I received the following comment on my entry about why I feel Woodrow Wilson felt it was his duty to expand the powers of the Executive Branch:
"With congress as corrupt as it is now, I think it was a good idea that Wilson took some executive power back into the presidential arena. If it was even worse back then, his actions were certainly justified."
A lot of critics say that Wilson and FDR expanded the powers of the Presidency too much, but I think part of the problem is whether or not the President in office can HANDLE the broader Executive powers.
Coolidge and Hoover are great examples of this. Coolidge took office under Wilson's expanded powers, but he looked around and said, "You know what, things aren't going too badly...let's not touch anything and see what happens." What happened was that things were pretty sedate, and Coolidge left office with a surplus budget. The powers of the presidency didn't really tickle his fancy, so he didn't get carried away with them.
Hoover, however, got into office and said, "Okay, I'm going to do this, and this, and change this, and this...and maybe that, too." Hoover left office with the country and economy a wreck. The Stock Market Crash had come and gone, and the country was in the throes of the Great Depression. He took enthusiastic advantage of the expanded powers of the office, but didn't know how to control them appropriately.
FDR, as an additional example, not only took enthusiastic advantage of the Presidency's powers, but expanded them even further than Wilson had. Although his economic successes are debatable, many of us agree that his policies to assist the less fortunate amongst us are of lasting value: in other words, he was well-equipped to handle a lot of power.
But this is definitely just my opinion.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Briefly Explaining Woodrow Wilson's Executive Habits
As a child of the Civil War Era, and with the presidency of Andrew Jackson still within living memory, Woodrow Wilson grew up under a Congress that was extremely corrupt and ineffective. It was a Congress more interested in business ventures and speculation than in governing the country, which is much as he describes it in his doctoral thesis Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics.
Like anyone else, Wilson was prone to judging things by his own experiences. Congress, at the time of his youth, didn’t offer him a lot of hope. Small wonder that he ended up thinking that the expansion of Executive powers was necessary in order to try and balance the scales.
I don’t always agree with Wilson’s approaches to handling the powers of the Executive branch, but I can easily see how he came to feel that usurping the powers of Congress was a reasonable course of action.
As a Southerner trying to put a life back together after the Civil War, with a Congress that didn’t really care about anything but making money for themselves, and a series of forgettable, Gilded Era figurehead presidents, what other logical conclusion was there for him to draw as a political science student?
Like anyone else, Wilson was prone to judging things by his own experiences. Congress, at the time of his youth, didn’t offer him a lot of hope. Small wonder that he ended up thinking that the expansion of Executive powers was necessary in order to try and balance the scales.
I don’t always agree with Wilson’s approaches to handling the powers of the Executive branch, but I can easily see how he came to feel that usurping the powers of Congress was a reasonable course of action.
As a Southerner trying to put a life back together after the Civil War, with a Congress that didn’t really care about anything but making money for themselves, and a series of forgettable, Gilded Era figurehead presidents, what other logical conclusion was there for him to draw as a political science student?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Watching Twistory Unfold
As I write this, I am reading the collected speeches of President Woodrow Wilson, shopping for a USB to SATA or IDE adapter cable...and enjoying President Obama's Cairo speech live over Twitter, courtesy of the White House's official Twitter profile.
I've said from the get-go that I love Twitter. As a humble member of the hoi polloi, Twitter allows me to rub elbows with those I might not otherwise be able to meet. It also gives the political junkie in me the ability to watch government officials from both parties happily Tweet away, location be damned, as this February 25th article from CNN shows.
What really struck me about this morning, though, was that instead of actually turning on the TV to watch the address, instead of going somewhere on the internet to see the live video broadcast, instead of using an online audio stream, I followed along with President Obama over social media...and that, ladies and gentlemen, is watching history unfold.
As an historian, I often don't feel those historical moments come and go. I'm too stuck in the past to notice history as it's being made here in the present. Somehow though, I got the message today.
Unlike the President's previous speeches, to which the White House's Twitter account provides links, someone sat and Twittered passages of President Obama's speech as he uttered them, and I read along. Not since FDR started bombarding the radio, and Kennedy started asking for television broadcasts, has such an untapped social media been put to this kind of use. I'm looking forward to watching future uses of it by the White house.
As a side not, I found this all very exciting, but it left me wondering how past presidents might have used Twitter.
Wilson, who wrote all his own speeches (as well as many books), would probably like Twitter a lot. He liked to write, wrote well, and was all about being in control of his situation. I think he would've used the medium to make his points and sprinkle his witticisms. He often longed to be loved by the people, and this might have given him the chance.
FDR, I suspect, would use Twitter very differently. Rather than for politics, I suspect we would see a lot of pictures from his family gatherings, and updates about what he was doing. He liked to bond with people, and the people loved him. Twitter offers a way to seem close to people without having to BE close to them.
