The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Unreasonable Men
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
THE DISCUSSION IS OPEN - WEEK TWO - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: UNREASONABLE MEN - April 18th - April 24th - Chapter Two - The Railroad- (pages 31 - 52) - No Spoilers, please
Mod
What I found interesting was the role that the reporters from McClure's Magazine, specifically Lincoln Steffens's report on the trouble that Robert La Follette was creating in Wisconsin and the reporting of Ray Stannard Baker on the railroad tycoons and their predatory tactics in concert with the investment bankers to create trusts. In 1901 his quote, "You can now ride from England to China on regular lines of steamships and railroads without once passing from the protecting hollow of Mr. Morgan's hand," pretty well sums it up.
By John J MillerI feel that Teddy Roosevelt's attitude toward government intervention in the market was most influenced by his sense of fair play. He believed as I do that the marketplace did need to be policed for it to be beneficial.
"If the Federal Government continues to centralize, we shall soon find that we have a vast bureaucratic government, which shall prove inefficient if not corrupt." --- Uncle Joe1. a) Do you agree with the above statement? All of the time, some of the time or mostly never? Explain your position.
Part of the statement is true, part is not true. It is definitely vast and not as efficient as private industry, but I think that it is vastness of government policies that have reduced, not increased, the corruption in the government. Our present government is far less corrupt than the one that existed at the time of Roosevelt. And what happened when George W. reduced government oversight of Wall Street – it fostered massive corruption in the finance industry which almost brought America to its knees. Big business has necessitated the counterbalancing force of big government.
b) Do you sometimes drive on your state's roads and bridges replete with potholes and wonder what your Senator or Congressman is doing about these road conditions in DC. Probably nothing because he is at the federal level - or are you interested in the infrastructure problems that cannot be fixed at the state level be mandated and rectified for the citizens of this country by the federal government? - for example, the lead pipes in Flint, Michigan?
I think that most things, such as pot holes on local streets, maintenance of power and water supply, configuring an education curriculum, are better solved at the local level because the people being affected by the problem are forced to try to find a solution. It imposes responsibility upon the ordinary people. Tocqueville in his book, “Democracy in America” emphasizes, that for a democracy, the involvement of the ordinary people in the development and execution of the laws is crucial. There are other matters which need federal oversight, for example, environmental issues, creating and enforcing standards for pharmaceuticals and food products, developing new forms of energy, control of the banking and finance industry, interstate transportation. Such things cannot be solved at the local level. With regards to the lead pipes in Flint, Michigan, I would have thought that there would be federal standards to which each state must comply. These standards should be universal. Building a water system to comply with these standards should be a local responsibility. If the local government deliberately ignored federal standards, then the people should have recourse to complain to the federal government.
So many questions! Now I know how my students felt...I just started this chapter so my thoughts may change. But for starters, answering some of Bentley's first questions...
1) I definitely agree with the quote beginning this chapter. A large bureaucracy means more opportunities for corruption as well as inefficiency and confusion. It gets to a point where nobody even knows what is or isn't illegal.
2) Can the states deal with problems like Katrina? I agree with an earlier statement that aid in major disasters is more like a "drop in the bucket" for the federal government but would wipe out state budgets. There are times when it is useful for the federal government to step in; luckily, those disasters are not common. And disasters do affect more than just local people - there are probably many people who don't live in Flint who drink the water (tourists, etc.). So it becomes an interstate problem, falling under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I found the wording in the original question interesting - things the governor "can't or won't do." Maybe if the governor won't do something, it's time for a recall...
I am a very conservative conservative...get all forms of government out of my life! I think corporations have too much power, there are too many regulations (thanks to the bureaucracy), our tax dollars are wasted, and many of our individual rights are disappearing. I would like to see far less federal government involvement in everything. BUT...our nation has become so much more interdependent that we probably cannot eliminate a lot of regulations, etc. Americans travel more. We buy stuff online. We are in constant, instant contact with people all around the world. State governments can't deal with that.
As to the kind of government I think is ideal - I think having me as a benevolent dictator would be perfect! (I'd be nice, I promise!)
The NRA's position on guns is based on them being a marketing organization that gets its money from gunmakers.
I want to add two nuanced, but important points here to two things. First off, I will say I agree with the quote, but we must also realize that "centralized" of course refers to more business, more money and more items coming through the main government then the government sends it to where they deem necessary or approve it It can be as small as it was in 1789 or the size it is today (the executive branch employs well over 4 million people - and that's numbers from approximately 10 years ago. It is even larger today, but I can't lay my hands on that figure at the moment as I'm in my car waiting for my son to get out of his Scout activity). several economist have made that point to illustrate that more centralization actually means that people have less control and less influence over their own economic future or endeavors. It is less sustainable and absolutely more prone to corruption. Politicians and those in power have less interest in sustaining a model that gives the people more power and control. Corporations are usually cast as the bad guy, but with the exception of a few cases, most are not. In the end they cannot thrive or sustain themselves indefinitely with out an economic model wherein they are able to keep a clientele, a consumer base and/or a needed product. Without that, the only way to do so is if the government runs them, or buys them out and under writes them. But that is veering off topic.
2, referring back to the assertion that the Founders wanted to mimic Parliament with a House of Lords, etc. That is not entirely correct. In fact that was the opinion of one or two during Constitutional debate. In fact the author of our book is referencing a comment in the debate of June 7 by John Dickerson wherein he was the one who made that comparison. Madison and several others did not agree. In fact, Dickerson makes the request that there should be a large number of Senators, about 80, if I remember correctly. The debate focused on the need to make States had a say and a part. of the Federal gov - Federalism itself, being a balance of powers between National and State government. It is true that they didn't trust democracy, which is why they didn't create one - the created a Representative Republic, which really only lasted until we get to Andrew Jackson. They worried about mob rule and the tyranny of the majority. So to them the house would be the natural place for things like spending and to start laws because they represented the people. The Senate represented the interests of the state - and the larger group of citizenship in a state (as opposed to a district) and would temper the passions that could arise from the house. This is the tea cup and saucer analogy.
