Jacksonian Revolt

Daniel McCarthy asks whether the post-9/11 alliance of Jacksonians and Wilsonians is cracking up.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Viking Moose||

    "Where civil liberties are concerned, Jacksonians all too often live down to the description Thomas Jefferson gave of his fellow Southerners in a letter to the Marquis de Chastellux of Sept. 2, 1785: "In the South they are � zealous for their own liberties, but trampling on those of others.""

    ha. (that old story)

    interesting read. thanks! (still am unsure about the Jefferson = minimialist type belief. i tend to knee-jerk that one into the same pile as those who would pretend that reagan was a true "small government" (less intrusive one) type, etc)

    cheerio!
    VM

  • ||

    How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?
    Dr. Samuel Johnson
    Taxation No Tyranny (1775)

  • ||

    Why does Thomas Jefferson hate America?

  • ||

    I think I understand what Wilsonians, Jacksonians, and Jeffersonians are, but I'm still confused about Hamiltonians and Adamsians. It's amazing the guy can write that much and still leave so much unclear.

  • ||

    The freedom and democracy icing didn't really go with the whole "we need to blow up them arabs"* cake.

    I never heard that particular quote by Jefferson. That guy remains awesome.

    * Actual quote by more than one Heartland relative of mine.

  • ||

    Interesting. Yeah, one does have to wonder when the "blow up 'dem arabs" crowd and the "bring them democracy" crowd will finally have had it with each other. Also, I'd like to know when the Libertarians will wake up and realize that their civil liberties are more important than their stupid tax breaks and vote for the dems...

    JMJ

  • ||

    Jersey,

    Why did you use the demotic "dem Arabs" for one but then used "bring THEM Democracy" for the other?

  • ||

    Eric,

    Respective accents. ;)

    Hick says, "Kill 'dem Arabs."

    Neocon says, "Bring them democracy."

    Jersey says, "Stay the hell away from psychotic theocratic loonies."

    JMJ

  • JSF||

    Let us win your hearts and minds or we'll blow your damn huts up...

  • ||

    AC: as I understand it, the Hamiltonians were the budding nanny-staters. Hamilton bought into the mercantilist theories of contemporary European economics and favored, among other things, tariffs to protect native industry and a central bank to control the currency. They wanted central control over the economy.

  • ||

    AC: In foreign policy, Hamiltonians believe that American should only act to defend its interests (against the Wilsonians), and don't fear international involvements and adventures in service of that (against the Jeffersonians), and believe in sufficient Realpolitik to be troubled by the Jacksonians. They like international institutions as long as they extend American power and can be used for American interests, which are their lodestars.

  • ||

    Also, I'd like to know when the Libertarians will wake up and realize that their civil liberties are more important than their stupid tax breaks and vote for the dems...

    Yes, I thought of the Democrats fondly when I got in my new car to drive to work this morning. That's the car I bought after the prick at the Emissions Testing Center blew up the transmission in my last car.

    Thanks Democrats!

    When I get to work, I can look forward to cleaning up the mess left by the bozo on 3rd shift that the management is afraid to fire for fear of getting slapped with a discrimination suit.

    Thanks Democrats!

    Well, before I get to work on that, I'll have a cigarette and a cup of coffee while I'm planning my strategy. Of course, I'll have to go outside, because I can't smoke in the building any more.

    Thanks Democrats!

    On the bright side, smoking outside means I have the opportunity to chat with the cute receptionist. On the down side, if I ask her out I risk seeing my career go down in flames due to a sexual harrassment suit.

    Thanks Democrats!

    I'm going to murder the next Democrat that gets anywhere near my civil liberties!

  • R C Dean||

    It's amazing the guy can write that much and still leave so much unclear.

    Not if he's trained as a lawyer.

  • ||

    Basically what the article says is that Bush and his neocon types pandered to the "Jacksonians" in order to get elected, and after so many months of feeding that beast it turned on them. And when "Jacksonians" turn on you, they are downright nasty

    (Letter to Lou Dobbs: "Do not send your book to the President. Send it to me. I can read.")

    Of course, the Dems are now tempted to feed the beast themsevles. After all, Jackson was one of theirs - Jackson and the first ethnic cleansing in the US.

    But Bush has no one to blame but himself for feeding the beast for that long.

  • ||

    Piggy,

    "Yes, I thought of the Democrats fondly when I got in my new car to drive to work this morning. That's the car I bought after the prick at the Emissions Testing Center blew up the transmission in my last car.

    Thanks Democrats!"

    Hey - I know that tester guy - and he's a libertarian!

    "When I get to work, I can look forward to cleaning up the mess left by the bozo on 3rd shift that the management is afraid to fire for fear of getting slapped with a discrimination suit.

    Thanks Democrats!"

    I bet the second shift guy enjoys your mess just as much.

    "Well, before I get to work on that, I'll have a cigarette and a cup of coffee while I'm planning my strategy. Of course, I'll have to go outside, because I can't smoke in the building any more.

    Thanks Democrats!"

    Awww... Piggy can't smoke in other people's faces... awww...

    "On the bright side, smoking outside means I have the opportunity to chat with the cute receptionist. On the down side, if I ask her out I risk seeing my career go down in flames due to a sexual harrassment suit.

    Thanks Democrats!"

