In the Arena
Uncategorized

More Historicity

By Joe Klein | @JoeKleinTIME | January 7, 2010 | +

After last night’s venture into Walter Russell Mead’s four American foreign policy traditions (Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson and Hamilton), we have Chuck Lane plumbing another foursome today: the four American political traditions that the brilliant historian David Hackett Fischer–I mean, you really have to read this guy; it’s both deeply enlightening and a total pleasure–located in his classic Albion’s Seed.

Lane is being somewhat hyperbolic when he forecasts the imminent shattering of the American polity into four parties, based on Fischer’s four strand(Puritan, Quaker, Cavalier and Scots-Irish)–if anything, there may be a populist augmentation of Ron Paul’s Libertarians in 2012. More likely, in another great American tradition, the Libertarians and Tea Party ascendency will be reflected by the Republican nominee.

I also believe that the media is overplaying the importance of the recent Democratic retirements–the two Senate retirements seem a wash: Dodd seemed likely to lose Connecticut, but the popularity of his replacement, the state’s Attorney General, makes that a likely win; Dorgan was a likely winner, though. Bruce Ritter, the governor of Colorado, is a lovely man–a former missionary–but not as strong as some other candidates (especially Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, who may replace him). In any case, the idea that the Democrats would be able to retain a super-majority in the Senate for any extended period seems a reach–so long as the Senate is larded with conservative mini-states like the Dakotas and Wyoming, which, collectively, have fewer people than Brooklyn. (And Dick Morris’s notion that the left is anywhere near strong enough to split off from the Democrats and form a separate party is sheer nonsense–recent polls have 87% of self-described liberals supporting Obama.)

The real threat now is that the Senate requires some cooperation between the parties to get things done–and the Republicans, in deep extremist implosion, are unwilling to join in the governing process. This is a recipe for inaction, the very thing that the public seems to like least.

Meanwhile, it is curious to think about how Mead’s four tendencies and Fischer’s four match up.

Jacksonian=Scots-Irish…(after all, he was the first populist, Scots-Irish President)

Wilsonian=Puritan (high-minded idealism)

Hamiltonian=Cavaliers (conservative, elitist realism)

Jeffersonian=Quakers (international diffidence, with a strong dose of community compromise)

Of course, none of the boxes ever quite fit. Obama is, appropriately, a mongrel; most Presidents are. But it’s an interesting parlor game.

Related Topics: Barack Obama, David Hackett Fischer, Democratic Party, Dick Morris, Republican Party, Walter Russell Mead, Uncategorized

  • Latest on Swampland

    Barack Obama May 25, 2012

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

    From our Partners

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    2012 Election May 25, 2012

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

  • grape_crush

    …and the Republicans, in deep extremist implosion, are unwilling to join in the governing process.

    More than that; the GOP is actively inhibiting the governing process.

    And Dick Morris’s notion…is sheer nonsense…

    Well, what do you expect from a Republican strategist when he’s talking about Democrats?

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Do you think that because of the media’s preference for historical boxes, that we are just simply refusing to explore all of the possible scenarios that could unfold. God forbid anyone question Charlie Cook, but according to him Hillary should be president. Moreover, all of these predictions are based on the history of off-year elections, which suggest that Republicans will benefit. Of course, all of these scenarios are failing to acknowledge a few simple facts:
    .
    1) The GOP has never been in such bad shape
    2) The supposedly energetic base that everyone is alluding to is the same base that divided NY 23
    3) The extremists — tea baggers turn off more voters than they represent
    4) This situation is so new it only barely mirrors historical parameters and it requires that African Americans and young people stay at home — yet they didn’t stay home in 2006 either.

  • square1

    Well, what do you expect from a Republican strategist when he’s talking about Democrats?

    If only Bill Clinton had asked this question 15 years ago.

  • square1

    It is certainly possible to categorize our present political factions based upon historical cultural and ideological traditions. But I can’t take anyone seriously who would equate today’s centrist/corporate Democrats with Quakers.

    [The] notion that the left is anywhere near strong enough to split off from the Democrats and form a separate party is sheer nonsense–recent polls have 87% of self-described liberals supporting Obama

    I think that is a misleading statistic. It has been noted that there is a big difference in Obama’s support between liberal Democrats and liberal non-Democrats (and I would caution anyone in assuming that liberals who don’t identify with the party are more liberal, per se).

    The reality is that there are significant institutional forces that maintain our two-party system. Voters know that and, sadly, are forced to continue to support ineffective political parties long after the parties prove unworthy of their support.

    In a better world, we would have true multi-party elections and multi-party legislative coalitions. Every election would not be a choice between “the lesser of two evils”.

  • homerhk

    On the 2 party thing, the history of UK politics is interesting. The Liberal Democrats hived off into a seaprate party (actually there used to be two hived off parties that joined forces – the Lib dems and the sdp) and have been a third party force in the UK for over 30 years (I think). While people do look upon them fondly they have also never even come close to winning a general elecction (they do do well in local council elections though).

    But – and this is a big but – they are a third party of moderates – i.e. somewhere in between labour and conservative and it does strike me that in the increased polarisation of US politics that a third party may emerge consisting of conservative democrats and liberal republicans. I myself would never vote for such a party, but given how there are hardly any moderates in congress anymore (save for the conservadems), this might an avenue open to people like Chafee, Powell etc.

    It is laughable to consider that the Tea Party will become its own party – most of them are essentially anarchists that want no form of government whatsoever (save for, you know, roads, military, someone to blame when a terrorist gets through etc.)

  • jake2008

    I agree with your comment that there are forces which limit our system to two parties, although I believe those forces are structural rather than institutional. In any event, I disagree that a system with more parties necessarily achieves a superior result. Determining the most appropriate structure for a democracy is an imperfect science and differs for different nations. In any event, our current structure is so well ingrained that even discussing it is an academic exercise.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Exactly!

  • square1

    They made a movie about the Teabaggers. It’s called Idiocracy.
    .
    They’re for freedom…and electrolytes.

  • http://derekg.wordpress.com/ Derek

    I imagine the Left will just stay home, rather than bother with a third party, like they did with Clinton when he failed to get health care.

  • anon76

    I’ll second Jake’s questioning of the utility of a multi-party system. In theory it sounds nice, but what I’ve seen in practice (mainly through observation of the Spanish government) is that minority groups in coalition governments end up winning outsized concessions, creating a dynamic where small groups are quite pleased but the vast majority of citizens are screwed. I know, kind of like our current system, but IMO more-so.

  • http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com Ned Netterville

    Obama, a progressive (viz., one who believes the state, when in the “right” hands, is a higher power with enhanced insight, wisdom and power), was elected by a limited number of like minded people, and many others who wanted little more than an end to Bush’s failed presidency. Obama’s only real mandate was this: replace George Bush. He was not elected by most of those who voted for him to carry out a progressive agenda, which is essentially democratic socialism with the emphasis on socialism.

    The politically astute among Obama’s progressive appointees and backers realize that they have only limited time and space to enact their progressive agenda before his other constituents wake up to the cost in rules, regulations and taxes and jump ship, which already seems to be happening. Thus the urgency to enact so-called health-care reform, global warming legislation, etc., etc. etc., while the memory of Bush’s inadequacies remain fresh. Unfortunately the root cause of most of America’s problems is neither Bush nor Obama, neither progressivism nor conservativism. Rather it is our misplaced faith in government as opposed to faith in our own resources when allied with a truly Higher Power.

blog comments powered by Disqus