Americans Relate to Founders, Not Progressives

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

By Michael Barone

Democrats are reportedly planning to raise $125 million for a campaign to sell Obamacare to the voting public. Apparently, the idea is that what 50-plus presidential speeches and statements and months of congressional debate could not do can be done by $125 million spent on everything from TV ads to community organizers.

Maybe. But there seems to be a more fundamental problem here. The Obama Democrats didn't set out to produce an unpopular stimulus package, an unpopular health care bill and an unpopular cap-and-trade scheme.

They thought these initiatives would be popular. In their view, history is a story of progress from small government to big government, and as historians of the New Deal wrote, that progress is especially welcome in times of economic distress.

The massive unpopularity of the Obama Democrats' programs suggests that view of history is defective. Let me propose another, starting with the Founding Fathers.

The Founders believed there was a tension between representative government and the right to life, liberty and property. So they wrote the Fifth Amendment to ensure that no citizen was deprived of those rights without due process of law.

In Britain, that tension had been limited by allowing only property-owners to vote. That way, those without property could not elect representatives who would steal from the rich and give to the poor.

In the early years of our republic, that precaution did not seem necessary. We were a nation of farmers, where land was plentiful and labor scarce. The large majority of citizens then considered relevant -- white adult males -- actually owned the land they farmed. There was no danger in allowing all of them to vote, as would become the general rule in the U.S. by the early 19th century, because the large majority owned property.

The definition of relevant citizens in time expanded to include blacks and women. But as Americans and immigrants increasingly clustered in enormous cities, and as large industrial factories employed thousands of low-skill workers, the percentage of property owners fell.

One hundred years ago, most urban Americans rented rather than owned their homes. Many had no bank accounts, and few had significant financial assets. Elites worried that this proletariat might rise in revolution.

In this America, the Progressives argued that the Founders' vision was obsolete. Property rights should be subordinate to human rights. Government should regulate economic activity and "spread the wealth around," as Barack Obama told Joe the Plumber.

This view animated the New Deal in the 1930s and appealed to the non-property-owning majority. Franklin Roosevelt sowed the idea, harvested by the New Deal historians, that an ever-expanding government was both good and necessary. Democrats were referencing this when they said they were "making history" by passing their health care bill.

Their problem is that the America of the Progressives and New Dealers no longer exists. Government home-finance programs helped make us a nation of homeowners. Technological progress and deregulation squeezed out transportation and communications, and made the necessities of life less costly, enabling citizens to accumulate significant wealth in their working years.

True, we carried some of these things too far. Efforts to raise homeownership over 65 percent resulted in a housing price crash. Poorly understood financial innovations resulted in the financial crisis of 2008.

But we still live in an America like the America of the Founders, and unlike the America of the Progressives and the New Dealers, in which a majority of citizens are or have every prospect of becoming property owners. And a nation of property owners is less willing to plunder the property of others in search of some promised gain than a nation where most people don't and will never own significant property.

So when Susan Roesgen, then of CNN, upbraided a tea party protester in 2009 by reminding him that he was getting a $400 tax rebate thanks to the Democrats' stimulus package, she was met with utter dismissal. You don't sell out your property rights for a mere $400.

The polls and the post-2008 election results show that the purported beneficiaries of the Obama Democrats' programs are unenthusiastic about voting and people with modest incomes are trending heavily Republican. The only enthusiasm for the Obama Democrats' policies comes from David Brooks' "educated class": people who are or identify with the centralized experts tasked by the Obama Democrats with making decisions for the rest of us.

Unfortunately for the Obama Democrats, they, unlike property owners, are not a majority in today's America.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/28/americans_relate_to_founders_not_progressives_106117.html

[Pooky 3,787]

In Britain, that tension had been limited by allowing only property-owners to vote.

A FAIL of utter epic-ness.

In Britain, everyone over the age of 18 is entitled to vote.

With an upf*ck of this magnitude, the author of this BS needs to stick his head down the toilet and give himself a swirly.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Pooky

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What a ridiculous piece of garbage.

[SMR 368]

A FAIL of utter epic-ness.

In Britain, everyone over the age of 18 is entitled to vote.

With an upf*ck of this magnitude, the author of this BS needs to stick his head down the toilet and give himself a swirly.

Thank you for proving that you lack the perspective to intelligently comment on the article. The author is clearly referencing Britain in the 18th century (the Britain that the founders had come from). Hence the use of the past tense.