In any case, in most states at the time you had to have some property to vote anyway, so it wasn't people with land versus those without. If anything they viewed "stock jobbers" and those who only dealt in paper with suspicion - in fact comment is made to that effect in the very same debate with Dickerson. To them, land tied you to a community, whether you owned a farm, a house, a dock, or a store. Someone invested in the community was more likely to be trusted than one who only dealt in gold or specie and had no such roots.
In any event, many viewed Parliament with disdain, a few did not especially in States like NY which had a larger loyalist population. Most did not and would not have wanted to jump back into the arms of another Parliament - in fact a sore subject between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian factions.
"If the Federal Government continues to centralize, we shall soon find that we have a vast bureaucratic government, which shall prove inefficient if not corrupt." --- Uncle JoeI do agree that sometimes this is true, but not always. I think that in a large government organization where everything is filtered through it, lots of red tape is created. Then a simple need can turn out to be a big deal. One department may be dependent on another and at some point, things can slow down or come to a screeching halt. Then the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" mentality comes into play. However, if all works well, then government can move along like a well oiled machine.
I'm getting lost in this discussion. What question are we addressing? I found 10 of them.
Standard Oil's style of business was very simple in that it managed to get cheap shipping rates from the railroads which allowed them to sell their oil at a cheaper price. Smaller companies could not compete without destroying their bottom line. However if you are able to provide a better product at a cheaper price then that is a good thing. The problem is when you are the ONLY provider of a product that's being charged at very high price. But that balances out as well because eventually the consumer finds a way to live without the product or limits its usage. This brings the price down.
Haha Gary, I feel the same, but I jumped in late. Bentley has posted awesome additional material that I'm enjoying reading it all and have to go back and remember some of the questions. There is a lot of great stuff in these threads.
I am moving on to questions 2 and 3, but I would like to make a general comment. It seems that most of the chapter 2 questions are asking when should the federal government assume control and when should local government assume control. It would be nice if somewhere there was a list delineating these things, but I am sure that list would rapidly become obsolete as new problems arise. 2. When things go wrong, do you think that your state has the ability to fix them? Do they have enough manpower, funds and other resources? What about when a big storm hits like Sandy or Katrina? Or do you think that the federal government should do something to fix the mess that your governor can or will not do? Or do you think that your state can only afford so much and if it did not get the help of the federal government many things would be swept under the carpet and ignored like the pipes in Flint, Michigan?
ANSWER: Depends upon the magnitude of the disaster. No state that I know of has either the manpower or the funds to repair the damage caused by Sandy or Katrina.
For something like the Flint, Michigan water disaster, I believe that the best solution is for the people to make known to the country the severity of their problem, the corruption of the state officials, and use the power of the press to force state officials to act. If this does not solve the problem, than the people should petition the federal government for a solution.
3. Are you happy with your social security and medicare or medicaid or federal pensions?
ANSWER: I am happy with social security and am baffled as to why the government says that it is going broke. As far as I know my benefits are based upon the amount of money that I contributed to the system and based upon actuarial tables defining average lifespan. It is going broke not because the people who paid into are getting much more than they contributed, but because the government is raiding it to pay for other programs. I would be very disturbed if this program was discontinued.
I am happy with medicare but this program, unlike social security, doles out to participants a much greater amount than the participants have contributed. There will need to be major changes in this program if it is to survive. We need single payer universal healthcare where doctor's wages and prescription drug prices are controlled. We need to have people paying more into the system. Universal healthcare requires higher taxes.
If so these are federal programs? Are you unhappy about the cost of prescription drugs and wish that the federal government would do more about it?
ANSWER: Not happy about the cost of prescription drugs. Under George W's administration, a law was passed that prevented medicare to negotiate drug prices and also prevented the United States Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which evaluates treatments for coverage by federal programs, to consider cost comparisons or cost-effectiveness in its recommendations, Just about all other advanced countries are allowed to negotiate price with the pharm companies. Because of this regulation the United States' prescription costs are many fold higher than these other nations.
Do you have children with special needs and have you found that your state and local government are not doing enough to educate and take care of your children and you think that the federal government should do more?
ANSWER: Have 3 children, but none with special needs.
Are you a college aged student or a parent of college aged students who are having problems affording to send your children to college or are you having a hard time trying to work, study or pay off big college loans? If so, do you think that the Federal government should be doing more? Do you think that Bernie Sanders is your candidate because he feels that college should be tuition free and students debt free or do you believe that Sanders has a great idea but what is his plan for paying for it.
ANSWER: In Tennessee, where I live, the Republican governor, Bill Haslam, has implemented a program where high school graduating seniors with a C average can get two years free education at a community or technical college. He is a moderate conservative, but he realizes the importance of education in America's ability to compete in the world. This program does, however, have a requirement of a certain number of hours of unpaid community service. I think this is a great program. I would ask Bernie Sanders to modify his stance on free education such that it requires say 6 months of community service. This would not only offset the cost of the education, it would give the young a sense of responsibility to society.
Do you think yourself a progressive, a liberal, a conservative, a moderate or an independent?
ANSWER: Conservatives call me a flaming liberal. Liberals call me a heartless conservative. So I guess I am a lonely independent.
message 113:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 21, 2016 09:34AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
(smile)
message 114:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 21, 2016 09:49AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Hi everyone, such great discussion. I'm having a very busy week, so I'm can't participate much, but I would like to address Kressel's analogy, which Bentley highlighted.
I think the equivalent to big banking in the early 21st century is big banking in the early 20th century. Investment bankers like Pierpont Morgan amassed enormous wealth and power. They were very involved in railroads, as we saw in the Northern Securities anti-trust case, but had other interests as well. We'll be talking much more about big banks later in the book.
