whole point of the Federalist Papers was to defend the new Constitution, which Hamilton wanted to use to *increase* government power in contrast to the existing Articles of Confederation.
Hamilton was also the sneaky bastard who inserted the “General Welfare Clause” (much to the chagrin of Madison), which was used then for his extensive programs, and has been used for nearly every extensive government program since.
Also, whether you believe classical mercantilism died or not (it certainly did in the ‘classical’ sense, I’d think), that doesn’t stop Hamilton’s system from being mercantilist, nor does it make Hamilton a liberal.
Alexander Hamilton was certainly a ‘Founding Father.’ I would not, however, consider him to have been much of a liberal, if at all.
129 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 8:16 pm
To quote Tom DiLorenzo,
“Hamilton worshipped government power for its own sake, and sought a government that would seek “imperial glory” (his words). He disrespected people like Jefferson who believed the primary purpose of government should be the protection of natural rights to life, liberty and property. He frequently complained of “an excessive concern for liberty in public men” and called for a government of “more energy.” As Clinton Rossiter wrote in Alexander Hamilton and the Constitution, “Hamilton . . . had perhaps the highest respect for government of any important American political thinker who ever lived.” His “overriding purpose” was “to build the foundations of a new empire” that could “reach out forcefully and benevolently to every person.” (Forcefully, yes; but government is never “benevolent.”)…
At the Constitutional convention Hamilton presented his real agenda: a “permanent” president who would appoint all the governors, and who would have veto power over all state legislation. “A king!” is what his Jeffersonian detractors accused him of asking for, and they were right. He failed at the convention, but few could deny that modern American presidents are every bit as king-like as Hamilton wanted them to be – and more. How else could one describe a president who can bomb any country in the world at will, and without the least bit of congressional approval?….
Hamilton was a frenetic tax increaser as the nation’s first Treasury Secretary. He championed a standing army as well, not so much to defend against foreign invaders as to intimidate Americans into paying all those burdensome taxes he had in mind for them. He proved this when he accompanied George Washington and 10,000 conscripts into Western Pennsylvania during the Whiskey Rebellion, a tax revolt over Hamilton’s federal whiskey tax by Pennsylvania farmers. Hamilton wanted to hang the two dozen or so tax protesters that were rounded up, but George Washington pardoned them all, infuriating the nation’s first Tax Collector-in-Chief. ….
With regard to economic policy, Hamilton was a British-style mercantilist who wanted to use the coercive powers of the state to subsidize selected businesses, who would in turn support the state and its growth. He was the founding father of “crony capitalism.” Americans had just fought a revolution against such a system, and Hamilton wanted to turn around and adopt that very system in America. His political heirs finally succeeded during the Lincoln administration, and have been building on that “success” ever since.Hamilton was also a protectionist who believed in some of the most bizarre theories used to justify government interference with free trade, such as his complete discounting of any value at all being attached to transportation costs. …
Hamilton was also the founding father of constitutional subversion. In contrast to Jefferson’s strict constructionist views, which sought to use the Constitution as a limitation on governmental powers, Hamilton thought of the Constitution as a document that could be “reinterpreted” by clever lawyers like himself and his political compatriot, Chief Justice John Marshall, to provide a “rubber stamp” on almost any governmental activity. He was the inventor of the subversive notion of “implied” powers of the Constitution. As Rossiter explained (approvingly): “It seems certain that Hamilton would have affixed a certain certificate of constitutionality to every last tax . . . . Hamilton took a large view of the power to tax because he took a large view of the power to spend.”"
More here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo136.html
130 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Madison agreed with Hamilton on those points though, and I think he was sincere about his liberalism.
“Liberalism” with regards to econ0mic policy meant you wanted to liberalize, so the more you want to liberalize the more Liberal you were.
But in that sense, Ricardo was much more of a Liberal than Adam Smith. As debates go on positions on issues harden.
My view is there were two arguments going on, one was about heavy handed control of private commerce and international markets by the state. And the second was about government influence in the market through indirect means like taxes and infrastructure. Hamilton was against anti-mercantilist on the first argument.
131 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 8:37 pm
redfish @130:
No, Madison did not agree with Hamilton on those points. Notice I said “much to the chagrin of Madison.” Chagrin, as defined by dictionary.com:
a feeling of vexation, marked by disappointment or humiliation.
There are virtually no credentials by which anyone would say Hamilton was a liberal. He was one of the closest things to a tyrant America has ever known, and the enemy of liberty in the time of our nation’s founding. I’d highly recommend you browse through the DiLorenzo article and/or read up on Hamilton more. He was almost *nothing* like most of his liberal contemporaries.
132 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 8:42 pm
But Hamilton still didn’t expect what we see today, with the executive creating policy. He saw the executive branch as merely an agency with the point of carrying out policies for the legislative branches. When he argued for executive power, what he was arguing for was veto power to be exercised whenever a law was Unconstitutional, and for command of the military.
