James Bennett, on the resistance of American political culture to “progressivism:”
For decades — at a minimum, since the beginning of the Progressive Era, and arguably earlier — America had been on a course toward a more centralized society, one in which individualism as it had been understood since before the Founding — a society built on independent families living on their own properties, most of them farms — was being replaced by a different vision. The progressive vision was one of citizens as employees whose existence was mediated by negotiations among large corporations, unions, and government agencies. For such subjects, “rights” were to be a designated set of entitlements granted by those organizations.
America had gone some distance down this road by 1980, although not as far as Canada or Britain, and nowhere near as far as Germany or France, which had never been all that laissez-faire in the first place. But 1980 marked the point at which the nation reversed course. Thenceforth it would be headed in the opposite direction, toward a new vision of individualism and decentralism, driven by the computer rather than the plow.
It’s long, but worth a read.
The concept of “U-turn” states the case too strongly. I think it’s more accurate to call it “The Great Downshift”, like from 4th gear to 3rd. There might be a u-turn in opinion, but so far that opinion has been powerless to change the direction of our course. Despite progress in some areas the Feds have continued to increase aggregate power – economic and regulatory – since 1980. And so far the Tea Party has not managed to convert the Republican establishment in Washinton D.C. to their point of view, if that pathetic “pledge” is any indication (as well as the reaction to the Alaska and Deleware primaries). Maybe the beast has slowed but I haven’t seen any “u-turn” in actual laws past or effects on the ground.
The easiest ways to measure this is just to look at total spending and total page-count of US Federal regulation. Both numbers are mind numbing in their size and rate of growth.
If anything has protected us from “social democracy” I think it is the sheer size of our country, and not anything in particular to our character. A population 3x the size of Japan (the next largest modern nation) makes it hard to build consensus. Further Japan, the EU, and non-US Anglo countries are all far more urbanized as a percentage of the population than the USA. Our urban areas express collectivist opinions on about the same level as much of Western Europe, so it’s really just the fact that more people live in suburbs, exurbs and rural areas in the USA vis a vis our peers that is protecting us, politically.
I’ll believe there’s actually been a U-turn when the Federal government actally takes “driving in reverse” type actions, such as:
1. Defunds and shuts down progressive programs such as the Dept. of Education or NLRB.
2. Cuts Federal spending to 15% or less of GDP.
3. Amends the commerce to read in a “common sense” manner.
4. Amends the spending clause to be limited to spending on matters within Federal delegation under the Constitution.
5. Empowers the States to “veto” Federal legislation in some manner, whether by State legislative action or repealing the 17th Amendment.
6. Campaign finance reform that limits out-of-state interference in House and Senate races.
7. 100% delegation of Medicaid policy to State control. Killing all other unfunded mandates too, or flat out making them illegal. Repealing ObamaCare.
etc.
Until then we are (at best) holding Leviathan temporarily at bay. Emphasis on “temporarily.”
Libertarians need to pay attention to the whole society. The progressive movement would not have made nearly as much headway if corporations had not been so successful in centralizing power in their hands in the 19th Century. Don’t ask people who are in a world of hurt to stick to laissez fair ideas when advocates of centralized government come by offering relief.
Why, yes, I also argue with progressives — just where they can hear me.