I do have another analogy for you, however. I suggest that today's "highway of commerce" is the internet. In fact, I wrote an article about this for Reuters called Theodore Roosevelt on net neutrality.
Please go to message 51 in the glossary and the link is there. We had to move it from this thread because it deals with Chapter Three
Here is the link to the glossary which is a spoiler thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Sorry, Bentley. Thanks for reposting the note.
I finally caught up! Now, for these questions. 1. a) While I agree with the above statement, I am unsure if it is completely true. I don’t think increase in government centralization necessarily leads to an increase in inefficiency or corruption. There are times that it has (i.e. the governments of the USSR and Eastern Bloc were largely centralized, inefficient, and corrupt) but there are governments today that are large and centralized but are considered to be pretty transparent and give back to their citizens. I’ve included my sources below but, just as an example, take Denmark and Sweden. They are considered the first and third most transparent governments in the world (US is 16th, which is still pretty good) according to Transparency International and both have a top three Rule of Law index score.(1,2) They are also pretty large with about 28-31% of their population employed in the public sector.(3) They also spend a higher percentage of GDP per capita (about 57% and 51% respectively).(4) There are definitely countries that show the opposite of this but it seems to me, generally, that Americans have an innate distrust of the federal government.
b) I don’t expect my representatives in DC to be dealing with my state’s road issues. That’s much more appropriate for the people I voted for on the state level to deal with. As for Flint, that is an issue of national public health so I was surprised that there was no national oversight into lead in pipes they way the federal government went after things like asbestos.
2. Well, I live in California where the quake of the century is supposedly going to rain destruction down on us all any day now. California is a disaster-prone state: wildfires, earthquakes, my town even had flooding this winter. I think the state is pretty prepared for natural disasters because they are almost expected. I do agree with Jan (message 91) though, that the federal government does have a mentality that California will take care of itself no matter what comes our way but wildfire seasons in particular last year were horrendous and expensive so that’s not always the case.
3. I think the frustrating thing for people my age is we have been hearing how we will never receive any payments from Social Security but we still have to pay into it with our taxes. I am not a fan of ObamaCare though. It sounded nice on paper but for the two healthy people in my household to have another bill for something we don’t need on top of college loans feels miserable. It feels like a tax really. College loans are not a joke though. I sympathize with people my age who like Sanders because it’s crushing to have significant debt when you’re 22 and no one wants to hire you. I personally worked amazingly hard to cover all of my college but my partner has been making loan payments for years without an end in sight. That’s where a lot of uncertainty people my age feel comes from I think, that no matter what you would like to do (i.e. get married, buy a home, have children) you just can’t because of a paper you signed at 18/19. I have always considered myself liberal and progressive socially (to the point that a LOT of people in my home state of Kentucky did not like my views growing up) but I am fiscally conservative thanks to my being raised by very conservative accountants. When it comes time to vote, I pretty much feel like I have to sacrifice something: my ideals or my paycheck.
4. I have felt pretty confident in both states I’ve lived in, although that would have likely changed with Matt Blevin being elected in Kentucky after I moved. California’s state government in particular seems effective, unless it comes to water rights. (And don’t get me started on water rights.)
5. No. I don’t think ‘doing more’ is an indication of corruption or inefficiency.
6. Both of my ideal governments would just lock up the bad guys, collect some taxes, help when people are desperate (i.e. disasters and such), make laws to keep us safe and fair, and that’s the jist of it. I know that's extreme simplification but that covers it.
7. Sweeping generalization mostly.
8. Capitalism is at the heart of America's past and her mentality. I don't think corporations are 'evil' or business is 'dirty'. There are very admirable business leaders throughout our country's history. However, there does seem to be a lot of issues with the tax code that desperately need to be addressed and I am unsure that Congress has the knowledge (of tax law or economics) to be effective. If the IRS didn't seem like such a defunct, unorganized, generally clueless institution, I would volunteer them but alas that's not an option.
Here's those sources from above, if you're curious:
Source 1 - Transparency International
Source 2 - World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index
Source 3 - Wikipedia article "List of countries by public sector"
Source 4 - Wikipedia article "Government spending" section 5.1-5.2
Hopefully I haven't bored anyone to death. :)
Who are the Standpatters of today?I actually think that the mainstream Democratic party represents the Standpatters today. Most of the Republican party has moved to take an activist roll to do things like shut down Planned Parenthood, Deregulate businesses, or destroy the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile the Democrats are trying to hold on to the current system. Hilary Clinton is arguably the most Standpatter candidate in the current presidential race because she wants to build upon what the Obama administration has done as opposed to seeking revolutionary reform like Bernie Sanders or complete change like the Republican Tea Party front runners.
Peter wrote: "The NRA's position on guns is based on them being a marketing organization that gets its money from gunmakers."
Naw, I'm not so sure -- I'm in the NRA and I'm not getting a penny from gunmakers. But I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution.
Naw, I'm not so sure -- I'm in the NRA and I'm not getting a penny from gunmakers. But I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution.
Philip wrote: "Peter wrote: "The NRA's position on guns is based on them being a marketing organization that gets its money from gunmakers."Naw, I'm not so sure -- I'm in the NRA and I'm not getting a penny fro..."
I'm sure you are not getting any from gun manufacturers. But the NRA is.
A majority of gun owners are in favor of some restrictions on guns; only the NRA really opposes things like "smart guns" that will only fire if the owner is holding the gun.
Discussion Questions 1. a) Do you agree with the above statement? All of the time, some of the time or mostly never? Explain your position.