The Whigs, the followers of Hamilton later, defined themselves by promoting a strong legislative branch and weak executive branch. This is something libertarians don’t point out. Likewise, when libertarians champion Andrew Jackson for his opposition to the national bank, they don’t point out that Jackson had an exaggerated point of view of the powers the executive had.
133 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Erik,
Madison at first also argued that the Bill of Rights wasn’t necessary, he gave into the idea just to please anti-federalists.
I don’t know his position on the general welfare clause, except that he later argued that it didn’t allow what some people were saying it allowed.
134 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 8:57 pm
redfish @132,
That is certainly *not* Hamilton’s view of the executive. Again, to quote DiLorenzo,
“At the Constitutional convention Hamilton presented his real agenda: a “permanent” president who would appoint all the governors, and who would have veto power over all state legislation. “A king!” is what his Jeffersonian detractors accused him of asking for, and they were right.”
As to the Whigs, what they believed did not necessarily perfectly coincide with Hamilton. Just because they preferred the power of the legislature, it doesn’t mean Hamilton didn’t prefer the power of the executive. What the Whigs *did* take from Hamilton was his mercantilist ‘American System’ plan of economics.
Also, the point of which I said was to the “chagrin of Madison” was the General Welfare Clause, not the Bill of Rights issue. It’s true that Madison also argued the Bill of Rights wasn’t necessary, but that doesn’t mean he and Hamilton were of the same ilk. You have yet to address Hamilton’s many other flaws, and though I think Madison was sincere in his reasoning for opposition (particularly Madison’s later championing of the Rights, his basic writing of them, and his congressional campaign on the basis of them), Hamilton’s other actions make me feel that he was not.
Hamilton was not a liberal, and I’m not sure why you’re so dead-set on insisting he was.
135 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 9:05 pm
I’m not saying Hamilton had the right position on how government should be formed. But the point of a ‘permanent’ president from his view would be a president detached from politics, so would be able to have an objective view of what the Constitution. That’s why he argued for veto power. Its similar to the argument for lifetime appointment of judges.
And up until Jackson, it was assumed that the Presidential veto was only to be used in the case that a law was Unconstitutional, just like Hamilton had argued. Thats why the Whigs were furious when Jackson began to use the veto on every policy he opposed.
136 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 9:37 pm
I’m avoiding a discussion over ‘implied powers’ btw because from my readings I think everyone accepted the idea to one degree or another. The government could create an army, so could hand out medals to people in the army. Thats simple enough.
The argument was on the scope of implied powers. And in some cases, I think the anti-federalists were being dishonest.
I think the federalist argument that a national bank could be justified by the text of the Constitution was right. The ability given to ‘regulate the value of money’ allows a national bank. I think the anti-federalists who said otherwise were wrong.
Also, note in Hamiltons proposal, the president and governors could still be impeached by the legislatures.
137 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 9:44 pm
redfish @135,
No matter how you argue away the historical facts, none of the things you’ve said have backed up the stance that Hamilton was a liberal. He was nowhere even close to a liberal.
I suppose you’re attempting to argue this because you’d then try to make the ‘logical’ argument that if Hamilton was a liberal so were his policies, but he was not – nor were his policies.
And you seriously think a president-king who could appoint all the governors and veto *state* legislation is/was on par with a supreme court justice? I think not. Especially when you factor in his other views: opposition to the Bill of Rights, creation/support of the General Welfare Clause, his calls for “imperial glory,” the creation of a debt merely for the sake of having one (he thought this would bind the people to their govt.), his calls for “reinterpretation” of the Constitution, his view on the ‘implied’ powers of the Constitution (i.e. the opposite of a strict, limited constitutional view), etc. He also detested Jefferson (though he liked his honesty), Paine, Mason, etc.
Hamilton did not support the Revolution for some noble liberal cause like many of his contemporaries – Hamilton merely wanted a government he could control, as he had no access to power in the British system. The man was a tyrant. Burr killing him was one of the best things that ever happened to America.
138 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 9:56 pm
You can interpret why his views were the way they were almost any way you’d like. You can even argue they weren’t *that* bad in the grand scheme of things. What you can’t argue is that they were ‘liberal’ in any sense of the term.
For example, see this list of Contributions to Liberal Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributions_to_liberal_theory
Notice that Hamilton isn’t on it? There’s a reason for that. It’s not that he wasn’t a significant figure in history (he was). It’s that he wasn’t a liberal!
Virtually no historian I’ve ever read has ever argued that Hamilton was a liberal. This argument is verging on ridiculousness.
139 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Erik,
What I’m arguing is just that that the views he proposed at the Constitutional Convention weren’t designed to install a dictator.
He simply viewed that the executive should have had the role that a lot of people wanted in the courts, to make sure that the Constitution was protected. His concept was that ‘judicial review’ was the power a president was exercise when he vetoed a law, and didn’t believe the President had a role in policy making.
