A LETTER FROM A FARMER IN PENNSYLVANIA, CONCLUSION

oh god, i just read the first half that you posted. "a democrat should emphasize domestic issues." that's new. i thought i was saying something more original than that. maybe my thoughts aren't fully formed and that's why it sounded so banal (maybe i have banal thoughts) so i'll go back to basics and try to organize my thoughts better. it's this idea of theme that prompted me to write in the first place.

first, contemporary politics seems so stale to me. geo-politically the world changed after 1989 and then again after 9/11. domestic politics has changed too. the old divisions between the parties over civil rights, taxes, the size of government and crime don't exist anymore.

the civil rights struggle is over. that is not a contradiction with my earlier suggestion that we should hammer the gop on it forensically but that was a tactical point over a matter of legitimacy. no republican supports repeal of civil rights legislation so SUBSTANTIVELY, if not tactically, the issue is dead.

bill clinton ended, for now at least, the split over taxes. taxes were THE issue in the '80's: prop 13, "tax and spend" and so on. clinton cut taxes, giving the republicans apoplexy because it took away their issue. my sense is bush's recent tax cut largely fizzled with voters, not that they don't want more money in their pockets, but as a rallying cry. i think voters thought it was sort of stale old-school.

clinton also innoculated the democrats from the charge of being the party of big government. he "ended welfare as we know it" and bush, the republican, has created a new cabinet department, drastically increased military spending and driven up the deficit.

and finally, the decline in the crime rate in the last 10 years has wiped that issue off the political map, and i don't think voters give either party credit for it, clinton for the economic boom or the republicans (giuliani) for the "broken windows" theory.

i think all of the above is beyond dispute. the world of american politics, domestically and abroad, is vastly different than it was 14 years ago. but politics is still being practiced according to the same paradigm it has been since the '60's.

when pollsters ask people to explain their party affiliation they still get the answers they did 40 years ago. people say they're democrats because the party represents the working class or the little guy. republicans say their party stands for smaller government, lower taxes, and more individual responsibility, but those are not wedge issues anymore.

the terms of the debate between the parties will change eventually of their own weight but what the democrats need to do is to force that change so that it is on terms favorable to us. "he who defines the terms of the debate wins the debate."

ignoring the specifics of the old divide, there is still a generalization that can be made that is still true: the social referrent of the two parties was and continues to be different, in emphasis at least. the republicans referrent is the individual, the democrats is some larger social unit.

these referents, the individual and the community, have been at the center of american politics since before the revolution.

"tocqueville came to the conclusion that there was an inherent
struggle in america between two opposing impulses: the spirit
of rugged individualism versus the conflicting spirit of community..." (1)

that explains a lot about american politics in the last 200 years and of the ideological differences that voters still see between republicans and democrats. walter isaacson wrote though that,

"franklin would have disagreed. a fundamental aspect of franklin's life
AND OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY he helped to create was that individ-
ualism and communitarianism, so seemingly contradictory, were inter-
woven." (2)

those two traits certainly can be in conflict and often have been in our political history but they NEED NOT BE and franklin was the proto-american who embodied this synthesis. it's my argument that it is the republicans today who are, in the main, responsible for keeping these two in conflict and that the democrats are positioned to resynthesize them into the unique american character that franklin embodied. if the democrats adopt this as their "philosophy" and let it guide their policies, as they have not done in the last 40 years then they will recast the modern political debate to their advantage.

republicans are proud to "conserve" things, especially traditions and values from other eras that have a nostalgic patina and a presumption of correctness for "having stood the test of time." they wear their little adam smith ties to their federalist society meetings and urge fealty to the "original intent" of the framers and a return to the values that inspired "our founding fathers."

by the mid-19th century the society produced by the american revolution was one where the common man and his interests dominated. (3) it was at this time that tocqueville wrote "democracy in america." this society was "unlike any that had ever existed anywhere in the world." (4) but mid-19th century america was as different from colonial america as it was from england itself.(5) in colonial times the hierarchical ordering of society was considered to be the natural ordering of things.(6). it was unquestioned doctrinally and unchallenged as the practical basis for government and social order.

common people, those who worked for a living, who were uneducated and ill-mannered, were seen as demonstrably unsuited for any other status in life and singularly unsuited to govern.(7) until the 1770's the colonists maintained a desire to remain subjects of the english crown(8) so long as they could get some relief in parliament on taxation and representation. their social philosophy was far, far from the philosophy of the common man that was to dominate in just a few decades and which almost all colonial thinkers gegarded as the ultimate governmental horror.(9)

above even the filial loyalty to the english crown the colonists revered the english constitution(10) whose "perfection," in john adams description, was due to the exquisite balancing of power among the three post-medieval social estates, the monarch, nobility and commons.(11) in fact, the colonists tried to put the cart before the horse. so convinced were they of the benefits of the english system that, when independence became foreseeable, they tried to create the three estates in america than an english-based constitution would then be employed to balance.(12), and in fact this was precisely what was done in canada. if some sort of federal or commonwealth arrangement could be worked out with britain then they would have their monarchy and would only have to find a way of creating an american aristocracy.