No, I agree with peter that all organizations have the possibility of becoming corrupt. I don't think that Government in itself, I finding that some of the people are. I think that if worked right -Government can help people. I personally feel that there is to much money in politics right now, and that in itself is causing corruption.
b) Do you sometimes drive on your state's roads and bridges replete with potholes and wonder what your Senator or Congressman is doing about these road conditions in DC. Probably nothing because he is at the federal level - or are you interested in the infrastructure problems that cannot be fixed at the state level be mandated and rectified for the citizens of this country by the federal government? - for example, the lead pipes in Flint, Michigan?
I live in a small city, Springfield, OH. Its not bad as it used to be here, they are repairing roads and things. But we have a major problem with abandoned buildings here. our leaders have said they are short on cash. So yes, I do look to leaders in Washington. I feel that they don't have their priorities right I think that a lot of money that is spent is not helping our country thrive.
Do you think that Bernie Sanders is your candidate because he feels that college should be tuition free and students debt free or do you believe that Sanders has a great idea but what is his plan for paying for it. Do you think yourself a progressive, a liberal, a conservative, a moderate or an independent?
Bernie is my candidate. I don't think that his ideas ideas are that radical. There was a time in this country where college was free/not that expensive. Plus, I feel that there is a way to pay for what he is proposing. We have enough to go to war, or give millionaire's tax breaks, but we can't afford to educate or give people health insurance? something is wrong is deeply wrong with that. In my opinion.
7. Was Uncle Joe right or do you think he is either making a sweeping generalization or is he wrong?
I don't agree with him, but I think he is making generalization based on his own world view.
8. Do you feel that corporations get many breaks that they should not be getting? Should corporations pay more? Should US corporations be allowed to get tax breaks and move their jobs offshore to other countries? Who should do more to keep corporations in line?
I think that they get to many breaks. I think they should pay their fair share. And no they shouldn't be able move jobs to other countries, but if they do then a tax should be imposed on companies who want to this.. Its devastating on a family when the bread winner of the family loses their job due to this.
I am answering the last of the 8 questions. 4. Are you the type of individual who feels that you had to do it all on your own and there is no free lunch - so the federal government should stay out of your business and be "seen and not heard" at the state level. And that your state can take care of what it needs to take care of without the federal government butting in?
ANSWER: I did not do it all on my own. If the college that I attended had not been very inexpensive, I never would have been able to attend, but at the same time I realize that these things must be paid for and that I must somehow pay back to society the benefits that society has given me. This is where Sanders is failing. To him only the rich should pay back to society. I believe that all of us are obligated to do that. For the less wealthy, it could be volunteering.
As far as the states being able to take care of their own needs all one has to do is read about the condition of the United States under the Articles of Confederation. It was total chaos. It would be even worst today because industries, information, and terrorists cross state lines. People fail to realize that America has its immense presence in the world because of the size of the federal government. Individual states plodding along as separate entities cannot negotiate treaties or control a vast economy or finance a vast military.
5. Do you believe that a federal government that does more is any more corrupt than a federal government that does less? Do you believe that a federal government that does more is any more inefficient than a federal government that does less?
ANSWER: I see a lot more corruption of government at the state and local levels than at the federal levels. It is at the state and local levels where a citizen feels incapable of overcoming the nepotism and cronyism. The federal government has less of this because they have less personal involvement in each region.
I don’t believe that the inefficiency of the federal government is due to its size, but rather, due to its personnel policies. It takes an act of God to penalize a poorly performing employee. Private industry is definitely more efficient than government, but this is true for both the federal and local level.
6. Explain your views on what your ideal federal and state government would look like?
ANSWER: Like the US constitution, this would have to be a living document, that is, one that must change with a changing society.
7. Was Uncle Joe right or do you think he is either making a sweeping generalization or is he wrong?
ANSWER: I already addressed this in a previous question. Part of statement was true and part was untrue.
8. Do you feel that corporations get many breaks that they should not be getting? Should corporations pay more? Should US corporations be allowed to get tax breaks and move their jobs offshore to other countries? Who should do more to keep corporations in line?
ANSWER: Financial matters are perhaps my greatest weakness, but I will say that I see no reason to give subsidies to very wealthy oil companies. I have never seen a good justification for this.
Teri wrote: ""If the Federal Government continues to centralize, we shall soon find that we have a vast bureaucratic government, which shall prove inefficient if not corrupt." --- Uncle JoeI do agree that som..."
As mentioned earlier in this discussion, Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that the strongest protection of democracy comes from the people, in the form of local government taking on most of the day to day administrative duties and activities needed by a society. For a young Frenchman he was decidedly "conservative" in his philosophy of republican governance. At this point in my life (62) , I find his thinking sound. While I don't have fundamental problem with a large central federal government, I am after all a passionate Hamiltonian; Tocqueville's argument that democracy is strengthened when local tastes and priorities drive decision making. Th federal government , as it does with weights and measures, has a crucial role to play in protecting the public health via sanitary and environmental regulation and standards of performance. The Flint situation and all the other communities suffering the same conditions suggest that federal oversight loses touch and cannot do the job. Just a thought.
Tocqueville's point of view is quite timely given the disjointed discourse that we are all suffering through, and is perhaps one of his most prescient analyses of America that he offered.
Mod
I will be back here to update this thread and respond as I have time during the readathon. Keep posting.
Before looking at the questions posed - just looking at the chapter in question - I look at the political motivations - pg 33 para 5 TR acted in part from fear of "public backlash"La Follette threatened to stay as governor and not go to the Senate if certain legislation in Wisconsin was not passed.
We have exposure to the trusts but what we see here are more "calculating" than "unreasonable" men when it comes to our two seeming hero figures - TR & LaFollette.
The stage has been set and the characters introduced so let us see how the play, um .. story. plays out.
Sorry I am so late posting this week. I have been very busy and this book seems to require a better knowledge of politics. I should have probably started with a primer on US presidents or US political history. I like to read other people's comments rather than writing my own. I consider myself an independent and US politics still confound me.