When you accuse Hamilton of wanting to become a dictator you’re simply just believing everything that anti-federalists accused him of , whether or not they had proof. I wouldn’t support Hamilton’s system, I think how our Constitution turned out is for the better. It doesn’t mean I have to see nefarious motives in his proposal.
Anyway what you’re saying about ‘liberal theory’ is fine, Hamilton didn’t “contribute to liberal theory”. It doesn’t mean he didn’t support the protections he argued for in the Federalist Papers, like freedom to bear arms, and it was just a duplicitous plot on his part.
140 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Why are we only talking about Hamilton though? Whats your view on Madison, do you think he was a liberal?
141 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Was John Adams a liberal?
142 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 11:10 pm
redfish @139:
While I respect Hamilton’s support for the right to bear arms, or even acknowledge his rhetoric in the Federalist Papers (no matter how much I question his motive), or even consider the idea that he wasn’t the tyrant he was made out to be (though I think he more likely was closer to the picture the anti-Federalists painted than the one he himself did), none of that makes him a liberal. Someone isn’t a follower of a school of thought because they may agree with some of its tenets. The fact remains that Hamilton was not only not a liberal, the main body of his work was in vast opposition to liberalism.
As for Madison…. he’s a mixed case. My view on Madison is that he was much more liberal before he became President. He’s sort of intriguing in that he was first very much in line with Hamilton, and then very liberal and opposed to him, but then he became President and his liberal tendencies became mixed with a few Hamiltonian views.
Unlike Hamilton, who favored the new Constitution because of his views on a powerful, centralized government, Madison’s views (as I understand them) were more in favor of a central government due to pluralism. There’s also more reason to believe that Madison’s writings were more sincere and less dubious.
This is later evidenced in his opposition to Hamilton, as he never wanted the government do even half of the things that Hamilton wanted it to. Madison didn’t want a standing army or powerful executive, for example. Madison did not view the Constitution as something that had implied powers, and as ‘father of the Constitution,’ was horrified at Hamilton’s attempts to form a central bank.
Ironically, as President, Madison would go on to favor a bank since it’s hard to fight a war without one (one of the primary libertarian reasons for opposition to the Federal Reserve), a standing army, and tariffs, though he still disfavored the Hamiltonian view that the federal govt. should build things such as roads and canals.
He also continued to vehemently oppose the Hamiltonian interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, stating,
“Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms “common defense and general welfare” embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.”
Thus, in the end, Madison’s a mixed bag, but it’s hard to say he wasn’t a liberal, as he spent most of his career as one. Like Jefferson, he wasn’t the same President as he was a philosopher, but it’s hard to say how Madison would have turned out had the War of 1812 not occurred. His general view on the power of government, however, remained fairly liberal, even if he did contradict himself (some would argue out of necessity) when it came to the bank and the army so that he could fight a war. I also give him credit for eventually supporting the Bill of Rights, even if he did at first take the Hamiltonian approach.
143 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 11:20 pm
John Adams was certainly *not* a liberal (though his ‘radical’ cousin Sam certainly was). Again, though he was a Founding Father and vastly influential, and even lived in what some might call a ‘liberal age,’ he was not very liberal at all. We’re talking about the guy behind the Alien & Sedition Acts here, for fuck’s sake. He also stacked the courts with Federalists before leaving office, including the appointment of John Marshall, who more or less killed much of the liberalism that existed at the time. Adams also once said of the British constitution,
“purge that constitution of its corruption, and give to its popular branch equality of representation, and it would be the most perfect constitution ever devised by the wit of man.”
While I do admire his opposition to slavery, and can’t help but admit he was a rather capable statesman (though I didn’t like most of his policies), he was certainly *not* a liberal. He was more or less a moderate, as he came to despise Hamilton (though not until it was too late), but he was also vehemently opposed to Jefferson and co.’s views on governance.
144 redfish // Jul 28, 2010 at 11:22 pm
I’m simply saying that all of the founders were liberals to one degree or another, since all of them believed in some concept of limited government. That Hamilton believed the boundaries for that were much different than Jefferson doesn’t disqualify him. Jefferson, obviously, was a much more doctrinaire liberal, which is why libertarians today admire him.
But in my opinion its much like conservative saying John McCain isn’t a conservative or progressives saying Barack Obama isn’t a progressive.
As to whether a national bank is a good idea or not, Madison agreed with Hamilton that it was allowed by the Constitution.
http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3626
Waiving the question of the constitutional authority of the Legislature to establish an incorporated bank as being precluded in my judgment by repeated recognitions under varied circumstances of the validity of such an institution in acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Government, accompanied by indications, in different modes, of a concurrence of the general will of the nation, the proposed bank does not appear to be calculated to answer the purposes of reviving the public credit, of providing a national medium of circulation, and of aiding the Treasury by facilitating the indispensable anticipations of the revenue and by affording to the public more durable loans.
