The presidential election circus upon which we are well launched strikes me -- solipsistically -- as a contest not among individuals, not between parties, but between two theories I've long carried about in my head about how US politics works.
I've written of these theories before. Here is one example. What I think of as the "short cycle" theory postulates cycles that are roughly 30 years long -- so either 32 or 28 years, since 30 itself is not divisible by 4. Obama's election in 2008 can be compared to the election of other relatively obscure figures who carried on the impetus of a reform movement past its prime. A haberdasher in 1948 elected as a last hurrah for the New Deal. Four years later he bowed out, letting Adlai Stevenson take the fall for Eisenhower's victory. Twenty-eight years after 1948 brings us to 1976, when a peanut farner was elected as a final upsurge of New Frontier/Great Society sentiment. Four years later he was mugged by a Kennedy on the way to a re-nomination that proved worthless.
But there is also a "long cycle" theory. According to this, there have been three great periods of constitutional equilibria in US history, separated by chaotic periods of tumult. (There were also two distinct imperial periods in American colonial history, separated by a period of tumult in the 1680s.)
It certainly appears as if the Third Republic ran aground in 2007-08 in much the same way that the Second Republic ran aground in 1929. If that is so, then we are in the midst of a period of turmoil or chaos, and when the dust settles we shall find ourselves with a new equilibrium, a Fourth Republic. If this cyclical theory is right, then Obama is a Washington, a Lincoln, or a Roosevelt, and 2012 is not 1952 or 1980 all over again. It is 1936.
I enjoy the contemplation of both theories, and I have carried them both around in my head. Now I find that they are in stark conflict, and that one of them seems about to receive its falsification. My only regret is that I have but two theories to give for my country.
Showing posts with label Abraham Lincoln. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abraham Lincoln. Show all posts
30 December 2011
16 July 2010
Lincoln and McClellan
I've been reading a book by John C. Waugh, Lincoln and McClellan: The Troubled Partnership Between a President and his General.
Here's Waugh's website with the neat holograph of Waugh himself.
His story in Lincoln and McClellan is a somewhat familiar one to civil war buffs, but good stories always bear re-telling. Here is one sample paragraph:
"The new general-in-chief would not fight; he would continue to prepare. So all would continue to be quiet along the Potomac, and that was no longer generally considered a desirable condition but a curse. If there was quiet on the Potomac, there was very little silence from the people in the North. The public outcry was 'On to Richmond!' which the influential New York Tribune was running daily as its masthead."
About sixty pages later, we get to the climactic showdown between Generals McClellan and Lee.
"Displaying a quality of audacity that McClellan believed he lacked, Lee attacked on June 26, on a very clear, still, midafternoon....Lee's army slammed into McClellan's right flank north of the Chickahominy at Mechanicsville, opening a bloody week of fighting that would become known as the Seven Days battles. Porter fought the Confederates at Mechanicsville on this first day, and the battle was at best a draw -- in effect, therefore a Confederate failure. McClelland pulled back to Gaine's Mill, where an implacable Lee assailed him again the next day, June 27, in a fierce battle beginning at noon and lasting nine hours. McClellan got the worst of the encounter and the next day withdrew his army farther down the James to Savage's Station. Lee followed."
Here's Waugh's website with the neat holograph of Waugh himself.
His story in Lincoln and McClellan is a somewhat familiar one to civil war buffs, but good stories always bear re-telling. Here is one sample paragraph:
"The new general-in-chief would not fight; he would continue to prepare. So all would continue to be quiet along the Potomac, and that was no longer generally considered a desirable condition but a curse. If there was quiet on the Potomac, there was very little silence from the people in the North. The public outcry was 'On to Richmond!' which the influential New York Tribune was running daily as its masthead."
About sixty pages later, we get to the climactic showdown between Generals McClellan and Lee.
"Displaying a quality of audacity that McClellan believed he lacked, Lee attacked on June 26, on a very clear, still, midafternoon....Lee's army slammed into McClellan's right flank north of the Chickahominy at Mechanicsville, opening a bloody week of fighting that would become known as the Seven Days battles. Porter fought the Confederates at Mechanicsville on this first day, and the battle was at best a draw -- in effect, therefore a Confederate failure. McClelland pulled back to Gaine's Mill, where an implacable Lee assailed him again the next day, June 27, in a fierce battle beginning at noon and lasting nine hours. McClellan got the worst of the encounter and the next day withdrew his army farther down the James to Savage's Station. Lee followed."
12 February 2009
Happy Birthday, Abe
We in the US usually force Abe to blow out the candles with George, because at some point two different holidays so close together became a pain in the butt, so they were fused into a single Monday event.
This year, on this day, Abe does get some special attention, throwing George into the shade, because it's his 200th. Still, even on this occasion, Abe has to share props with Charles Darwin.
This blog has done its bit for Darwin already -- last week Link here. So I'll devote the remainder of this entry exclusively to Lincoln.
In the filing cabinet of my mind, as in that of most conemporary Americans, there are any number of Lincoln myths, along with a more-or-less clear understanding that they are myths. There's the notion, for example, that the immortal language of the Gettysburg Address was dashed off on the back of an envelope while he was riding on the train to give the speech.
Lincoln actually showed a "rough draft" of this speech to James Speed, his Attorney General, on November 17, two days before it was to be delivered. He admitted to Speed that he had been laboring over it and was having difficulty.
That train ride from DC to Gettysburg, by the way, was a long one. It would take two hours today. It took fifteen in 1863. The train arrived at Gettysburg at 5 PM pm the 18th, and Lincoln (who may for all we know have continued to labor on the speech over those 15 hours -- that would hardly be a matter of dashing it off!) stayed overnight at the home of David Wills, the principal organizer of the dedication ceremonies.
We know that Lincoln was still working on the speech that evening. He apparently went to another home, where his Secretary of State William Seward was staying, at 11 PM and read him the speech looking for reactions. We don't know what Seward said or what revisions may have resulted.
So this was a product of turmoil. The point is important, I think, because the myth that eloquence is casual, just a 'gift' some people have when they toss things off, has had a pernicious effect. It helps contribute to the general notion that achievements are the product of talent, that effort is secondary, and that if something doesn't come easily to you, there's no point working at it.
"I can't write an immortal speech in a few moments on the back of an envelope, so why should I worry about composition at all?"
I doubt many people would put it just that way, but I do think it should be understood that eloquence, like so much else is life, is the product of effort, though perhaps effort working in co-ordination with talent.
Rest in peace, Mr. Lincoln.
This year, on this day, Abe does get some special attention, throwing George into the shade, because it's his 200th. Still, even on this occasion, Abe has to share props with Charles Darwin.
This blog has done its bit for Darwin already -- last week Link here. So I'll devote the remainder of this entry exclusively to Lincoln.
In the filing cabinet of my mind, as in that of most conemporary Americans, there are any number of Lincoln myths, along with a more-or-less clear understanding that they are myths. There's the notion, for example, that the immortal language of the Gettysburg Address was dashed off on the back of an envelope while he was riding on the train to give the speech.
Lincoln actually showed a "rough draft" of this speech to James Speed, his Attorney General, on November 17, two days before it was to be delivered. He admitted to Speed that he had been laboring over it and was having difficulty.
That train ride from DC to Gettysburg, by the way, was a long one. It would take two hours today. It took fifteen in 1863. The train arrived at Gettysburg at 5 PM pm the 18th, and Lincoln (who may for all we know have continued to labor on the speech over those 15 hours -- that would hardly be a matter of dashing it off!) stayed overnight at the home of David Wills, the principal organizer of the dedication ceremonies.
We know that Lincoln was still working on the speech that evening. He apparently went to another home, where his Secretary of State William Seward was staying, at 11 PM and read him the speech looking for reactions. We don't know what Seward said or what revisions may have resulted.
So this was a product of turmoil. The point is important, I think, because the myth that eloquence is casual, just a 'gift' some people have when they toss things off, has had a pernicious effect. It helps contribute to the general notion that achievements are the product of talent, that effort is secondary, and that if something doesn't come easily to you, there's no point working at it.
"I can't write an immortal speech in a few moments on the back of an envelope, so why should I worry about composition at all?"
I doubt many people would put it just that way, but I do think it should be understood that eloquence, like so much else is life, is the product of effort, though perhaps effort working in co-ordination with talent.
Rest in peace, Mr. Lincoln.
06 September 2008
Frederick Douglass
Here's a neat quotation from Frederick Douglass, assessing Abraham Lincoln's role in the end of slavery in the US.
Thanks to my friend Henry Cohen, in whose review of a recent book on Lincoln I discovered this.
"Viewed from genuine abolition grounds, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."
13 October 2007
Yes, Close the Loophole
I don't believe in taxation in general. I don't believe in sovereignty or government either. All that is implied in the label "anarcho-capitalist" which is part of the mission statement of this blog.
Ordinarily, then, I wouldn't get involved in debates over particular tax proposals up or down. It is my mission as an anarcho-cap to think out of precisely that box.
Still, I have seen (relatively) strong and weak arguments made in "within the box" terms, in debates especially over what does or doesn't count as a capital gain. I know the difference -- between strong and weak that is -- and some of the arguments made to defend tax loopholes, made to defend in particular favorable capital-gains like treatment for some very ordinary-income type cash receipts (by the managers of hedge and private equity funds) are painfully weak.
I keep hearing and reading these bad arguments for how compensation for that particular sort of well-remunerated employment should really be considered capital gains because it takes place within the context of a limited partnership and the managers have their own money involved so its only fair to be nice to them and we don't want to wage class warfare by calling compensation by its right name. It is painful to watch it, but I do my duty.
On September 8, on this blog, away from the obligations of employment and propriety, I discussed the general considerations governing why capital gains are generally treated favorably in the first place. All I'll say today in expansion upon that is: Leges non verbis, sed rebus, sunt impositae.
Or, in humbler non-Latin terms, I reminded of the story about Abraham Lincoln in which he asked a cabinet member, "how many legs does a dog have if we call a tail a leg?"
"Well, sir, then it would have five."
"No. It would have four. Calling a tail a leg won't make it a leg."
Income is income, and income earned by managerial effort is "ordinary income" for which the law prescribes a rate. Calling it capital gains for various spurious reasons ought to stop. Or ought to be seen for what it is by the general run of folks who can't benefit by such trickery, in the hope that seeing what is underway here will diminish their attachment to the myth of sovereignty and will help hasten the day of anarcho-capitalism.
Ordinarily, then, I wouldn't get involved in debates over particular tax proposals up or down. It is my mission as an anarcho-cap to think out of precisely that box.
Still, I have seen (relatively) strong and weak arguments made in "within the box" terms, in debates especially over what does or doesn't count as a capital gain. I know the difference -- between strong and weak that is -- and some of the arguments made to defend tax loopholes, made to defend in particular favorable capital-gains like treatment for some very ordinary-income type cash receipts (by the managers of hedge and private equity funds) are painfully weak.
I keep hearing and reading these bad arguments for how compensation for that particular sort of well-remunerated employment should really be considered capital gains because it takes place within the context of a limited partnership and the managers have their own money involved so its only fair to be nice to them and we don't want to wage class warfare by calling compensation by its right name. It is painful to watch it, but I do my duty.
On September 8, on this blog, away from the obligations of employment and propriety, I discussed the general considerations governing why capital gains are generally treated favorably in the first place. All I'll say today in expansion upon that is: Leges non verbis, sed rebus, sunt impositae.
Or, in humbler non-Latin terms, I reminded of the story about Abraham Lincoln in which he asked a cabinet member, "how many legs does a dog have if we call a tail a leg?"
"Well, sir, then it would have five."
"No. It would have four. Calling a tail a leg won't make it a leg."
Income is income, and income earned by managerial effort is "ordinary income" for which the law prescribes a rate. Calling it capital gains for various spurious reasons ought to stop. Or ought to be seen for what it is by the general run of folks who can't benefit by such trickery, in the hope that seeing what is underway here will diminish their attachment to the myth of sovereignty and will help hasten the day of anarcho-capitalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