Mr. Big Dog, perhaps you would like to indicate why you think this article is incorrect. I don't agree with everything the author says. In particular, it remains to be seen what the exact balance in America is. However, he underlines a key dichotomy in America. There are those who pay for government services and those who use government services. Although many services are used by all, there are other services that are never used by those who pay for them.

While some of this can be justified by the fact that people may move from one category to the other (when you lose a job or retire, for instance) the reality is that many people remain in one group or the other their whole lives. If you make enough money to actually pay income taxes you likely make too much money to qualify for any means tested benefit. Thus, the law inherently prevents the people that pay for the services from actually using them. Of course, it remains to be seen what will happen in the election.

[mawilson 2,133]

A FAIL of utter epic-ness.

In Britain, everyone over the age of 18 is entitled to vote.

Not until 1969.

Before 1832, only male property owners could vote.

Reform Act 1832 extended voting rights to males who rented propertied land of a certain value, so allowing 1 in 7 males voting rights.

Reform Act 1867 enfranchised all male householders.

Representation of the People Act 1884 amended the Reform Act of 1867 so that it would apply equally to the countryside; this brought the voting population to 5,500,000, although 40% of males were still disenfranchised, whilst women could not vote.

Representation of the People Act 1918 gave women the right to vote, although with property restrictions and limited to those over 30 years old. This raised the electorate from 7.7 million to 21.4 million with women making up 40% of the electorate.

Representation of the People Act 1928 made women's voting rights equal with men, with voting possible at 21 with no property restrictions

Representation of the People Act 1969 extented suffrage to those 18 and older

[^_^ 5,021]

mawilson wins again.

[IndigoSkies 168]

Rich or poor, those who pay for government services or those who use government services in fact use government services. They are being protected by the defense ministry/department, they drive on the road that the government built using tax money, they are protected by the police forces, they are protected by the courts, etc. It maybe true that someone who makes 90K a year doesn't qualify for footstamps, but he sure as hell qualifies to many others government benefits. These benefits just don't pop our of the ground. Someone needs to pay for it. And yes, it's you. You need to pay for it.

[^_^ 5,021]

Rich or poor, those who pay for government services or those who use government services in fact use government services. They are being protected by the defense ministry/department, they drive on the road that the government built using tax money, they are protected by the police forces, they are protected by the courts, etc. It maybe true that someone who makes 90K a year doesn't qualify for footstamps, but he sure as hell qualifies to many others government benefits. These benefits just don't pop our of the ground. Someone needs to pay for it. And yes, it's you. You need to pay for it.

The problem for many conservatives are the narrow set of services that benefit people they wish didn't exist. They don't mind the military, the military protects their rights and they like their rights. What they don't like are the benefits that go to certain 'others'.

See, the American conservative loves America but doesn't much care for most Americans.

[SMOKE 1,426]

The problem for many conservatives are the narrow set of services that benefit people they wish didn't exist. They don't mind the military, the military protects their rights and they like their rights. What they don't like are the benefits that go to certain 'others'.

See, the American conservative loves America but doesn't much care for most Americans.

they don't like benefits that go to certain 'other'. doesn't care for most american.

1+1=4???? please elaborate sir.

[^_^ 5,021]

Your feigned confusion doesn't fool me.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The problem for many conservatives are the narrow set of services that benefit people they wish didn't exist. They don't mind the military, the military protects their rights and they like their rights. What they don't like are the benefits that go to certain 'others'.

See, the American conservative loves America but doesn't much care for most Americans.

I can see that.

Sick with no health insurance? = ** you

Unemployed or laid off? = ** you

Etc. etc.

[^_^ 5,021]

I can see that.

Sick with no health insurance? = ** you

Unemployed or laid off? = ** you

Etc. etc.

Precisely. They will hide behind the flag but take a massive dump on regular Americans every chance they get.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Precisely. They will hide behind the flag but take a massive dump on regular Americans every chance they get.

It's one thing to advocate so-called "personal responsibilty", another to make arbitrary value judgments about people's circumstances. They do it all the time.

[^_^ 5,021]

It's one thing to advocate so-called "personal responsibilty", another to make arbitrary value judgments about people's circumstances. They do it all the time.

Yup. Good human beings they are not.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Your feigned confusion doesn't fool me.

it wasn't. it was veiled assertion...so i asked

Precisely. They will hide behind the flag but take a massive dump on regular Americans every chance they get.

oh thats what you meant.

Yup. Good human beings they are not.

those b@stards!