The Politics of Economic Nationalism

TCS Daily ^ | 16 Feb 2006 | By Arnold Kling

[.cnI redruM]

I've always believed Economic Nationalism was an effort to collectivize the focus and move any discussion onto preempted categories where socialists always win.

[Tribune7]

"To remain competitive in the global economy, the United States needs to improve the education and skills of its residents and prepare them for jobs that will be available in the future."

And the NEA is the biggest obstacle to achieving this.

[.cnI redruM]

Not to mention, the Federal Gov. If children get made to do their homework, we're competitive. If they don't, and grow up functionally illiterate, we are screwed.

[Tribune7]

Not to mention, the Federal Gov

You know what? When it comes to educational policy, I think it is almost the same thing as the NEA.

[.cnI redruM]

Another Jimmah Cartah special....Was there anything that man didn't f--k-up while he was Presiding?

[Tribune7]

Was there anything that man didn't f--k-up while he was Presiding?

Hmmmmmm. I think the honest answer is no. Fortunately one of those things was the Democratic Party.

[JamesP81]

The fact that the federal govt is involved in education at all is a violation of the 10th Amendment, the most forgotten amendment in our Constitution. For a blow by blow, search bloggers and personal for keyword 10thamendment.

[.cnI redruM]

Oh yeah, that 10th amendment thingy...

That one gets mentioned about once every six decades in DC.

[Alberta's Child]

Instead of No Child Left Behind, the slogan could be Every Family Left Alone.

This one hit the nail right on the head.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Economic Nationalism is far from being "unnatural" in fact it is the most "natural" of thoughts. It is and has been so powerful because it is the most natural way to look at things. This does not say that it is the most correct or best way to look at the world but it is completely false that it is "unnatural." The rest of the article just kinda rambles around.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You overvalue the meaning of the 10th amendment. It has never had much of an impact on American history or law. But it in no way prevents the feds from becoming involved in education.

[JamesP81]

The Founders were pretty clear when they wrote the Constitution that any power not reserved to the federal government is reserved to the States or the People. In short, if a power isn't explicitly granted to the federal government, then that power is explicitly denied to the federal government. The 10th Amendment is but one place in the Constitution where that idea is expressed.

Now, I defy you to find anywhere in the Constitution that the federal government is granted the power to pass legislation on education. In fact, I defy you to find the word 'school' or 'education' in the Constitution, at least as related to granting powers to the federal government.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hamilton explained what is in the power of the federal government in the Essay on the National Bank. There are implicit powers and NONE of the Founders denied that. Anything which is not forbidden explicitly and which is necessary for the carrying out of the enumerated powers and not contrary to the spirit of the Constitution is constitutional according to Hamilton. And there is no greater expert on this matter than he.

Since our national defense is heavily dependent upon an educated military there are plenty of reasons there is an federal interest in education. Technology alone demands such an involvement.

Those terms do not have to be in the document any more than the word "border" does in order to establish one.

It is a common myth around here that the Constitution was written to reduce federal power when it was written to reduce STATE power and increase federal. Almost all the limitations within the Constitution are placed upon the States.

[JamesP81]

It is a common myth around here that the Constitution was written to reduce federal power when it was written to reduce STATE power and increase federal. Almost all the limitations within the Constitution are placed upon the States.

Forgive me, but that's insane. If they really believed that they certainly wouldn't have carried on about large government being dangerous in all their writings. You're going to have to come up with some hard proof on that before I'll even consider it.

[.cnI redruM]

Right, and wrong. The Founders did have to reel in the individual states from being too rambunctious. Too rambunctious to the point of VA and MD having at with musketry and canons over who got to fish near the mouth of the Potomac.

However, I tend to believe The Civil War and The Great Depression both became opportunities for strong centralization of governmental power. This led us to change our mindset and ideology to the point where we wanted the Feds to nanny us too much. That's how we became the DCSSR (District of Columbia Soviet Socialist Republic) that we are in so many ways today.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Apparently you have not studied the era prior to the calling of the Constitutional Convention when the government of the Confederation was reduced to a state of "imbecility" according to Madison and Hamilton. There are many excellent books which cover that era. It was the State governments which were endangering private property and the safety of the Union. Hamilton and Madison believed them to be a far greater danger than the federal government after all they were larger, collected more revenue, and where much more involved in the lives of the citizens.

Not only is my comment far from insane but is an indisputable fact. You may prefer "conventional wisdom" but the point is easily provable.

The Founders intended that the government not become so large as to endanger the liberties of the people but the reality of that era was that it was tiny even after the Constitution was ratified. It remained tiny until the South decided to secede. After the war it rapidly shrank again but remained larger than before.

And almost all of the Founders were Economic Nationalists.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Both the Civil War and the Great Depression required more governmental involvement than had been the case. The former because of the defense of the Union and the latter because of the demands of the electorate because of the collapse of the economy. Starvation tends to overrule theory in such cases. The man who has no job and no food for his family does not really care what the economic theorists have to say about the negative side of government feeding the hungry. Roosevelt faced very real possibilities of real communist uprising and was not even the most Left of this party. He did not initially make major changes in fiscal policy even going so far as raising taxes to balance the budget.

Only after Keynes had laid the theoretic framework for governmental involvement in the economy did he move to implement the New Deal. Then he showed once more how popular Class Warfare is to the American voter.

Any complaints about the size and nature of the US government should go to the American people since its change has been with the full approval of the majority of them. Until they have been re-educated to more conservative views it is pointless to run far Right candidates for national office. Bush is about as far as they will accept and just barely that.

[Sonny M]

bump.

[Sonny M]

Anything which is not forbidden explicitly and which is necessary for the carrying out of the enumerated powers and not contrary to the spirit of the Constitution is constitutional according to Hamilton. And there is no greater expert on this matter than he.

I think Thomas Jefferson would disagree with that.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Instead of No Child Left Behind, the slogan could be Every Family Left Alone.

I concur.