Prior to the Civil War, the South used its solid bloc status and the Democratic Party to dominate the Federal government. “Nullification” and what not was pretty much just for when they couldn’t get their way, and there were plenty of northern Democrats willing to cooperate with the Southern agenda in order to advance their careers. The more Old Hickory faded into history, the more this became the case.

Slavery was in ZERO danger from the election of Abraham Lincoln. He would have faced a very difficult time banning slavery in all new states, as was his agenda, let alone attacking it where it already existed. Yet the Calhounists weren’t willing to obstruct according to the rules; having lost an election, they opted to destroy the country rather than accept even the slightest loss of power.

You can see this in the modern GOP quite plainly. Basically, if you win public office and you aren’t one of them, you aren’t even slightly legitimate. Anything the GOP wants to do is kosher, even if it isn’t legal. Etc, etc, etc.

What bothers me is that candidates across the board seem to worry more about the sound bite than about sound thinking.

Regards,
Dennis

I’d like you to go ahead an demonstrate that (you know, that’s what “demonstrable” means). All you did was make the claim, and failed to back it up with anything of substance.

I can back up my statement (note: this is not an exhaustive list) and, to make it easier on you I’ll use 1865 instead of 1800:

1) Universal suffrage (includes advancements in the voting rights of black Americans, women, people aged 18-21 and those poor enough to be deterred by a poll tax);
2) Civil Rights victories in the 50s & 60s (this isn’t a double-counting of #1, but rather refers to advances in freedom other than voting rights. Jim Crow was a lot more than vote suppression).
3) Various advancements in the rights of women (again, non-voting rights stuff, like the Equal Pay Act, FLMA, Title VII, Title IX, and the ever-controversial Roe v. Wade decision)
4) Gay rights advances, largely in the last decade.

Some of these things are directly b/c of action by the Federal government, though not all. Women’s suffrage and gay rights are examples that have bubbled up from the states as much as anything.

Obvious losses of freedom over the same timespan include:

Prohibition of Alcohol, thankfully repealed (and thus irrelevant to this discussion)!
The “War on Drugs”
Higher Taxes
Various Regulations.

I think regulation is double-edged. Regulations constrain actions, but they also protect the public from invisible/undetectable harms (contamination/pollution being an obvious example, but there are others such as equal pay for equal work), which is in keeping with the general notion that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. There is an important distinction between constraining action that harms no one or only the actor on the one hand, and action that harms others on the other (for instance: municipalities banning smoking in restaurants).

That’s not to say that every regulation is appropriate – as with many things, they have to be evaluated individually. I’ve no doubt we have some that are unhelpful.

Anyway, 1865-present is a story of increasing freedom. If you can demonstrate otherwise, go ahead.

I always find it interesting that the “Know Nothing” comparison is made for the “religious right” or some other conservative element of the Republican party. If one is a Christian and a conservative, then the stereotype exists that he/she is brainless, racist, a clone of Rush Limbaugh, etc. This is infrequently the case, albeit sometimes true (just as it is with liberals).

For the record, many Christians are conservative and well educated. Take it from a somewhat libertarian one with a Master’s Degree in political science and who is an administrator in a county government office. And we can articulate our positions quite well, thank you.

I can continue to read and enjoy Eric’s books, so keep up the good work. But as for the blog, I have noticed one too many anti-Christian and anti-conservative remarks for my liking.

I think this *is* neo-confederate lost cause stuff, though.

The GOP lost a couple of elections (2006-2008) and all of a sudden it was all “take our country back!” and far more inflammatory stuff. You didn’t lose your country. You lost a couple of elections (and have subsequently won one).

As for the scope of the Federal government, I think Grant explained it rather well actually in his memoirs. In the beginning, the states were practically seperate countries. Travel and communication took days or weeks. Politics and economics reflected that reality. By Grant’s day, there were railroads & telegraphs. Now travel took hours or days, and communication was even faster (now, those are faster still). This bound the states far closer together, and I think that leads inevitably toward increasing centralization/standardization. In Grant’s day it also made papering over the divide over slavery increasingly difficult and ultimately impossible. Thankfully I don’t think our current divisions are so deep.

Tpday things are interconnected in ways that would’ve been unimaginable when the Constitution was written. This has led, over time, to the Feds taking on more. The march of technology isn’t the only driver there, of course. The civil rights struggle is another example of the Feds throwing their weight around (to require recalcitrant states to comply with the Constitution*).

I draw a distinction between arguing for a certain preferred level of spending and/or taxation on the one hand and arguing that our current status-quo is a perversion of some perfect past condition (usually defined as “as set forth by the [presumably perfect] founding fathers” on the other. The first is fine by me, though I might argue otherwise.

The second is what sets me off. That perfect past condition is mythical. It never existed. The USA of 2011 is far, far, far more free than the USA of 1800 (or 1865), and the Federal government is a large part of why that is.

* on that note, the opponents of the Civil Rights movement were all about “states rights” and keeping the Federal government out of their states & towns. The Confederate Battle Flag suddenly made a comeback. There was much discussion about tyranny and socialism. So you’ll have to forgive me if I view all the present-day talk about taking the country back and reducing the scope of the Federal government with deep skepticism, particularly because it was utterly absent from 2001-2006.