Labels, Schmabels

Plus ca change. Two very interesting articles surfaced in the last couple of weeks. The first, by Franklin Foer, entitled "The Joy of Federalism", appeared in the New York Times Book Review. Foer argues that the Democrats have everything to gain by returning to their southern states-rights roots and to become the party of "federalism." He argues that Democrats have long been skeptical of distant bureaucracies and have celebrated local experimentation.

Historically, the nemesis of liberal federalism was Herbert Croly whose bete-noire was Thomas Jefferson, "a man of intellectual superficiality and insincerity." Croly became a staunch advocate of a strong central government and that centralization as opposed to Jefferson's bucolic inefficiency should be the mantra for the twentieth century. He argued against the nostalgia associated with old state governments. Foer argues that the progressive movement bypassed national consensus for which there was little on national capitalism at the turn of the twentieth century, just as there is little national consensus today on gay-marriage. They did this by going to the states which would serve as their laboratories to develop hard data., or "laboratories of democracy."

It is ironic, at least for me, that Foer cites many of the movements from the sixties as exemplifying an aversion to bigness and the "managerial liberalism" that had flourished under both Roosevelts. The Port Huron statement of S.D.S. celebrated the communitarian spirit which was in many ways confused with the old states-rights doctrines.

Steve Chapman, in several articles (link, link) takes the argument even further to note that the labels have become inverted: we now have a Republican party that has been trying to increase the power of the national government, an education program that removes local control of the schools and places it in Washington with No Child Left Behind, an attorney General's office that wants to insist that states apply the death penalty, and in general a national centralized, big government that runs things. Now the Democrats are looking to the states, something that we Civil Rights activists of the sixties found anathema because it supported segregation. It certainly would be ironic if Democrats adopted Barry Goldwater and Strom Thurmond as far-sighted icons of liberal federalism.

What it boils down to me is that the labels and philosophies have become irrelevant; that the party out of power will always was a smaller federal government while the party in power seeks to consolidate its base by controlling everything. The answer, as always, is going to have to be looking at issues on the merits and not to vote by party affiliation. Maybe Freeport (IL) has long had it right when, in the twenties , voters eliminated the national party labels in mayoral elections.

Devil in the White City

Erik Larson has written several books of note including Lethal Passage and Isaac's Storm (great web site with movies of the storm's damage), both of which I enjoyed; so I was prepared to find his intermingling of the travails of building the Chicago World's Fair with the murderous shenanigans of Holmes to be equally fascinating. I was not disappointed.

This book is filled with fascinating detail, such as how the first enormous Ferris wheel came to be designed and built, the problems they had with Chicago area soils, the political machinations and compromises required to get anything done as well as the intense competition to beat out Eiffel's famous tower. The most striking element is the contrast between Daniel Burnham, architect of the fair, and H.H. Holmes, one of the suavest serial killers I've ever read about. Holmes was charming and could cajole even the most persistent creditor out of building. He was a woman magnet, married several, and just murdered them or anyone else who caused him any inconvenience. Holmes built his own crematorium in a hotel he owned and used the intense activity of the 1893 fair to cover many of his nefarious activities. The contrast between the builder (Burnham) and the destroyer (Holmes) is set out in stark relief. They were similar in many respects, using their exceptional people skills and drive to accomplish their ends and desires.

Larson is an engaging storyteller. His writing should not be missed.

Bush, Competition and Privatization

Once again the Bush administration seeks to eliminate Amtrak. We have such a schizophrenic attitude toward the role of government, mixing myth and greed, and leading to a mish-mash of muddle-headed proposals. Aside from the fact that the amount of money Amtrak has asked for ($1.8 billion) is trivial compared to the daily cost of fueling the war in Iraq, Bush, who I suspect has never had to take public transportation in his life) has no plan other than to throw it away. I start with the following assumptions:

1. The role of government is to support infrastructure.
2. Competition is good, and the more competition the better.
3. Big does not equal more efficient.
4. Companies that cannot compete should be allowed to fold.

The British rail system is often cited as an example of how privatization of rail works well, but the supporters of the idea fail to recognize that the government owns and maintains the rail system. Much like that great monument to Republican government intervention, the interstate highway system, a piece of infrastructure, no one would suggest privatizing, the British government maintains the rights of way, signal system, and rails. Companies are then permitted to use the infrastructure to compete. I think that makes a lot of sense. Then the Union Pacific, a company that has become so large and inefficient while wallowing in hubris, could have some true competition and wouldn't be turning away business. (see Trains)

While I enjoy flying and riding Amtrak (forget Greyhound) a little competition would do them good., but there is no way they can compete without a level playing field and antagonism from the freight lines who mostly fail to understand that Amtrak is a customer, too.

Follow the Money

The subtle factors behind decisions that are made during wartime are often hidden even though they may have a substantial impact on many lives. Richard Woodman, in The Real Cruel Sea, describes the economic disincentive to form convoys of ships during World War I, even though there was substantial evidence that more ships were saved through this method. Ship owners were against the plan because ever since the introduction of the steam engine, they were no longer at the mercy of the wind and could sail on a regular schedule. Anything that might interfere with regular sailings would have an impact on their profits. Naval aficionados disliked the idea of using naval forces in a defensive manner. It was somehow less manly. But the most scurilous reason was that investors reaped enormous benefits from having a ship sunk. Since the government requisitioned the ships for war support, it would indeminify the ship investors should the ship be torpedoed. Even with an Excess Profits Tax, Mr. Bonar Law, Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1917 described the substantial profits he made following liquidation of a ship. Meanwhile, the poor seaman had his wages stopped the minute the ship went down.

Follow the money, a Watergate dictum that we might wish to observe as more and more funding goes to Iraq.

The Company We Keep

The United States Supreme Court has finally abolished the death penalty for juveniles. Until recently, only the United States, Iran, Somalia, the Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Yemen and Nigeria. Most countries have abolished the death penalty leaving only the self-professed Christian country, the United States and Somalia executing juveniles. That disparity was finally eliminated.