Madison may have objected to abuses of language, but he sided with Hamilton on the specifics of many Constitutional issues.
A discussion of how much Jefferson would align with libertarians would be interesting on its own. I personally don’t think for instance, he would agree with the Citizens United decision, as among the founders he was among the ones most concerned with the ability of corporations to corrupt government.
145 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 11:42 pm
redfish @144,
You really need to begin reading what I wrote. I straight up said he initially opposed a central bank but came to support it when he was President because he found funding a war without one difficult.
Also, no, all the Founders were not liberals. As to why you think that, I have no idea. And it’s not like saying whether or not McCain is a conservative; it’s like saying whether or not Obama is a conservative. Hamilton was not only not very liberal, he was viewed as the enemy opposition in his time by the period’s *actual* liberals, which still constituted near half of the Founders (though likely closer to a third – factoring in the moderates, the liberals were a minority. And, no, Hamilton was not a moderate either).
Ask my former Australian college rugby coach, and he’ll actually tell you that Obama *is* a conservative, but that doesn’t make it so. Not in the sense of what ‘conservative’ means nor in the sense of American politics, but to an outsider he’s ‘conservative’ compared to their politics, even if that’s not what the word means. My old coach thinks all American politicians are conservative, but that doesn’t make it so.
Also, there’s not a uniform view among libertarians on the Citizens United decision, so I’m not sure why you’re bring that up.
146 Erik G. // Jul 28, 2010 at 11:44 pm
*bringing that up
147 redfish // Jul 29, 2010 at 12:13 am
Erik,
Right, the point of bringing up what Madison said on the national bank was simply to point out even when he was opposed to a National bank, he sided with Hamilton on the Constitutional issue and disagreed with the anti-federalists. He agreed that the Constitution gave the implied power for the government to create a national bank, he simply didn’t like the legal concept of ‘implied powers’ because it could be abused by people who were illiberal. He simply thought it was clear that the Constitution permitted a bank.
For me, when people talk about classical liberalism, what it refers to is a belief in a limited government. And only on that basis do I include all the founders.
I’m bringing up the Citizens United decision for the same reason I brought up the post office issue. Because organizations like the Libertarian Party have taken certain positions on those things. Prominent libertarians like Ron Paul have taken positions on those things.
But, if those are up in the air for Libertarians, then what would you define as the difference in libertarian philosophies and conservative philosophies? That libertarians tend to be more liberal on social views (not all are) and oppose monetary policy?
148 Erik G. // Jul 29, 2010 at 12:36 am
redfish @147:
And, as you’ll notice, I said that Madison became less liberal as President. Madison siding with central banking for the practical matter of war was not a liberal move – it was a pragmatic maneuever by a man who was very moderate as President.
Not all the Founders were liberal – that’s ludicrous and laughable simultaneously. Hamilton’s view on government was hardly one of ‘limited government.’ He was a very much a statist, not a liberal.
Again, I go back to the example of with my former coach. Just because America is comparatively ‘conservative,’ it doesn’t make Obama a conservative.
There’s no case to be made that Hamilton was a liberal. You can justify his big govt. principles as constitutional or pragmatic all you want, but it doesn’t make him a liberal. It’s clear to nearly any student of history that there were very different philosophies among the Founders, no matter what the net effect or perception is.
As for modern libertarian debates, all I’m saying is there isn’t a clear-cut libertarian stance on things like Citizens United. I’m not here to state what the *absolute* position on the matter is, because I don’t know that there is one. Nor is taking a position on such a thing necessarily something that would be a ‘deal-breaker’ to defining one’s political philosophy.
As for my interpretation as to the differences between libertarian and conservative philosophies, there are many. The main tenets of libertarianism are the non-aggression principle and the right to self-ownership, both of which I see as not being a part of conservative philosophy. I could go on, but I get the feeling you’re trying to change the frame of the debate on classical liberalism, and I doubt we’d ever agree on the differences between conservatives and libertarians anyhow.
149 redfish // Jul 29, 2010 at 12:51 am
I agree with you completely that there were different philosophies among the founders.
What I’m talking about when I say ‘limited
government’ is the idea that liberties should be protected and the Constitution should be viewed as a charter of negative rights. “Limited government” not about whether there’s a national bank or whether the government builds roads. Those are side issues. You can have a limited government and still have the government build roads and have a national bank. They aren’t ‘deal-breakers’ in the same sense you’re talking about it when discussing libertarianism.
The reason I’m asking about differences between libertarianism and conservativism is because you’re giving so much more of a lax view to definitions of libertarianism than definitions of classical liberalism.
So how much is up in the air? Ron Paul, after all, supports abortion laws. A lot of conservatives support drug decriminalization, but not legalization. Are they taking a libertarian position? Paleo-conservatives (traditional conservatives) are isolationists and against foreign involvement. So it seems that libertarians and conservatives can come to very similar positions. Is the only difference the way that they come to those positions, and how they argue them?
150 Erik G. // Jul 29, 2010 at 1:05 am
redfish @149:
I assumed this is why you keep asking libertarian questions, but it’s also why I’ve remained somewhat vague. What you’ve failed to realize however is that libertarianism is a huge school of thought; classical liberalism, in contrast, is not. It’s more or less a sub-school of thought under liberalism. You can’t say there’s *1* libertarian position on something because libertarianism covers everything from anarcho-capitalism to geolibertarianism to right-libertarianism and beyond. There are maybe 100 strands of libertarian thought and it’s a broad and evolving school.
Classical liberalism, however, is a historical phenomenon defined by most economists, political scientists, and historians under specific sets of criteria. The criteria you set forth do not match the historical perception of the term.
Again, just because he lived in a ‘liberal age,’ it doesn’t mean Hamilton or his policies were liberal. Hamilton was certainly not an economic liberal, with his mercantilist American System, nor was he a political liberal with his view of an expansive, centralized, and powerful government. He fails in terms of both economic and governmental power/scope considerations, and those are the primary tenets by which classical liberals are evaluated. Again, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone other than you argue that Hamilton was a liberal (though I don’t doubt others exist). I’ve heard the argument that all Americans are liberal or all Americans are conservative, but I don’t buy those either. You can’t make general assumptions about an individual because of the time or place that they lived.
151 redfish // Jul 29, 2010 at 1:21 am
I’m not making assumptions about Hamilton, I’m just saying he supported a government founded on civil liberties.
I’m taking the dictionary definition of liberalism
A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
It wasn’t about roads and the national bank.
152 Erik G. // Jul 29, 2010 at 1:56 am
redfish @151:
I can see you’ve clearly delved into an argument of semantics here, but you’re still wrong.
If you’ll recall, the ‘liberal’ frame of which we’re speaking is ‘classical liberal,’ which Hamilton was not.
If you want to go by a broad dictionary definition of general liberalism, you could argue nearly everyone is a liberal. But that wasn’t our point of debate. As I’ve said before, speaking in generalizations about broad ideological schools of thought is not the same as debating the specific criteria of a sub-school.
Some quotes on classical liberalism:
“Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1]”
-Limited government, free markets. Things Hamilton did not advocate. Tariffs that interfere with the economy and large-scale national programs (banks, roads, etc.) are not exactly ‘limited’ government – especially not for the time. A large portion of the idea behind ‘limited government’ is government non-interference in the economic realm which, suffice to say, is not a strength of Hamilton’s.
“Some conservatives and libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.”
-Hamilton was for neither economic freedom nor limited government. The government of Hamilton’s vision was a highly centralized, highly powerful government, regardless of his view on civil liberties.
“The economic ideas of the Jacksonian era were almost universally the ideas of classical liberalism. Freedom was maximized when the government took a “hands off” attitude toward industrial development and supported the value of the currency by freely exchanging paper money for gold.”
-Notice the sharp contrast as compared to Hamilton.
Again, Hamilton was not a (classical) liberal.
153 Erik G. // Jul 29, 2010 at 2:12 am
Hamilton and his Federalists were firm believers in big, centralized government that had a national debt, corporate welfare, tariffs, militarism, and central bank inflation. That’s nowhere close to the picture of limited government as far as I or virtually any historian sees it.
A few brief clippings on the internet of Hamilton versus the liberals of his time (I won’t use too many links or IPR’s filter may throw it in the spam bin. Searching with quotes will produce the sources though):
“The ideological split at the time of the Constitution fell along classical lines with each side being lead by one of the founders. The supporters of the Constitution, as personified by Alexander Hamilton who founded The Federalists as a political party, saw the roles of the individual and society in a similar manner to the classic conservatives, as described by Plato.Society, or for Plato the city-state, was the focus for politics. One was virtuous if one led a life that supported the collective over the individual. Government’s role was to provide for the common, not individual, good. Hamilton supported an active executive, government intervention into the economy including public works projects and an interventionist foreign policy. Those against the Constitution, or Anti-Federalists, feared that a strong, active central government would threaten the rights of the individual. They took their lead from John Locke and are described as classic liberals. This ideology puts individual rights above the collective.”
—-
“As soon as the Revolutionary War was won, the exact same debate erupted within the new American political system. Alexander Hamilton and his Federalists wished to replicate the British mercantilist system under an American government that would closely mirror the constitutional monarchy of Great Britain. The Federalists were the party of big government, national debt, corporate welfare, militarism, and central bank inflation.[1]
They wished to preserve the status quo insofar as the role of government and the nature of civil society was concerned, which benefitted a privileged, wealthy elite. They were the conservatives.
Socially, this party was the less tolerant of dissenters and tended to promote religion as useful in informing public policy. During Adams’ presidency and with the Federalists in control of Congress, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed, making it illegal to criticize the government. These also are core conservative principles.
