| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Where's the common sense? |
| 2011-12-26 |
| It never ceases to amaze me -- especially since I seem to be one of the very few people pointing this out -- that both liberals and conservatives in the American debate are missing the most important point, the essential but simple argument that spells the difference between victory and defeat, right and wrong. What people on both sides don't understand is that it is the historical situation and not an eternal ideology that makes for the right policy. What was appropriate for a time when the United States didn't have enough regulation and government was too weak is not appropriate for a time when the United States is overregulated, government is too strong, and the country is ridiculously deep in debt. ...A lot of conservatives seem to think that to explain where the country is going wrong and fix it they have to prove that Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt were completely wrong. There is such a thing as balance. America's rapid industrialization after the Civil War put the system out of balance and threatened to wreck the country's constitutionally-mandated system. Robber barons, monopolies, exploitation of labor, and the buying and selling of legislatures were all commonplace. Only due to reforms, largely backed by Democratic presidents before most of us were born, was the balance corrected. The modern prosperity and progress of America has been due to a combination of Founding Fathers' constitutionalism, largely free capitalism, and a government able to carry out reasonable levels of regulation. A proof of that fact is that few conservatives sought to roll back all the pre-1952 innovations. And the same applies to such later initiatives as civil rights along racial and gender lines or the main and much needed environmental legislation following the discovery of just how much America's water and air had deteriorated. Yet the governmental machine just kept going beyond the point of reasonable balance. More and more; further and further. The books of regulations grew and grew, strangling the society, trying to perfect ever-smaller faults at an ever-higher price. When was the turning point? The War on Poverty and Great Society of the 1960s? The ascension of Obama in 2009? The precise date isn't so vital. What's important is that things just went too far. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #7 Thedore Roosevelt. |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-12-26 21:41 |
| #6 The problem with FDR is that he was the first US President who did not feel constrained by the US Constitution. Woodrow Wilson. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2011-12-26 21:31 |
| #5 The problem with FDR is that he was the first US President who did not feel constrained by the US Constitution. As a result, many of the changes he made are certainly things that need to be rolled back. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2011-12-26 16:04 |
| #4 I think I'd prefer the Robber Barons, CF - at least they wouldn't care what I eat, where I live, etc., unlike today's libruls. :-( |
| Posted by: Barbara 2011-12-26 14:49 |
| #3 There's the corporate rent seeking party and the govt-union rent-seeking party. Increasingly they overlap, to the countries detriment. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2011-12-26 14:48 |
| #2 Only due to reforms, largely backed by Democratic presidents before most of us were born, was the balance corrected. No - not corrected. More like shifted from 'Robber Barons' and 'Monopolies' to Government and 'Labor Monopolies'. There is little difference between the old-style monopolies and the new monopolies held by the labor unions (see Teachers Union). And some would say that the Robber Barons of old are still there in the guise of the Federal Reserve. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2011-12-26 14:03 |
| #1 "What's important is that things just went too far." Waaaaaaay to far. >:-( |
| Posted by: Barbara 2011-12-26 13:36 |