I still tend to compare things with Italy which is good in one way (I come from a different perspective) but insufficient because the historical reality here is different.
Because of this, I tend to be leary of abuses of executive power. I might be mistaken, but a common feeling seems to be, "Executive powers are good if they are accomplishing something." On the other hand, I think the system of checks and balances instituted by the Founders is safe precisely because it slows things down. In Italy, we are still very aware of what Mussolini and, most recently, Berlusconi, did for Italy. Mussolini started out as a socialist.
As I said, I might be totally wrong and I am reading this book to learn more.
My short comments on these questionsa) Do you agree with the above statement? All of the time, some of the time or mostly never? Explain your position.
Big government can be bad or good depending upon who/how it is run - FDR with the New Deal during a depression or Adolf Hitler in Germany - same time frame
b) Do you sometimes drive on your state's roads and bridges replete with potholes and wonder what your Senator or Congressman is doing about these road conditions in DC. Probably nothing because he is at the federal level - or are you interested in the infrastructure problems that cannot be fixed at the state level be mandated and rectified for the citizens of this country by the federal government? - for example, the lead pipes in Flint, Michigan?
We are possibly at the lowest level of taxation since the beginning 1940s. the government is not with the tools that would have made these things and a workable attitude easier.
2. When things go wrong, do you think that your state has the ability to fix them? Do they have enough manpower, funds and other resources? What about when a big storm hits like Sandy or Katrina? Or do you think that the federal government should do something to fix the mess that your governor can or will not do? Or do you think that your state can only afford so much and if it did not get the help of the federal government many things would be swept under the carpet and ignored like the pipes in Flint, Michigan?
If the people deny the State or Federal governments the opportunity by taxation to accumulate the needed resources to respond, or repay, then the people are not empowering their government to be able to succeed in helping themor their neighbors - near or far.
3. Are you happy with your social security and medicare or medicaid or federal pensions? If so these are federal programs? Are you unhappy about the cost of prescription drugs and wish that the federal government would do more about it? Do you have children with special needs and have you found that your state and local government are not doing enough to educate and take care of your children and you think that the federal government should do more? Are you a college aged student or a parent of college aged students who are having problems affording to send your children to college or are you having a hard time trying to work, study or pay off big college loans? If so, do you think that the Federal government should be doing more? Do you think that Bernie Sanders is your candidate because he feels that college should be tuition free and students debt free or do you believe that Sanders has a great idea but what is his plan for paying for it. Do you think yourself a progressive, a liberal, a conservative, a moderate or an independent?
I am content but not happy with Medicare (Soc Security is OK - it is not a grant to me - (I paid in for over 50 years before taking penny one) - Medicare is done badly as drug companies and the AMA has too much influence. If we paid for medical school, as is often done by the governments in western Europe, we would have more justification in asking Drs to be more reasonable and cooperative in cost levels. - other items I ignore but the concept tha there will not be “enough wealth” to payout Soc Sec when industrial productivity and food production is constantly rising is a question of if and how we the people want to handle it. (unless global warming gets us.) - there is essentially no problem funding either if we take off the ceilings on the payments - at least at the employer side.
4. Are you the type of individual who feels that you had to do it all on your own and there is no free lunch - so the federal government should stay out of your business and be "seen and not heard" at the state level. And that your state can take care of what it needs to take care of without the federal government butting in?
We are in a democracy with a 200 plus year history of stable government and with that foundation no one can honestly say they did it “alone”.
5. Do you believe that a federal government that does more is any more corrupt than a federal government that does less? Do you believe that a federal government that does more is any more inefficient than a federal government that does less?
NO
6. Explain your views on what your ideal federal and state government would look like?
I don’t want to talk about FDR and Bernie Sanders now.
7. Was Uncle Joe right or do you think he is either making a sweeping generalization or is he wrong?
He is wrong - a convenient saying standing pat on his position
8. Do you feel that corporations get many breaks that they should not be getting? Should corporations pay more? Should US corporations be allowed to get tax breaks and move their jobs offshore to other countries? Who should do more to keep corporations in line?
Many do - Large one lobby for them and pay and support elected officials. tjhey get breaks they should not. They should realize without our democracy they are toast and without local fire departments maybe really toasted etc. If they move their jobs off shore they should ger no tax cuts at all and should pay for those products a share towards our programs by being obligated to bring any profits home or at least to pay taxes on the profits.
Vincent, I particularly liked your answer to question #4:Are you the type of individual who feels that you had to do it all on your own and there is no free lunch - so the federal government should stay out of your business and be "seen and not heard" at the state level. And that your state can take care of what it needs to take care of without the federal government butting in?
You wrote: We are in a democracy with a 200 plus year history of stable government and with that foundation no one can honestly say they did it “alone”.
Very true.
Ann wrote: "Vincent, I particularly liked your answer to question #4:Are you the type of individual who feels that you had to do it all on your own and there is no free lunch - so the federal government shou..."
Hi Ann
I did it sort of "on my own" - but in the nest of America - New York if you wish.
So I got a decent education - at government cost - which was partly New York and partly USA - and I have lived in safe places
and have been lucky with health, family etc.
If you live in a place like here where when you have begun to build your life nothing and nothing takes away the first stones you have set, as is happening now in Syria and happened in Kosovo and in most of the rest of the world between 1936 or so and 1945 or so - one has to realize that it is not done "all on your own".
So I worked hard and was lucky and got good chances and not derailed by severe illness etc - but this was in America. - not just New York - but the America that has the corn states, the oil/coal states (although now we have to stop that), the fruit states etc. -
So I think it is the job of the American people, together through our governments, to help set a platform so that all our citizens can accomplish what they can.
If the Federal government stayed "out of our business"my grandparents and parents and I would have Soc Security etc - New Orleans would not have had aid after Katrina - the Axis would likely have conquered us.
So I am in favor of a well run Federal and state government.