Their opponents, Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans, promoted exactly the opposite ideas. They wished to radically change the role of government in society to one that was strictly limited to enforcing the non-aggression principle of liberty, most importantly economic liberty. ”
—–
“In America, the liberal country par excellence, the chief aim was to fend off incursions of government power pushed by Alexander Hamilton and his centralizing successors, and, eventually, somehow, to deal with the great stain on American freedom — Negro slavery.
From the standpoint of liberalism, the United States was remarkably lucky from the start. Its founding document, the Declaration of Independence, was composed by Thomas Jefferson, one of the leading liberal thinkers of his time.”
—-
“BACKGROUND TO THE HAMILTONIANISM VS. JEFFERSONIANISM FEUD:
Hamilton…
-He was a centralizing Nationalist, wanting broad powers for the Federal government.
Jefferson, the classical liberal”
http://www.blinn.edu/brazos/socialscience/Hist/jgorman/1301/HAMILTON.pdf
-This is from a .pdf and thus hard to search
—-
It’s worth noting that unless you’re going to possibly stumble across neo-con revisionism, you’re going to have a *really* hard time finding *anything* that says Hamilton was a classic liberal.
154 redfish // Jul 29, 2010 at 2:13 am
I agree with the first quote you used the most. But of all the criteria listed in the first definition you’re using the only problemsome one was the last one, “free markets”:
He supported:
liberty of individuals including religion, speech, press, assembly
The last one I’d argue with you on, simply because a “free markets” position was dinstinguishable from a “free trade” position. The “free markets” position was critical of actions such as the British government determining who the colonists could trade with. A lot of federalists, including Hamilton, believed the British government was infringing American liberties through its economic policies.
155 Erik G. // Jul 29, 2010 at 2:48 am
redfish @154:
He didn’t support ‘limited government’ either. He supported a national debt, a highly centralized and powerful central govt. with a strong executive, an inflationary national bank, expansive public works programs under the General Welfare Clause, economic interventionism, a standing army (very unliberal for his time), etc.
He’s much closer to the ‘liberalism’ (as the term unfortunately evolved in the U.S.) of FDR than the ‘classic liberalism’ associated with Jefferson and others.
156 redfish // Jul 29, 2010 at 10:35 am
‘Limited government’ wasn’t about whether you have a bank and public works programs, and all of that. He didn’t believe the government should restrict its citizens rights and the federal govt even with those programs had a different role than state govts. Even most anti-federalists assumed state governments had some public works role.
Libertarians/conservatives today have different concepts than they did at that time.
157 Mark Seidenberg // Jul 29, 2010 at 11:41 am
TO: Andrew Chung
Most of the readers on this thread know something about gold dust or should. “Gold
dust” is not part of the carat system. The carat
system deals with manufactued gold jewelry.
Explain how you can get 23+ carat gold dust,
when there is no such thing. Are you talking
about “fairy dust”?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman
American Independent Party
P.S. On August 11th the organizational meeting
of the Los Angeles County Central Committee
of the American Independent Party will take place. I gave details to Ted Nicholoff. The CHP
approved the meeting.
yesterday, but I said he will not attend. Even though he picked the date.
158 Mark Seidenberg // Jul 29, 2010 at 11:53 am
Can some one explain how on this thread my reply to 157 becomes 157 and not 158?
What happened to the original 157 posted by
Andrew Chung on his bogus offer to sell “gold dust” from Korea of West African sources?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman
American Independent Party
159 Erik G. // Jul 29, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Mark S @157:
I assume it was put into the spam bin.
160 Erik G. // Jul 29, 2010 at 12:57 pm
redfish @156:
Limited government was then, as it is now, centered around the idea of a government that had minimal intervention in the economy. Now, you can close your eyes and pretend that Hamilton’s interventionist scheming (debt, public works programs, an inflationary central bank, etc.) wasn’t interference with the economy, or that it didn’t expand the role, scope, and power of government, but it just isn’t so. There’s nothing ‘limited government’ about creating the General Welfare Clause for the purpose of later exploiting it. A person for ‘limited government’ doesn’t try to hang everyone caught violating the whiskey tax, as Hamilton tried to. A person for ‘limited government’ doesn’t call for a national industrial policy (Report on Manufactures) with protective tariffs. A person for ‘limited government’ generally stands for enumerated powers, which Hamilton battled violently against in his dealings with Jefferson and Madison.
Again, Hamilton was closer to FDR than any classical liberal. Why you are trying to continually change the definition to of what a classical liberal is/was to serve your assumption that Hamiltonian economics are classically liberal (they are not), I simply do not understand. Why is it so important to you that he should be a classical liberal? As I’ve said before, you’re more than welcome to still largely approve of his actions, or even admire the guy. What you shouldn’t be doing is mis-characterizing what he was. A belief in the protection of civil liberties (which, as I’ve argued with Hamilton, is dubious) is not enough to make someone either a ‘limited government’ type or a ‘classical liberal.’ There are definitely questions of the power of government and economics, both of which Hamilton fails tremendously.