    Yeah, those pesky harassment suits. Lord knows you're totally cool with others coercing your female loved ones for sex...

    "I'm going to murder the next Democrat that gets anywhere near my civil liberties!"

    That's why we have to keep you libertarians straight.

    Look, what have the cons gotten you? Warrentless, courtless arrests and detentions and searches. An $800 billion trade deficit. A pointless expensive undeclared war. More pork spending than ever. A president who's never wielded a veto pen. Worldwide disdain for America. And on and on...

    And what do you worry about? You want to scapegoat minorities, smoke in peoples' faces and hit on coworkers.

    Jees.

    JMJ

  • Viking Moose||

    Pig Mannix:

    good list. and might i suggest we add "populists who are too dumb even to RENT a clue" to the list?

    nice highlight of the nannies who know what's best for you (= assholes)

    cheers

  • ||

    In fairness, JMJ, the "cons" who were/are in the Republican party are either no longer in government or have no voice in the current party. Calling anyone who takes their marching orders from Karl Rove a conservative pretty much demonstrates an ignorance of the term. I'd say that the Rovians are far more concerned about power than any actual agenda.

    And I'm not commenting on how great he'd be as President, but this is why a guy like Newt Gingrich has no chance at all in 2008, because the Republican power brokers will do anything they can to keep an idealogue from being the standard bearer.

  • ||

    Why does George Jefferson hate America? I thought he was movin' on up...

  • ||

    JF,

    Good point - but I think there's also somthing to be said for balance, which is really the problem here. When you have a one party state, that one party, regardless of their rhetoric, will abuse power.

    I read somewhere recently that back in '72 something like 2/3rds of voters intentionally split their tackets at the polls and that now it's something around 20%. That's pathetic - and it's exactly why we have Roves and Bushes mucking things up.

    If libertarians want to do something smart, they'd wise up to this reality and start splitting the tickets. Neither party, or even the libertarian party itself, is really all about the people. Power corrupts and ultimate power corupts ultimately. All libertarians should know that by heart.

    JMJ

  • lunchstealer||

    Jersey McRove,

    Some of us have looked into it, but who did you nominate last time? The guy who spent most of the nineties caucusing for most of the provisions of the Patriot act. That was pre-9/11. What was his excuse? Try actually making yourselves an attractive alternative, rather than just 'slightly less awful'.

    Add to that assclowns like you who make it clear that you hate everything we stand for tend to leave a bitter taste. Seriously, you're almost as full of it as Falwell. I'm still not sure you're not a GOP mole here to make absolutely sure we feel even more unwelcome on the left than we are on the right? If you really love the democratic party, and want libertarians to join the coalition, turn down the contempt. Or just leave, and send a collegue with a shred of personality.

    At this point, I think a lot of libertarians are waiting for the current post-Depression/Cold War Democratic and Republican coalitions to finish self-destructing before we figure out where we can actually do some good. We've just left one abusive relationship, so I don't think we're too keen to just jump into another.

  • ||

    Also, I'd like to know when the Libertarians will wake up and realize that their civil liberties are more important than their stupid tax breaks and vote for the dems...

    When are libertarians going to wake up and put a serious candidate on the ballot?

    And when are you going to realize that libertarians would generally rather not vote Dem or Rep?

    All you're doing is advocating Poison A vs Poison B. Neither of them defends civil liberties as a matter of consistent principle. They don't even try.

    btw, are you any relation to joe?

  • ||

    Dear Kahn: It is always bad when there is a party who thinks that he has your vote automatically, no matter what, because the other guy is worse. They feel free to screw you anytime they want.

    It is not that the Dems are better, but that freedom flourishes when you have two powers that you can play against the other.

    Back in the middle ages, neither the Emperor nor the Pope was a champion of liberty, but by playing the one against the other, some amount of freedom could be gained.

    Will you throw away that valuable experiencie?

  • ||

    Lunchstealer,

    I'm not a Democrat (and certainly no fan of Rove's!). I'm to the left of the dems.

    Kahn,

    "When are libertarians going to wake up and put a serious candidate on the ballot?

    And when are you going to realize that libertarians would generally rather not vote Dem or Rep?

    All you're doing is advocating Poison A vs Poison B. Neither of them defends civil liberties as a matter of consistent principle. They don't even try.

    btw, are you any relation to joe?"

    Joe? No. Libertarians can't put up a "serious candidate" because #1 there's no such a thing as a serious libertarian and #2 no one would vote for them.

    Adriana,

    "It is not that the Dems are better, but that freedom flourishes when you have two powers that you can play against the other."

    Exactly the point.

    JMJ

  • ||

    When are libertarians going to wake up and put a serious candidate on the ballot?

    Actually, they did, in 1980. The folks that were responsible for that campaign were driven out before 1984. Afew returned for 1988 (another good candidate) but for the most part they decided that they're time would be more constructively spent at places like Cato.

    But serious candidate or no, the fact of the matter is that there is not that much demand for libertarianism in the political marketplace.

  • ||

    "they're" should read "their".

    I can spell, dammit, and I do know the difference between "they're" and "their".

  • ||

    It is always bad when there is a party who thinks that he has your vote automatically, no matter what, because the other guy is worse.

    Okay, that I can understand.

    But I have to wonder if libertarians could make a serious swing difference.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement