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.
Showing posts with label Woodrow Wilson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Woodrow Wilson. Show all posts
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?
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.
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)