one of the potential talent pools for this aristocracy was the wealthy as proposed here by andrew oliver the provincial secretary of massachusetts in 1773:

"a way must be found 'to put a man of fortune above the common level
and excempt him from being chosen by the people..."the best
solution...was to create 'an order of patricians or esquires...to be all
men of fortune or good landed estates."(13)

colonial attitudes toward wealth, work and society were complex. the work ethic was exalted, but only as it applied to the rabble.(14) gentlemen did not work AS IN NOT WORK AT ALL, not just not work in what we would call blue-collar jobs.(14)

independence from the workaday world was necessary for a gentleman to pursue gentlemanly pursuits, like philosophy, science, war, and governing. ideally one inherited one's wealth but there was no such extensive class in america, so second-best was to have a source of "passive income" from real estate or money lending for instance.

if one had to work then it was best to make a lot of money quickly and retire early. benjamin franklin did that and retired at age 42 to the gentlemanly pursuits of philosophy, science and governing. and this has continued to be an american tradition from franklin to andrew carnegie to the dot.com millionaires to bill gates.

this "distribution of labor," if it can be called that, was also considered beneficial to the dull, untalented common worker who would revert to a criminal, drunken, slothful state of nature if he was not working.

attitudes toward spending followed a similar "logic." since gentlemen shouldn't work, and commoners should, it followed that only the wealthy should consume, and that they should do so prodigiously to keep a ready market for the goods produced by the common man, who by contrast should practice the virtues of frugality and thrift.

this arrangement, i am not making this up, DID NOT HAVE TO BE ENFORCED, it was actually accepted by people, workers included. isaacson quotes "an aged farmer" as urging his fellows to stop complaining





i've been reading a bio of ben franklin and the author, walter isaacson, related that de tocqueville had written that there was a conflict in the american soul between rugged individualism and community.

and there's no doubt we do have those two traits. individualism needs no further explanation but he was absolutely right about the committment to community too. americans are notoriously a society of joiners. we have civic groups like the kiwanis, shriners and optimists; we have ethnically or religiously based associations like the knights of columbus, sons of italy, and the american jewish federation; interest groups like the sierra club, hobby and recreation-based clubs. it's really almost humorous when you think of how extensive it is. what de tocqueville wrote IN THE 18TH CENTURY could be written about us today: "americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of dispositions are forever forming associations. hospitals, prisons and schools take shape this way."

but, and this is the key point here, isaacson said that de tocqueville was wrong that it was a CONFLICT in the american soul: "franklin would have disagreed [with de tocqueville]. a fundamental aspect of franklin's life, AND OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY HE HELPED TO CREATE, was that individualism and communitarianism, so seemingly contradictory, were interwoven."

franklin was the in persona refutation of the idea that this conflict existed. he was a defiantly common man though his extensive talents made him the most uncommon of the founders. he was a scientist, statesman, author, successful businessman, diplomat and charming recantour who was honored and courted by the social and intellectual elites of europe, but he would disarmingly appear in parisian salons wearing a fur tradesman's hat and to the end of his life he signed his name as simply "b. franklin, printer," though his oxford honorary degree would have entitled him to sign as "doctor franklin," his monumental scientific accomplishments would have permitted "scientist" as a suffix and his political positions would have entitled him to "the honorable" or "ambassador" as the prefix. this aspect to franklin was not just eccentricity or affectation. his relationship with his son william was always strained because of the latter's social pretensions.

franklin's civic achievements were just as long and impressive as his personal achievements. he started the postal service and made it in some ways as efficient as it is today, he was forever starting up this or that municipal improvement group, to pave the streets, to put a street light in front of every house. he started the american philosophical association, philosophy in those days referring to natural and scientific exploration, which exists to this day. he started the first lending library in america and THAT exists to this day.

all of these things were examples of franklin's committment to a social unit more extensive than the individual and he vigorously opposed anyone or any manner of thinking that atomized or attempted to justify the atomization of man's purpose on earth, yet his communitarianism did not impede him from doing well for himself. he never missed an opportunity to make a pound and made enough of them to retire at age 42. there was no conflict between the two american traits for him.

franklin's philosophy, as written in "poor richard's almanack" and in his newspapers was just a collection of aphorisms and adages and advice on how to live well and do good. although he explicitly disavowed theory as a young man, which kept him from achieving as much in science as newton did or in metaphysics as kant did his practical approach to man's purpose became the antecedent of a distinctly american brand of formal philosophy, so different from that of europe, the "pragmatism" of william james, john dewey, and richard rorty.

from franklin's extraordinary example you don't just extrapolate to all of american society and history but in fact the combination of--not conflict between-- individualism and communitarianism was characteristic of american society and is the template on which our political history was written and, which provides a contemporary paradigm for discourse between the two parties to the democrats advantage.