No matter how competent you are there are days it won't work - you get too old, there is an earthquake etc.
Anyway - too many words.
My state is pretty good mostly but not all states are that way I think.
TR confused me in this chapter. He was sending out mixed messages, and I wondered whether he was a person who avoided conflict, since he was very accommodating to cultivate good will. He advocated reform, but not too fast. But then when Senator Elkins' creative interpretation did not please TR, he influenced Senator Dolliver to write a railroad bill that had more teeth. Perhaps it just comes back to the fact that navigating a complex issue with many people and their different agendas requires deep dives into the gray zone.
Toward the end of the chapter was mention of La Follette coming to Washington as a new Senator and introducing the Wisconsin idea. Having lived in Wisconsin for many years, I heard about the Wisconsin idea a lot, but mostly as it pertained to the University of Wisconsin - that it has a responsibility to improving the life and intellect of all the state's citizens.Recently Gov. Scott Walker proposed removing mention of this philosophy from the UW's mission statement, but that was one fight he didn't win. He backed down after some intense criticism.
Still, I wonder, as the UW gets less and less of its funding from the public coffers, will that philosophy be sustained? Or will the corporations / sponsors just want the university to simply churn out skilled workers?
I was pleased to read the La Follette was in the Senate hall of fame, as I tend to like rabble rousers who aren't in it just for themselves. That Calhoun is also in this group was odd to me at first, but I suppose it's a bit like the Time Magazine Person of the Year, who gets picked for having a big impact on the world whether it's positive or not.
Here are some or my answers to some of Bentley's preliminary questions:1.b) Do you sometimes drive on your state's roads and bridges replete with potholes and wonder what your Senator or Congressman is doing about these road conditions in DC. Probably nothing because he is at the federal level - or are you interested in the infrastructure problems that cannot be fixed at the state level be mandated and rectified for the citizens of this country by the federal government? - for example, the lead pipes in Flint, Michigan?
I think that sometimes big government is kind of bad but sometimes good. I do complain about the horrible roads. Where I live now in Florida there are some roads that are not so great. There was a proposal to add a gas tax to help fix up the roads and even though the people constantly complain about the roads they were overwhelmingly opposed to the tax!
2. When things go wrong, do you think that your state has the ability to fix them? Do they have enough manpower, funds and other resources? What about when a big storm hits like Sandy or Katrina? Or do you think that the federal government should do something to fix the mess that your governor can or will not do? Or do you think that your state can only afford so much and if it did not get the help of the federal government many things would be swept under the carpet and ignored like the pipes in Flint, Michigan?
When I lived in NY I experienced superstorm Sandy and was grateful the the feds helped out NY which was quite overwhelmed by that storm. I haven’t yet experienced a hurricane here in Florida yet (knock on wood.)
4. Are you the type of individual who feels that you had to do it all on your own and there is no free lunch - so the federal government should stay out of your business and be "seen and not heard" at the state level. And that your state can take care of what it needs to take care of without the federal government butting in?
I do not believe that I am supposed to do it all on my own. Humans are community beings and I think that part of that community is helping one another. I think that government should be by the people, for the people.
Hello folks, among the most fascinating figures to me were not just the protagonists, TR and La Follette, but also the antagonists, Aldrich and Uncle Joe, and I'm curious what people think of them. A couple related questions for the group:1. We live in a time with legislative power is much less concentrated. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan have struggled and often failed to impose their will on their respective branches. As we see in the book, concentrated power can produce inaction when the leaders oppose change. But distributed power has also produced terrible gridlock. What is the right balance?
2. Aldrich and Cannon have different perspectives on the role of government. Cannon is more laissez-faire--what we might call libertarian today. He advocates a very limited role for government. Aldrich, by contrast, sees government and corporations as partners, working together to run the country smoothly and efficiently. He is the epitome of what Ted Cruz might call a "crony capitalist." Which of these men do you think better characterizes today's Republican Party?
Ted Cruz is a crony caitalist. His wife is a big wig at Goldman Sachs. i see both parties as being on the side of big business.
message 134:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 24, 2016 09:06AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
concentrated power can produce inaction when the leaders oppose change. But distributed power has also produced terrible gridlock. What is the right balance?(view spoiler)
message 136:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 24, 2016 01:18PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I love this quote by Henry David Thoreau -
Indeed indeed, I cannot tell, / Though I ponder on it well, / Which were easier to state, / All my love or all my hate. —Henry David Thoreau
Just saw it again at the top of this article:
Update - Source: The New Republic - "Everybody Hates Ted" - https://newrepublic.com/article/12880...
Michael asked: Which of these men do you think better characterizes today's Republican Party?I agree with Rachel. Aldrich reminds me the most of today's Republican party. LIke mainstream Republicans, he believed that what is good for big business is good for the U.S. as a whole. Incidentally it was also very good for him since he profited immensely from his support of business bigwigs in regard to tariffs and the railroads.
Some businesses (not all, of course, as Vincent rightly pointed out, ) can make out like bandits, but we are repeatedly told that lack of regulation and low taxes on the rich are good for the economy because they will create new jobs. Check out how that's working out for the schools and jobs in Kansas where
governor Brownback has led a crusade to lower taxes.
I think some of Trump's supporters have finally figured out that what's good for the rich isn't necessarily good for them. I agree with Bentley about Ted Cruz - not honest. His "Trust Ted" motto is highly ironic.
"If the Federal Government continues to centralize, we shall soon find that we have a vast bureaucratic government, which shall prove inefficient if not corrupt." --- Uncle JoeAmazing what Uncle Joe would have thought of today's government.
I really do not have a state. I am in the military and move from state to state even though I have gravitated towards the wonderful west coast. I will comment on a few aspects of government from my observations of time and the interesting reading to date.
