|
Edited on Fri Jan-29-10 12:12 AM by Arkana
Ironic Hero: Why Republicans Should Stop Citing Thomas Jefferson
A short time ago, President Barack Obama delivered his first State of the Union address. I thought it was good--hell, I've always thought the man possesses a gift for oratory few of his contemporaries can match.
I saw, much like the rest of the nation, Republicans (and Democrats too) shifting guiltily in their seats when he called them all out for being selfish, obstructionist prima donnas (which they are). He even managed to zing the Supreme Court--Justice Samuel Alito apparently reverted to a happier time when he was five years old and no one called him on the bad things he did because he didn't know any better.
But what intrigued me most was what I saw afterwards in the Republican response. It was delivered by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, the new GOP wunderkind (until Scott Brown does his Senators Gone Wild spread, of course).
In it, he delivered the usual GOP tripe: small government (yeah, right), lower taxes (but only for the wealthy), terror, fear, panic, etc. That much I expected. But this quote in particular galled me.
It was Thomas Jefferson who called for "A wise and frugal Government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry ....and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned..." He was right.
Aside from the fact that it looks like he scoured the Ayn Rand Book O' Political Talking Points for speech lines, you just heard one of many incidences of Republicans adopting Thomas Jefferson as the mascot for their virulent anti-Obama rhetoric. McDonnell wasn't the first, and he won't be the last.
Personally, I've always thought that Republicans (and conservatives in general) citing Jefferson was appallingly stupid of them after eight-some odd years of almost Stalinist rhetoric: "You're with us or with the terrorists", etc. But that's not what really bothers me. Everyone sees the hypocrisy in that.
What bothers me is this: Thomas Jefferson as pre-Presidential statesman and Thomas Jefferson as President were two completely different men. Yes, Republicans are correct about his pre-Presidential philosophy--limited government, agrarian-based economy, religious and economic freedom, etc. Jefferson was the poster boy for those in the country hostile to a strong central government and those devoted to a strict constructionist view of the roles of each branch of it. That much was apparent in his disapproval of what he viewed as the Marshall Court's overreaching on Marbury v. Madison.
But apply a critical eye to Jefferson's years in the Presidency, and some of the decisions he made are bound to jump out at anyone who sincerely believes he was an unflinching advocate of so-called "small government".
Foreign affairs dominated Jefferson's Presidency to a greater extent than most think. First there was the episode with the Barbary pirates. For around 100 years, the West had paid bribes to the Barbary states (on today's map, they'd be Algeria, Tripoli, Tunis, and Morocco) in order to keep pirates from attacking and harassing merchant ships. But the pasha of Tripoli wasn't happy, and he increased his demands. In what was considered a MASSIVE overextension of Presidential power, Jefferson ordered warships to the Mediterranean and blockaded Tripoli in response. Tripoli backed down, but it was the first of many instances where Jefferson would pull a complete 180 on the philosophy of government he'd espoused his entire life.
The Louisiana Purchase is perhaps the greatest example of Jefferson's hypocrisy on the subject. He purchased Louisiana (and the port of New Orleans along with it) from a cash-strapped Napoleon, effectively doubling the size of the country in one fell swoop. He even used Alexander Hamilton's financing system to do it--a system he'd vehemently opposed since the Constitution was written. The Federalist criticisms of hypocrisy were well-founded: Jefferson had campaigned on the idea that government's power was that which was strictly guaranteed by the Constitution. Now, not only had he decided to land-grab half the continent on a whim, but he was proposing that it be ruled by military governors. The discrepancy's gotta be pretty obvious.
There is one more event that defines Jefferson's political flip-flopping--the Embargo Act of 1807. The Embargo Act was a direct (and most historians agree, completely disproportionate) response to British impressment of American sailors. A true small government advocate would never have intervened, not because trade with Europe was one of the major pieces of the American economy, but because of a sincere belief in the free market. But, once again, Jefferson (by his definition, anyway) overreached. The Embargo Act didn't just cut off trade with England--it cut off trade with all of Europe. The economy went into a nosedive, and the Northeast--particularly New England--felt the crunch most. Jefferson backed off near the end of his administration, but the Embargo Act wasn't repealed completely--it was just replaced with the Non-Intercourse Act, which banned trade with only England and France (which, at the time, was at war with Great Britain).
Phew. That was some dense stuff. Most Republicans I know would have stopped reading at my Justice Alito insult.
The point is this--Republicans cannot keep pointing to Thomas Jefferson as the paragon of small government. They cannot keep quoting him as the be-all end-all to any argument they get in over current policy issues. In fact, I cannot think of ANYONE in Presidential history who actually practiced REAL small government philosophy AND was successful with it. Neither Bush did. Ronald Reagan didn't. The last true small-government Republican was Hoover--and he's not the guy you want to hitch your wagon to when the country's having economic problems.
And one more thing--if the media ever picks up a history book, Republicans are SO screwed.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