in explaining how the unity of these two traits occurred in america isaacson wrote that "the frontier attracted barn-raising pioneers who were ruggedly individualistic as well as fiercely supportive of their community." bernard bailyn, whose book "the ideological origins of the american revolution," is unsurpassed in it's field wrote thta social hierarchy never really had a chance in america: "circumstances...pressed harshly against [it]. the wilderness envioronment from the beginning had threateded the maintenance of elaborate social distinctions."

not that the colonists didn't try. they believed in the perfection of the english constitution and believed that it's perfection was based on the balance created among the three post-medieval estates, the crown, the aristocracy, and commons.

right up until the 1770's the colonists believed that they could form a federation with britain where they would continue loyalty to the crown but be responsible for their own legislation domestically. but that assumption still left america without the second estate, an aristocracy.

this was of enormous concern to the colonies planners. bailyn quotes richard henry lee of virginia writing to his brother in 1766 that "that security therefore which the constitution derives in britain from the house of lords is here entirely wanting, and the just equilibrium totally destroyed by two parts out of the three of the legislature being in the same hands."

i emphasize this point here because there was a lot of discussion about creating an aristocracy in america and naturally one of the proposals was to select the class from the wealthy. andrew oliver, the provincial secretary of massachusetts, proposed this: "to put a man of fortune above the common level and exempt him from being chosen by the people into the lower offices." bailyn writes, "the best solution, as he saw it, was to create 'an order of patricians or esquires...to be all men of fortune or good landed estates' appointed for life." reactions to this kind of proposal varied. this particular one was met with "inflamed public opinion in massachusetts." john adams opposed it. franklin expressed the view of many that considerations of mere wealth were not sufficient to get the right kind of men in the aristocracy.

none of these early american leaders were socialists, but opposition to an aristocracy based on wealth was shared even by some of the privileged. bailyn says that "...richard bland--that least egalitarian of revolutionary leaders---..." argued that the accumulation of wealth in america was " 'unavoidable to the descendants of the early settlers' since the land, originally cheap, had apreciated naturally with the growth of settlement." he quotes bland as saying that "perhaps it iw owing to this accidental manner of becoming rich that wealth does ot obtain the same degree of influence here which it does in old countries. rank, at presetn, in america is derived more from qualificatio than property; a sound moral character, amiable manners, and firmness in principle constitute the first class..."

obviously views like this carried the day in colonial and we got no wealth-based aristocracy. but the larger point here is that even with so pressing a felt need as the creation of an aristocracy, the founders of our political system eschewed wealth. there was to be no elevating of one group of americans above another based only on wealth. there were other qualities equally or more important even for one who was the "least egalitarian of revolutionary leaders." in the end, quite deliberately in the framer's intent, the goal of our constitution was changed to secure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," rather than "life, liberty, and property."

let me repeat so that there is no accusation of misinterpretation. it is not contended here that the colonists were egalitarians, populists, or democrats at heart. in fact just the opposite. they wanted an aristocracy, they thought seriously about creating one, they, franklin among them were to a man deeply afraid of the common rabble and they like to make make money. a lot.

that is important for democrats to keep in mind. homo americanus from the earliest days has liked wealth. we are not egalitarians to this day. we believe in and accept that money is going to make life much more pleasant for some than for those who don't have as much of it.

the point related back to how this historical exegesis here began, with de tocqueville's claim that there was a CONFLICT in the american soul between the interests of the individual and those of the community, of franklin's life being a living refutation of it, and isaacson's belief also that the claim was wrong. our revered colonial leaders didn't believe that nor do we today, nor have we ever believed it. any political party in american history, including the two today, that put those two traits into conflict was not going to do well.

the argument here is that although democrats have had "issues" with this union in the past, it is the republicans, by their unbridled elevation of wealth above all else, who are the real traitors of this historical legacy and that properly framed this can recast the current political debate onto favorable grounds for the democrats. but to do that democrats have to recognize a principle that is more deeply embedded in the american soul than either individualism or communitarianism.

what unites individualism and communitarianism in america is effort; that is why there has never been a conflict in our collective soul.

we have a social security net now, but not one as extensive as do other liberal democracies. because you CAN make it here, with effort, it is required that you MAKE the effort. american society, government and private sector, provides a helping hand but never, in our philosophy, "a hand out." that goes against our committment to effort.

democrats got away from the effort requirement in the last couple of decades. we gave welfare benefits without adequately, in the electorate's mind, means-testing them. we gave people guaranteed positions of employment and in higher education through affirmative action and quotas.

we gave people who commit crimes excuses for their behavior.

we demeaned the middle class' quest for financial prosperity and capitalism generally. each political party disjoined the two strains of the american character by giving undo importance to wealth, the democrats too little importance to it, the republicans too much. we made wealth and it's pursuit, an indicator of selfishness and social unworthiness. they elevated it as the preeminent indicator of social--and moral--worth.

in the end of course, not being able to divide society into three parts, the early americans divided power, it two into three parts. the best they could do as an approximization of an aristocracy was an appointed upper body of the legislature.