Today free trade is an almost universal value among our politicians, however; in the late 1800's it was not. Free trade has become such and aspiration and accepted goal that in this modern age, stuff seems to be made and imported to America while jobs seem to be exported.
I'm not writing this blog to take a view on free trade as a goal, but it's just interesting to look back at our own country's history when views that are now commonplace and largely bipartisan were still competing with alternate ideas.
Benjamin Harrison came down firmly on the side of protectionism. While "protectionist" might now be considered a slur to a political view, whether it be on the importing of goods or foreign policy, it was not considered an insult then.
Harrison's support of the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890 was one of the defining elements of his presidency. This act seems extreme by today's or even recent history's standards. Duties on imported goods, including raw materials were increased by up to 50%. The goal of this of course was to raise revenue for the government and decrease the amount of competition to America's developing manufacturing sector.
Historically, the northern part of the United States supported tariffs and the southern part deplored them since it was an economy based on agriculture that imported most of it's manufactured goods. The "Tariff of Abominations" in 1828 is considered one of the major events that led to the South looking to break away from the North (in addition to slavery obviously).
As anyone would expect, this tariff was loved by northern manufacturing interests but hated almost universally in the South as well by regular consumers in the North that relied on imported goods or raw materials. Most economists agree that it was a cause leading to the depression of the 1890's since it was essentially a 40-50% tax on any imported goods.
The unpopularity of this issue and Harrison's support of the Sherman Silver Act were what ultimately led to Grover Cleveland defeating him to serve his second, non consecutive term.
While it's interesting to think about the tariff and how views on free trade have changed over time, it's even more interesting to ponder the second debate the tariff led to. What to do with all that money in the surplus of the U.S. Treasury from the protective tariffs? Can you even imagine the country with huge cash reserves rather than a crushing debt in this day and age?
Maybe Harrison's policy of protectionism went way too far in trying to drastically reduce imports, but maybe our own policy of giving Americans incentives to buy imported goods and American corporations to export jobs goes too far in the other direction. If we weren't beholden to the World Trade Organization and slightly increased our tariffs, maybe we'd be having a debate not on which government programs to cut, but which ones to add with all that money in the U.S. government's coffers like they did in Ben Harrison's day.
1/29/12
Haley's Barbour-ism
At a time when we've become so desensitized to the high level corruption and bribery through super Pacs and lobbyists, it's refreshing to see local level corruption get some national attention.
The New York Times on Friday ran an article about pardons that Haley Barbour, the former governor of Mississippi had given out in his last days in office.
The governor pardoned over 200 people, with roughly 40 of the pardons for people convicted of violent crimes that included murder, rape and assault. The common element most of these pardons had in common were that the convict had a connection, familial or otherwise, to the powerful Republican political class or Haley Barbour himself.
One of those pardoned was a man convicted of a DUI related death of an 8 year old boy who happened to be a member of the Hill Brothers Construction Company, big campaign donors for conservative causes. The article also mentioned that another member of that same family was pardoned for Federal Tax Evasion by George W. Bush.
It's amazing what money can buy you. To think that you can refuse to pay your taxes and LITERALLY get away with murder. All this time, I was thinking that political contributions could only get you financial gain and the ability to write laws. The fact that lobbyists not only tell politicians what laws they want but also actually write the verbiage that the politicians then cut and paste into their bills was as far as I thought the culture of corruption would ever go.
It's not like Southern politics have ever been clean, but this should raise the eyebrows of anyone that thinks no one is above the law. At a time when we have unlimited money and corporations are people, this seems only like the logical outgrown. After all, corporations are people and can only be expected to ask for favors for their no good nephew.
The New York Times on Friday ran an article about pardons that Haley Barbour, the former governor of Mississippi had given out in his last days in office.
The governor pardoned over 200 people, with roughly 40 of the pardons for people convicted of violent crimes that included murder, rape and assault. The common element most of these pardons had in common were that the convict had a connection, familial or otherwise, to the powerful Republican political class or Haley Barbour himself.
One of those pardoned was a man convicted of a DUI related death of an 8 year old boy who happened to be a member of the Hill Brothers Construction Company, big campaign donors for conservative causes. The article also mentioned that another member of that same family was pardoned for Federal Tax Evasion by George W. Bush.
It's amazing what money can buy you. To think that you can refuse to pay your taxes and LITERALLY get away with murder. All this time, I was thinking that political contributions could only get you financial gain and the ability to write laws. The fact that lobbyists not only tell politicians what laws they want but also actually write the verbiage that the politicians then cut and paste into their bills was as far as I thought the culture of corruption would ever go.
It's not like Southern politics have ever been clean, but this should raise the eyebrows of anyone that thinks no one is above the law. At a time when we have unlimited money and corporations are people, this seems only like the logical outgrown. After all, corporations are people and can only be expected to ask for favors for their no good nephew.
1/21/12
#23: Benjamin Harrison
Benjamin Harrison defeated Grover Cleveland in 1888, after he served one presidential term. Cleveland then defeated him in 1892 when he ran again on the Democratic ticket. This makes him the only presidential candidate I know of to both win and lose a presidential election to the same person.
Presidential power at this time was not quite as concentrated as it is today, so it wasn't unusual to see ex- presidents jump back and forth between private life and politics. Today, it seems that if you've served as president, you can only go on speaking tours or make ceremonial appearances at public events as though you're American royalty.
Cleveland largely disappeared from the limelight after Harrison defeated him during the term that Harrison served and took a regular job at a law firm in New York for a couple years until he played the old "I have no choice but to run again" card when he saw what he felt were the ruinous effects on the economy of Harrison's policies. Harrison worked for a law firm as well after he was defeated by Cleveland. Today they would have certainly made a good living as professional pundits on Fox News or MSNBC, but at this time it seems they had to support themselves like regular people.
Politics at the upper levels didn't pay quite as well in the late 1800's as it does today. There was probably more graft and money changing hands at the lower/local levels, but the higher offices of president, senators and congressmen were expected to take a pay cut to serve in politics.
The millions of dollars that presidential candidates now have funneled to them both before and after presidential elections from super pacs and lobbyists make me almost nostalgic for the days when you had to buy your way into city council.
Presidential power at this time was not quite as concentrated as it is today, so it wasn't unusual to see ex- presidents jump back and forth between private life and politics. Today, it seems that if you've served as president, you can only go on speaking tours or make ceremonial appearances at public events as though you're American royalty.
Cleveland largely disappeared from the limelight after Harrison defeated him during the term that Harrison served and took a regular job at a law firm in New York for a couple years until he played the old "I have no choice but to run again" card when he saw what he felt were the ruinous effects on the economy of Harrison's policies. Harrison worked for a law firm as well after he was defeated by Cleveland. Today they would have certainly made a good living as professional pundits on Fox News or MSNBC, but at this time it seems they had to support themselves like regular people.
Politics at the upper levels didn't pay quite as well in the late 1800's as it does today. There was probably more graft and money changing hands at the lower/local levels, but the higher offices of president, senators and congressmen were expected to take a pay cut to serve in politics.
The millions of dollars that presidential candidates now have funneled to them both before and after presidential elections from super pacs and lobbyists make me almost nostalgic for the days when you had to buy your way into city council.
12/4/11
Grover Cleveland: The Rise of The Labor and Progressive Movement
Many people don't understand that the founders and their successors valued liberty over equality. Various presidents from George Washington all the way up to Cleveland generally adopted this view and the government was looked upon as something to protect people from more than something to help people.
The landscape however had been changing for a while. By the 1880's, people had been leaving their farms and small businesses for factory jobs in the city for decades. While citizens would not generally petition the government to increase their wages or maximize the hours they're required to put in on the job when they actually own the business they're working at, all that changed when the majority of Americans started to work for other people.
For some time, movements had been popping up that favored the interests of labor over capital. 'Free Silver' or the devaluation of U.S. currency had been pushed for a while as a means for the government to bail people out of debt and the movement to give pensions to Civil War veterans had been going on since before Cleveland took office.
In addition, there were immigrants pouring into the country from less stable places in Europe that advocated new and liberal ideas like socialism and anarchism.
Cleveland however continued to hold the view that the government did not exist to provide a safety net for people or create a more equal society. In his first term in 1885, his opposition to new social programs and refusal to have the government intervene in the private economy was not seen as major issue. Although he lost his bid for re-election, it was not because of popular anger at his economic policies.
However, when he was re-elected for a non-consecutive term in 1893, the country was in an economic crisis. Although this crisis was brought on by the 'free silver' policies that he had always been opposed to, he still took the blame for the crisis, or at least for not doing more to fix it. With many Americans out of work, his insistence on restricting government jobs and political appointments stood in direct opposition to the labor forces that were becoming stronger with every passing year.
As the depression continued, Cleveland's refusal to implement some kind of FDR type 'job creation' policy makes him seem out of touch to modern day historians. I think that this is unfair though since he was simply carrying out the widely held view of what government should and should not do that had been in place for more than one hundred years.
The landscape however had been changing for a while. By the 1880's, people had been leaving their farms and small businesses for factory jobs in the city for decades. While citizens would not generally petition the government to increase their wages or maximize the hours they're required to put in on the job when they actually own the business they're working at, all that changed when the majority of Americans started to work for other people.
For some time, movements had been popping up that favored the interests of labor over capital. 'Free Silver' or the devaluation of U.S. currency had been pushed for a while as a means for the government to bail people out of debt and the movement to give pensions to Civil War veterans had been going on since before Cleveland took office.
In addition, there were immigrants pouring into the country from less stable places in Europe that advocated new and liberal ideas like socialism and anarchism.
Cleveland however continued to hold the view that the government did not exist to provide a safety net for people or create a more equal society. In his first term in 1885, his opposition to new social programs and refusal to have the government intervene in the private economy was not seen as major issue. Although he lost his bid for re-election, it was not because of popular anger at his economic policies.
However, when he was re-elected for a non-consecutive term in 1893, the country was in an economic crisis. Although this crisis was brought on by the 'free silver' policies that he had always been opposed to, he still took the blame for the crisis, or at least for not doing more to fix it. With many Americans out of work, his insistence on restricting government jobs and political appointments stood in direct opposition to the labor forces that were becoming stronger with every passing year.
As the depression continued, Cleveland's refusal to implement some kind of FDR type 'job creation' policy makes him seem out of touch to modern day historians. I think that this is unfair though since he was simply carrying out the widely held view of what government should and should not do that had been in place for more than one hundred years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