I've said from the get-go that I love Twitter. As a humble member of the hoi polloi, Twitter allows me to rub elbows with those I might not otherwise be able to meet. It also gives the political junkie in me the ability to watch government officials from both parties happily Tweet away, location be damned, as this February 25th article from CNN shows.
What really struck me about this morning, though, was that instead of actually turning on the TV to watch the address, instead of going somewhere on the internet to see the live video broadcast, instead of using an online audio stream, I followed along with President Obama over social media...and that, ladies and gentlemen, is watching history unfold.
As an historian, I often don't feel those historical moments come and go. I'm too stuck in the past to notice history as it's being made here in the present. Somehow though, I got the message today.
Unlike the President's previous speeches, to which the White House's Twitter account provides links, someone sat and Twittered passages of President Obama's speech as he uttered them, and I read along. Not since FDR started bombarding the radio, and Kennedy started asking for television broadcasts, has such an untapped social media been put to this kind of use. I'm looking forward to watching future uses of it by the White house.
As a side not, I found this all very exciting, but it left me wondering how past presidents might have used Twitter.
Wilson, who wrote all his own speeches (as well as many books), would probably like Twitter a lot. He liked to write, wrote well, and was all about being in control of his situation. I think he would've used the medium to make his points and sprinkle his witticisms. He often longed to be loved by the people, and this might have given him the chance.
FDR, I suspect, would use Twitter very differently. Rather than for politics, I suspect we would see a lot of pictures from his family gatherings, and updates about what he was doing. He liked to bond with people, and the people loved him. Twitter offers a way to seem close to people without having to BE close to them.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Considering the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913
Epochs of American History: Division and Reunion, 1829-1889 By Woodrow Wilson: 
I was just reading this section of Division and Reunion, which Woodrow Wilson wrote in 1892. I was researching for an article I'm writing for Suite101.com about some of the early legislation of the Wilson Administration, and what gets me is that, 115 years later, the complaints about central banking are exactly the same.
Don't believe me? Go ahead and see what Ron Paul has to say about the subject.
I think it's kind of funny, though, that most of his arguments are those that Wilson successfully debates in his book - chief among them, the constitutionality (is that a word, or did I just totally make that up?) of the Federal Reserve.
What should be noted when considering whether or not the Federal Reserve is constitutional is that George Washington himself weighed the matter, and consulted both Jefferson and Madison on the legality of it. Ultimately, he and Madison decided that the Constitution's wording that "all laws which should be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers;" allowed Congress sufficient room to grant a charter, thus creating a central bank.
In furtherance of that, the Supreme Court then ruled in 1819, in McCulloch vs. Maryland, that Congress chartering a national bank was constitutional.
I think Ron Paul also fails to consider that maybe the Federal Reserve isn't actually the problem - maybe the problem is in the specifics of it...or maybe the problem is in the business sector and how they handle their investing, or perhaps in non-centralized banks that don't know how to handle themselves.
When Andrew Jackson refused to grant the national banks' charters again and we returned to the period of no central banking, financial disaster after financial disaster occurred, which is what led Wilson back to the concept of central banking and the Federal Reserve.
Wilson's formative years were spent living in the post-Civil War South under a corrupt Federal government (Grant's Administration), with a nation where States printed their own money - money which might (or might not) be of use from one place to the next. Is it any wonder that he sought to standardize and centralize the currency, as he'd spent so much ink writing about, and that he sought to limit the powers of Congress while expanding the Executive powers?
This last is not necessarily an argument that the expansion of Executive powers is the way to go, merely a psychological insight into a complex man, who made lasting changes to our government.
I was just reading this section of Division and Reunion, which Woodrow Wilson wrote in 1892. I was researching for an article I'm writing for Suite101.com about some of the early legislation of the Wilson Administration, and what gets me is that, 115 years later, the complaints about central banking are exactly the same.
Don't believe me? Go ahead and see what Ron Paul has to say about the subject.
I think it's kind of funny, though, that most of his arguments are those that Wilson successfully debates in his book - chief among them, the constitutionality (is that a word, or did I just totally make that up?) of the Federal Reserve.
What should be noted when considering whether or not the Federal Reserve is constitutional is that George Washington himself weighed the matter, and consulted both Jefferson and Madison on the legality of it. Ultimately, he and Madison decided that the Constitution's wording that "all laws which should be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers;" allowed Congress sufficient room to grant a charter, thus creating a central bank.
In furtherance of that, the Supreme Court then ruled in 1819, in McCulloch vs. Maryland, that Congress chartering a national bank was constitutional.
I think Ron Paul also fails to consider that maybe the Federal Reserve isn't actually the problem - maybe the problem is in the specifics of it...or maybe the problem is in the business sector and how they handle their investing, or perhaps in non-centralized banks that don't know how to handle themselves.