1. Corruption is business. Business is government. Therefore government is corrupt. I would say though to what degree? Our corruption is nowhere near the corruption of the Middle East. Corruption and its associated formal business of bribery is a standard practice. If you are not corrupt you may be viewed as weak in the power politics if you are involved in Baghdad government. Money equals power. Those that get the money get the power. If you want something done therefore you pay the piper. We are nowhere near close to that. Does that make our level of corruption any better? Of course not. It should however make us watchful, far more watchful than we are.
2. Big government. I am in the biggest corporation of the world...the Department of Defense. I have watched the military mission change from the strategic deterrence and Cold War mentality, to the rogue state mentality, to the Nato intervention mentality, to the war on terror mentality, to the nation-building mentality, to the natural disaster mentality, to the back to a Cold War mentality. What does that mentality litany mean? Big! As the mission tasking grows, so does the size of the organization to deal with the mission. I have watched our officers become technical experts, strategic experts, tactical experts, disaster response experts, to yes even statesmen. That means the organization is going to be large. If you slashed the DOD out of the government, what would be left? Not much. Does that mean we are inefficient, well that depends on who you ask and what that organization was trying to accomplish. If you have an organization responsible for a single mission or tasking, then that organization "should" be extremely efficient. The 20 pounds of crap that you throw into a 5 pound sack, well you get the picture. Our government is large. It is large because it is responsive. The more the people want government to do, therefore the larger it will get. Hurricane Katrina response, taking Iraq and Afghanistan with the associated rebuilding of those countries, and the looming showdown with China will ensure that government growth continues. Efficacy of that growth is the question of the future.
3. Social Security. What a great slush fund. Nothing more to say on something I will never see.
I do like the book discussion to date. Chapter 2 with the railroad and power centralization in the Senate is very interesting. I am used to the likes of the military-industrial complex. I am very unused to discussions on shipment price gouging or driving competition out of business. Discussions of tariffs and internal politics is almost completely new to me. I am enjoying every minute of it.
In discussing concentrated versus distributed power, I tend to lean toward distributed power. By nature, concentrated power will get more done but with nothing to moderate can run out of control (Kansas state government, federal government from 2000-06). Distributed power can lead to more inaction but if worked at can lead to great results.In Ohio, our state government has run out of control. With an absentee governor (thanks Kasich), the legislature has decided to pass a litany of socially conservative issues while allowing the state infrastructure to continue to crumble.
Ann wrote: "Michael asked: Which of these men do you think better characterizes today's Republican Party?I agree with Rachel. Aldrich reminds me the most of today's Republican party. LIke mainstream Republic..."
I think also that Aldrich reminds me of today's republican party. He also reminds me of Ebenezer Scrooge. Pg 38: "He was also man of uncommon ambition....In 1866, 24-year-old Aldrich wrote to his fiancee that he hungered for more - 'willingly or forcibly wrested from a selfish world. Success (counted as the mass counts it, by dollars and cents) shall be mine.'"
Its hard to compare those two with today's top leadership, if you can call McConnell a leader. Aldrich and Cannon were true conservatives, they wanted nothing to change. I don't know what the current crop of Republican leaders (Ryan excepted) really want. It seems they are more afraid of doing anything than even considering doing something to protect their interests. The leaders of the Congress also have little or no leverage over their people, as compared to the significant power that Aldridge & co / Cannon had over the political lives of their colleagues. Even LBJ had more power and knew how to use it. McConnell is but a child in this new world, whining about everything but really helpless to get anything done. The conservative Republican Party in 1908 at least had a central political purpose to their lives. The conservative Republican Party of 2016 is without purpose or reason. Oh, and there is no Teddy or LaFollette anywhere to be seen. Cruz, well, Aldrich would have eaten him alive with a little Chianti.
1. a) Do you agree with the above statement? All of the time, some of the time or mostly never? Explain your position. I agree that any large group of people will have trouble making decisions. Anytime everyone gets a say things will slow down. I work for a large company and I see this everyday. When I had before worked for smaller companies, decisions were much swifter. However, just because decisions come fast doesn’t make them right.
b) Do you sometimes drive on your state's roads and bridges replete with potholes and wonder what your Senator or Congressman is doing about these road conditions in DC. Probably nothing because he is at the federal level - or are you interested in the infrastructure problems that cannot be fixed at the state level be mandated and rectified for the citizens of this country by the federal government? - for example, the lead pipes in Flint, Michigan?
I live in a small town in California where the lead finance person for the city embezzled around 5 million from the city. So, yes I wonder what the heck they are doing and how these things can happen. As I said before just because decisions are made fast doesn’t make them right.
2. When things go wrong, do you think that your state has the ability to fix them? Do they have enough manpower, funds and other resources? What about when a big storm hits like Sandy or Katrina? Or do you think that the federal government should do something to fix the mess that your governor can or will not do? Or do you think that your state can only afford so much and if it did not get the help of the federal government many things would be swept under the carpet and ignored like the pipes in Flint, Michigan?
When things go wrong in CA as they have been for years, no we don’t have the funds or the people (at least elected officials) to correct it.
3. Are you happy with your social security and medicare or medicaid or federal pensions? If so these are federal programs? Are you unhappy about the cost of prescription drugs and wish that the federal government would do more about it? Do you have children with special needs and have you found that your state and local government are not doing enough to educate and take care of your children and you think that the federal government should do more? Are you a college aged student or a parent of college aged students who are having problems affording to send your children to college or are you having a hard time trying to work, study or pay off big college loans? If so, do you think that the Federal government should be doing more? Do you think that Bernie Sanders is your candidate because he feels that college should be tuition free and students debt free or do you believe that Sanders has a great idea but what is his plan for paying for it. Do you think yourself a progressive, a liberal, a conservative, a moderate or an independent?
Medicare and social security (if they are still around when I retire) will be insufficient for me to live on in CA. I will probably have to move away from my children to another less expensive state to live in. Or start saving a bunch more than I am currently able to.
4. Are you the type of individual who feels that you had to do it all on your own and there is no free lunch - so the federal government should stay out of your business and be "seen and not heard" at the state level. And that your state can take care of what it needs to take care of without the federal government butting in?
The government has not helped me much. We are just above the requirements for government help. We have received help from family and thats they only way we can make it.
5. Do you believe that a federal government that does more is any more corrupt than a federal government that does less? Do you believe that a federal government that does more is any more inefficient than a federal government that does less?
Ideally regardless of how much they do or do not do they would not be corrupt.
6. Explain your views on what your ideal federal and state government would look like?
I have no idea. But I do know that what we have in the US could stand some improvement.
7. Was Uncle Joe right or do you think he is either making a sweeping generalization or is he wrong?
Let me read some more and get back to you.
8. Do you feel that corporations get many breaks that they should not be getting? Should corporations pay more? Should US corporations be allowed to get tax breaks and move their jobs offshore to other countries? Who should do more to keep corporations in line?
I do think that large corporations get too many breaks. While small businesses suffer.
Jason wrote: "1. a) Do you agree with the above statement? All of the time, some of the time or mostly never? Explain your position. I agree that any large group of people will have trouble making decisions. A..."
just a comment that I don;t think that Soc Sec was ever thought to be the sole source of income in retirement - though sadly it is for too many - but these days one has to save to maintain life style in retirement I think - especially as many of us will spend half of the time we spent working in retirement so if we do not plan for that it is not the fault of Soc Sec. - as said this is just a comment - please let's remember that Soc Sec also contributes to support one kids if you die before they are 18 or so - and long term disability (hopefully filtering out cheaters) etc.
Charles wrote: "Its hard to compare those two with today's top leadership, if you can call McConnell a leader. Aldrich and Cannon were true conservatives, they wanted nothing to change. I don't know what the curre..."Charles, I agree with you that many people in the Republican party today seem to be "afraid to do anything." I also agree that there is really no comparison with 1908 Republicans.
As I said, I know very little about US politics, but it seems to me that the definition of conservative changes from person to person. You said "Aldrich and Cannon were true conservatives, they wanted nothing to change." That's probably not how most conservatives define themselves.
You are right ; but then most who call themselves conservative are coming from an ideological as opposed to a philosophical point of view. Only some have Burke and even fewer have taken him to heartburn their views. That's why I thought that Aldrich & co were conservative . They , given the times and their education would have been well acquainted with Burke. This group are right wing ideologues for the most part , as are I might suggest the left wing ideologues opposing them . But that is a discussion for another thread altogether .
Charles wrote: "You are right ; but then most who call themselves conservative are coming from an ideological as opposed to a philosophical point of view. Only some have Burke and even fewer have taken him to hear..."Charles, your distinction between ideological and philosophical conservatism is very helpful, and in hindsight, it might have fit well into the book. Before this period, I suggest that ideological conservatism did not exist, at least not in a recognizable form. It arose as a reaction to progressivism during the period covered by the book. In that sense, Aldrich and Cannon may have been philosophical conservatives, but they were also the progenitors of ideological conservatism in the United States.
Yes, perhaps correct, as anti-new deal ideology and hatred emerged just a few decades later in response to Progressivism Part II. Unfortunately it morphed into the anti-communist red baiting of the 50's and the Goldwater led reaction to emerging Progressivism Part III of the civil rights era. And here we end up in our time , with a right that has mostly lost whatever philosophical basis it had for its mission and instead replaced it with an emotionally wrought ideological approach to politics and governance. Not a pretty sight.
Didn't get a chance this past week to catch up in here but have read everything now and what an interesting discussion has gone on. I tend to agree with the answers Savannah and Vincent wrote for the questions so I won't restate but I really like their point about taxation. There is a serious refusal by the public to allocate sufficient money to pay for the things we both want and need. However, I think we need to understand why and I suspect it's because so many people do not like where a lot of the money goes both nationally and locally and the only control they can exercise is simply refuse to provide it . I don't really know what the solution to that is, but when communities refuse to raise the necessary monies or pass bond issues then all of us suffer. Schools decline, infrastructure deterioates and families suffer.What struck me the most about this chapter was the quote in the last paragraph when the author noted that Senators were upset that TR was exceeding his authority and Senator Spooner said, "“The only fear I have ever entertained . . . for the future of our government has arisen from apparent popular toleration of or encouragement to invasions by one department of the government of the functions of another— in the nations or in the states . . . And when the people of any state permit, under any pretext, those three branches of the government to be reduced to two, they tolerate treason to our constitutional system.” I happened to be reading it while the Supremes were looking at the case brought over President Obama's use of executive orders and was struck by the parallel to TR's time.
I am a little behind on my reading, as my brother (Goodreads author James W. Huston) recently passed away. I will catch up as soon as I can.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Belle La Follette: Progressive Era Reformer (other topics)The Big Scrum: How Teddy Roosevelt Saved Football (other topics)
Profiles in Courage (other topics)
Profiles in Courage (other topics)
Unreasonable Men: Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican Rebels Who Created Progressive Politics (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Nancy C. Unger (other topics)Nancy C. Unger (other topics)
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (other topics)
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (other topics)
Michael Wolraich (other topics)
Discussion idea:
One thing that I think we need to keep in mind is that the current political labels of conservatives and progressives were not used during the time period discussed in this bo..."
I think the "Standpatters of today are the Tea Party and I really don't want to say this the NRA. (I don't want to get in a debate about guns.)
The Tea Party wants reduce spending at any cost. They want candidates to sign pledges not to raise taxes, etc.
The NRA's position on guns is based on a non-industrial state. Wired Magazine Article
One chart in the article shows that the Armed forces has 23% of the guns in America, the police 1% of guns and the other 76% are own by civilians. How many do we need?