Obama in Kansas #2

Roosevelt was angry that the Republican nominating structure was not standardized and consequently allowed local political bosses to sidestep candidate popularity and chose nominees on their own. His "New Nationalism" was an attempt to control corruption and favoritism, substitute national concerns for local ones, but also tried to recognize the development of expertise in the society and both exploit and control it. So success in business led to inevitable domination but also potential abuse. Government would be the overseer. Government would bring experts and impartiality to economics and legislation, developing what was reasonable for the nation as a whole, leapfrogging petty local concerns. Strangely he did not see this potential for abuse as a risk in government as well. In essence he was reigniting the old, basic argument between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists that Hamilton and Jefferson had played out years before. How strong should the states be, how strong the national government? (Before the Civil War the United States was a pleural noun, only after did one say "The United States is...".) And he injected a new element, the one thing, with enthroned monarchy, that the country was created to avoid: State sponsored religion. Government had, somehow and somewhere, a new mandate, a new moral authority, indeed a moral obligation to create a new morality-based world. Experts, convening together, would know best. Dewey in education, Sanger with eugenics, Prohibition.

Croly in The Promise of American Life wrote that the American vision had been co-opted by entrenched wealth and random development of the economy. "They have been promised on American soil comfort, prosperity, and the opportunity for self-improvement" and these visions are fading. Control of the economic development by experts, not the erratic evolution that cursed both economics and society, would restore the balance.

Roosevelt lost the nomination, ran as a third party "Progressive Party" (The Bull Moose Party--"I'm as fit as a bull moose") and came in second--the only time a third party ran second--to Wilson. Wilson continued with Roosevelt's confidence in the nation, the righteousness of its leadership and the value of expertise in government. The Americans joined the European war, an income tax was introduced, international aggression appeared and prohibition--all the result of confident, righteous people in power.

This is the intellectual history that Obama either calls upon or read about. But this nation is very different from others; contrary to Croly's claim, it does not promise "comfort, prosperity, and the opportunity for self-improvement". It offers "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and hopes "comfort, prosperity, and the opportunity for self-improvement"--as well as much more--follows. This country was created out of the belief in the dignity and value of the individual and the fear of organized government and government sponsored religion. What the Progressive movement saw was inefficiency and the manipulation of inefficiency by unscrupulous people and offered to reorganize the process and institute high level managers to guide the new system.

But the Progressive movement is more than anti-corruption, national over local, expert guidance over random; it is unteachable. It can not learn. No failure discourages it, no disaster makes it question itself. The "best and the brightest" have indeed been tried. Who now could be confident in it or them? Expertise and information is always revered and touted from the classroom to the surgical suite. How reliable are they? What more information and what more expertise can be brought to markets and investment? Why doesn't Long Term Capital Management give any of these people pause?

More to come.