When Andrew Jackson refused to grant the national banks' charters again and we returned to the period of no central banking, financial disaster after financial disaster occurred, which is what led Wilson back to the concept of central banking and the Federal Reserve.
Wilson's formative years were spent living in the post-Civil War South under a corrupt Federal government (Grant's Administration), with a nation where States printed their own money - money which might (or might not) be of use from one place to the next. Is it any wonder that he sought to standardize and centralize the currency, as he'd spent so much ink writing about, and that he sought to limit the powers of Congress while expanding the Executive powers?
This last is not necessarily an argument that the expansion of Executive powers is the way to go, merely a psychological insight into a complex man, who made lasting changes to our government.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
New Camelot...?
Despite unceasing comparisons to FDR, I find that the Obamas remind me a lot more of the Kennedys than the Roosevelts. It's not that President Obama doesn't have his FDR-ish political traits, he does, but in terms of mainstream, pop culture marketing, I'm forcibly reminded of the Kennedys.
I have to confess, it creeps me out a little to walk through Wal-Mart and see a score of Obama books and memoriabilia staring me in the face. Although I've seen plenty of books about President Bush, I can't recall encountering a commemorative plate sporting his visage while walking through a megastore. Maybe that's just me...?
I think the key to this is 'pop culture'. I know it's not unusual for Franklin Mint-style items to be issued and sold during a presidency - coins, plates, etc. In fact, I imagine there must be an enthusiastic market for them (says the girl who owns enough Woodrow Wilson and FDR goods to sink a small tanker), but I think this kind of mass-marketing issuance is comparitively rare.
When I was a teenager, I was helping my step-dad with something out in our garage and we somehow came upon a JFK coloring book of his, which fascinated me. I couldn't recall ever seeing or owning a Ronald Reagan coloring book, not George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton, either. What was so special about JFK that he rated a kids' coloring book and Reagan memorbilia extended mostly to the usual Halloween mask, or Christmas ornament, or the occasional trading card? By contrast, Kennedy had a couple sets of trading cards devoted to him, not to mention the faboo coloring book.
There is a popular perception of the Obamas as glamorous and elegant, and I think it's that perception which gives them their pop culture success, a la the Camelot era Kennedys. They're young, well-to-do, hip and stylish: Barack uses Twitter, Michelle was on The View.
This is not to say that the Roosevelts didn't have their own brand of mainstream fame - the public reveled in their private lives as much as the public revels in the private lives of any of today's big stars, but I really think that, for the Obamas, the tone of that public infatuation is closer to the Kennedys.
I have to confess, it creeps me out a little to walk through Wal-Mart and see a score of Obama books and memoriabilia staring me in the face. Although I've seen plenty of books about President Bush, I can't recall encountering a commemorative plate sporting his visage while walking through a megastore. Maybe that's just me...?
I think the key to this is 'pop culture'. I know it's not unusual for Franklin Mint-style items to be issued and sold during a presidency - coins, plates, etc. In fact, I imagine there must be an enthusiastic market for them (says the girl who owns enough Woodrow Wilson and FDR goods to sink a small tanker), but I think this kind of mass-marketing issuance is comparitively rare.
When I was a teenager, I was helping my step-dad with something out in our garage and we somehow came upon a JFK coloring book of his, which fascinated me. I couldn't recall ever seeing or owning a Ronald Reagan coloring book, not George H.W. Bush or Bill Clinton, either. What was so special about JFK that he rated a kids' coloring book and Reagan memorbilia extended mostly to the usual Halloween mask, or Christmas ornament, or the occasional trading card? By contrast, Kennedy had a couple sets of trading cards devoted to him, not to mention the faboo coloring book.
There is a popular perception of the Obamas as glamorous and elegant, and I think it's that perception which gives them their pop culture success, a la the Camelot era Kennedys. They're young, well-to-do, hip and stylish: Barack uses Twitter, Michelle was on The View.
This is not to say that the Roosevelts didn't have their own brand of mainstream fame - the public reveled in their private lives as much as the public revels in the private lives of any of today's big stars, but I really think that, for the Obamas, the tone of that public infatuation is closer to the Kennedys.
Friday, May 8, 2009
FDR and the Evil Empire? Give me a break...
I know, I know...this one is probably too short, but it really drives me crazy when Conservatives do this crap. Take a moment (if you can stomach it) and go read this in another window. Go ahead, I'll wait: Liberty and Tyranny II, by Mike Adams.
OK, now what's wrong with this picture? It's pretty easy, and I can tell you right away - yes, FDR raised income taxes A LOT, but who ended up paying out most of it? The very wealthy. Your Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers...and your Roosevelts.