161 paulie // Jul 29, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Mark,
I removed the commercial spam. That is one of the few things not included in our free speech policy.
Sorry that it made your comment out of context.
162 Good luck ----- Fly to Washington .......... Lake // Jul 29, 2010 at 2:17 pm
To, Mark Seidenberg
Vice Chairman
American Independent Party:
I may not agree with every little detail on issues and policies, but I wanted to publicly thank you for allowing me in the trenches with you, the other Mark and Ed.
It is not only that we have fought evil and won, but that insanity was also kept at bay, or at least San Lendro! —- Lake
IPR crew, when you remove commercial spam, if you leave a note in it’s place, will that maintain the ‘thread count’?
just a thot ………
163 redfish // Jul 29, 2010 at 2:25 pm
There was no Liberal Party, there was no concerted liberal philosophy.
Liberal was a general term back then that you wanted a freer society and freer market, and that you recognized that government came from individuals and existed under the consent of the governed.
Liberals fought against aristocratic privilege, the political influence of churches. They fought against the idea that the crown should manage the economy for its people.
People who were illiberal supported the ancien regime and the aristocracy. Liberals supported revolutions and social change.
Thanks for pointing to the Wikipedia article btw.
Commitment to laissez-faire however was not uniform. Some economists advocated state support of public works and education. Classical liberals were also divided on free trade. Ricardo, for example, expressed doubt that the removal of grain tariffs advocated by Richard Cobden and the Anti-Corn Law League would have any general benefits. Most classical liberals also supported legislation to regulate the number of hours that children were allowed to work and usually did not oppose factory reform legislation.
In my view, narrowing down what ‘liberal’ meant so only the more doctrinaire people were liberals is actually the revision of history.
Hamilton didn’t think the way you could interpret the ‘General Welfare’ clause was limitless. He didn’t think you could use it to ban commerce or create state sponsored monopolies, or remove people’s guns, or ban newspapers. He didn’t think the federal government could force people to be licensed, or force quality control measures on producers. He simply approved spending projects.
Both conservatives and liberals today have roots in the liberal tradition, our form of government is called ‘liberal democracy’.
To the degree that modern liberals stray from classical liberalism its only because they take a Marxist outlook to interpreting the Constitution and don’t think the original meaning matters, or base themselves on theories that place ‘positive liberties’ above ‘negative liberties’.
ie. A good way to compare Hamilton to modern liberals is to look at modern debates. Hamilton would never have agreed that the Constitution allowed for insurance mandates. Creating a single payer system and banning private care would have been unconscionable. I believe he would have not found any type of social security system justified, because it was seen as a type of pension system.
Hamilton on what the General Welfare clause meant:
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
He was specifically restricting his interpretation of the General Welfare to the appropriation of money.
The following, on a libertarian site, explains the limits he saw to the power:
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/09/02/09/greenslade.htm
Even though Hamilton asserted that the appropriation of money for the general welfare is totally within the discretion of Congress, he cautioned that there are several limitations on this power. First, the appropriation must be applied to the whole [general] and cannot be local or particular. Second, Congress cannot use this provision as a pretext to legislate for the general welfare generally. It can only tax and spend for the general welfare of the United States. Third, Congress cannot use the power of appropriation to do things not authorized by the Constitution, “either expressly or by fair implication.” It should be noted that Hamilton did not profess this interpretation in his writings in the Federalist Essays [1787-1788].
Modern liberals also arguing their POV from different concerns than classical liberals. Even someone like Hamilton in his arguments to appeal to concepts like negative liberties, while modern liberals have tended to emphasis how limited these concepts are. Even on speech, where they’ve promoted things as broad as hate speech laws.
Of course, modern liberals want to trace back their views to Hamilton, and this forces conservatives to take a stand against Hamilton and side him against the classical liberals. But it doesn’t mean what modern liberals are doing is fair, and that they’re really just in the tradition of Hamilton.
164 Erik G. // Jul 29, 2010 at 2:54 pm
redfish @ 163:
First of all, we are not a “liberal democracy.” We’re not even a democracy. We’re a republic with democratic principles, sure, but not a democracy.
Also, if you would read the page on economic liberalism, you’d find the following:
“Economic liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism.[1] It is an economic philosophy that supports and promotes laissez-faire economics. Proponents of economic liberalism believe political freedom and social freedom are inseparable with economic freedom, and use philosophical arguments promoting liberty to justify economic liberalism and the free market. It opposes government intervention in the free market, and supporting the maximum of free trade and competition, it contrasts with mercantilism, Keynesianism, socialism,[2] and fascism.[3]”
Notice that this is defined as the economic form of liberalism, and it’s in stark contrast to Hamilton’s mercantilism.