It's funny, FDR's own adoring mother was so aghast by some of his policies that even she refused to pay out, like with Social Security, for instance. When alerted by his offices that Sara Delano Roosevelt wasn't paying her share of SS, FDR just smiled, told them not to bother her, and he paid everything she back-owed, and then went on paying his own dues, too. But that's just the kind of person he was: very sunny and laid-back, and he liked to share things...including his own wealth.
OK, now what's wrong with this picture? It's pretty easy, and I can tell you right away - yes, FDR raised income taxes A LOT, but who ended up paying out most of it? The very wealthy. Your Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers...and your Roosevelts.
It's funny, FDR's own adoring mother was so aghast by some of his policies that even she refused to pay out, like with Social Security, for instance. When alerted by his offices that Sara Delano Roosevelt wasn't paying her share of SS, FDR just smiled, told them not to bother her, and he paid everything she back-owed, and then went on paying his own dues, too. But that's just the kind of person he was: very sunny and laid-back, and he liked to share things...including his own wealth.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Four reasons NOT to hate the Federal Reserve system...
Now keep in mind I'm not saying that the Fed is perfect and couldn't use a review and an overhaul...it totally could. I just wanted to point out that it isn't necessary to hate it with the blind and mistrustful loathing the general public seems to have for it.
Four reasons to support the Federal Reserve System:
1) Despite people's fears and misgivings, the Federal Reserve Bank is not a completely independent entity. It is still responsible to Congress, so even though it's 'private', it's only partially private. Congress writes all its rules, so to speak, and the Senate approves all heads of the Fed.
2) Has anyone ever heard of The Panic of 1907? The very basics: the Panic was caused by a lot of brand new businesses popping up (think 'dot.com bubble' and the internet) to take advantage of the blossoming railroad industry: everyone was looking to make their dime. This put a strain on the economy and caused corrupt behavior, such as people buying shares of their own stock to boost prices. That, in turn, led to bank failures - where people pulled out more money than banks had.
3) Has anyone ever heard of The Panic of 1893? Basically, a drop in gold, which backed currency at that time, and mishandling of silver, set off an economic depression. That caused people to panic and try to withdraw more money than what the banks had on hand. Between the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, these sorts of failures have not happened again.
4) There were, quite literally, THOUSANDS of different types of currencies during the 'free banking era', which everyone here seems to want to return to. These were state run banks and free banks, and often, money that was good in one state was worthless in another.
In this day and age of frequent and far-reaching travel, would you really want your New York currency to be worthless in Florida...and on the gold standard when your bank is on the silver standard?
I repeat - this is not a praise of the Federal Reserve System. The current set-up has a lot of problems and could use a good tweaking. This entry is just meant to be food for thought on a subject that takes a lot of hard (and sometimes unnecessary) hits. Considering that the Fed doesn't even have a full 100 years under its belt yet, it's not doing as badly as it might.
As for President Wilson's mandating it into existence, I know a lot of average Joes really hate him for it, but given the circumstances in the 30 years preceding the Federal Reserve Act, I can't say that I blame him for at least giving it a try.
Four reasons to support the Federal Reserve System:
1) Despite people's fears and misgivings, the Federal Reserve Bank is not a completely independent entity. It is still responsible to Congress, so even though it's 'private', it's only partially private. Congress writes all its rules, so to speak, and the Senate approves all heads of the Fed.
2) Has anyone ever heard of The Panic of 1907? The very basics: the Panic was caused by a lot of brand new businesses popping up (think 'dot.com bubble' and the internet) to take advantage of the blossoming railroad industry: everyone was looking to make their dime. This put a strain on the economy and caused corrupt behavior, such as people buying shares of their own stock to boost prices. That, in turn, led to bank failures - where people pulled out more money than banks had.
3) Has anyone ever heard of The Panic of 1893? Basically, a drop in gold, which backed currency at that time, and mishandling of silver, set off an economic depression. That caused people to panic and try to withdraw more money than what the banks had on hand. Between the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, these sorts of failures have not happened again.
4) There were, quite literally, THOUSANDS of different types of currencies during the 'free banking era', which everyone here seems to want to return to. These were state run banks and free banks, and often, money that was good in one state was worthless in another.
In this day and age of frequent and far-reaching travel, would you really want your New York currency to be worthless in Florida...and on the gold standard when your bank is on the silver standard?
I repeat - this is not a praise of the Federal Reserve System. The current set-up has a lot of problems and could use a good tweaking. This entry is just meant to be food for thought on a subject that takes a lot of hard (and sometimes unnecessary) hits. Considering that the Fed doesn't even have a full 100 years under its belt yet, it's not doing as badly as it might.
As for President Wilson's mandating it into existence, I know a lot of average Joes really hate him for it, but given the circumstances in the 30 years preceding the Federal Reserve Act, I can't say that I blame him for at least giving it a try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