As for your quote pertaining to Hamilton’s view on the General Welfare Clause, nowhere does it say that, “He was specifically restricting his interpretation of the General Welfare to the appropriation of money,” as you’ve suggested. In fact, all it says is that he’s interpreting it for the appropriation of money, not that he believes this is it’s only intent.
Moreover, you have no idea what Hamilton’s views on modern issues would be, nor do I, so it’s erroneous to even speculate. He certainly thought a standing army with a draft was constitutional, so there’s no certainty he wouldn’t have found other mandates ‘constitutional’ as well in his view.
Also, thank *you* for pointing out the ‘Price of Liberty’ site, because you appear to have missed this nugget,
“Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.”
Yeah, that’s Hamilton takin’ a large crap on enumerated powers and limited government.
Just because Hamilton didn’t *then* advocate the government be as large and powerful as it is now, it doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have approved or disapproved. We don’t know. What we do know is that he was not a man of limited government, and he favored outrageous economic interventionism.
Again, notice that virtually nobody ever equates Hamilton with liberalism.
And this little bit of yours,
“Of course, modern liberals want to trace back their views to Hamilton, and this forces conservatives to take a stand against Hamilton and side him against the classical liberals”
doesn’t even make sense. I’ve *never* heard modern liberals trying to trace their views back to Hamilton. All that’s been said is that *I* have said that Hamilton is closer to a ‘modern liberal’ than a classical liberal, because he’s clearly *not* a classical liberal.
Your tangents about Marxism are also ridiculous. I don’t even know why I’m bothering to continually debate you about this. The point remains that you will struggle to find any prominent majority among historians, political scientists, or economists that Hamilton was a classical liberal, or that his policies were.
He simply wasn’t, his policies weren’t, and the blatant fact that the well-known classical liberals of his time stood in stark opposition to him should be a *huge* wake-up call to you.
I’m done with this.
165 redfish // Jul 29, 2010 at 3:07 pm
There weren’t “well known classical liberals”, everyone who was arguing for more liberal society was a liberal. What you regard as ‘well known classical liberals’ are people who wrote specific doctrines about liberalism. And these were expanded and became more extremely expressed over the course of the 19th c.
The site I referred to you , and which you quoted again, also talks about how Story reinterpreted Hamilton. Hamilton did make it clear his understanding of the General Welfare clause was limited and mentions that reinterpretations of Hamilton are dishonest.
(And we’re both a republic and a democracy. )
166 NewFederalist // Jul 29, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Wow! 165 posts and counting. This is as good as topics regarding Barr or Root!
167 redfish // Jul 29, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Here are mercantilist policies Hamilton didn’t agree with
Industries were organized into guilds and monopolies, and production was regulated by the state through a series of over a thousand directives outlining how different products should be produced. To encourage industry, foreign artisans and craftsmen were imported.
In Britain, government control over the domestic economy was far less extensive than on the Continent, limited by common law and the steadily increasing power of Parliament.[21] Government-controlled monopolies were common, especially before the English Civil War, but were often controversial.[22] British mercantilist writers were themselves divided on whether domestic controls were necessary.
The Navigation Acts expelled foreign merchants from England’s domestic trade. The nation aggressively sought colonies and once under British control, regulations were imposed that allowed the colony to only produce raw materials and to only trade with Britain. This led to friction with the inhabitants of these colonies, and mercantilist policies were one of the major causes of the American Revolution.
The state, through Colbert’s dirigiste policies, fostered manufacturing enterprises in a wide variety of fields. The authorities established new industries, protected inventors, invited in workmen from foreign countries, and prohibited French workmen from emigrating.
To maintain the character of French goods in foreign markets, as well as to afford a guarantee to the home consumer, Colbert had the quality and measure of each article fixed by law, punishing breaches of the regulations by public exposure of the delinquent and by destruction of the goods concerned, and, on the third offense, by the pillory.
Colbert prohibited the production of qualities which would have suited many purposes of consumption, and the odious supervision which became necessary involved great waste of time and a stereotyped regularity which resisted all improvements.
168 cp is racist // Aug 4, 2010 at 10:05 pm
CP George wallaces party is the party that believes that slavery was good, etc. What a group! real progressive thinkers these twits are. Keep your racist candidate Tandredo and chelene Nightingale for governor. Bunch of bully racist pigs!
169 Good luck ----- on the current corrupt system .... Lake // Aug 5, 2010 at 2:10 am
I have had troubles with CP for a decade. Same with the old guard of California’s American Independent Party.
170 Don Grundmann // Aug 5, 2010 at 3:00 am
” cp is racist ” – Yet another fake name comment by Mark Seidenberg which is an outright total lie. The CP, more than any other party in the nation, is on the front lines of fighting racism.
Don J. Grundmann, D.C. Vice-Chairman American Independent Party, California branch of the Constitution Party
Leave a Comment