While Rush Hannivine (a conglomeration of Rush, Sean, and Mark) bemoan the federal government’s shut down of war memorials (and closing them to veterans), John Judis likens the Shutdown to one of the worst crises in American history. Since (all about) I am in the middle of a course on the Civil War and how Americans remember it and conjure its meaning, I was taken aback by any comparison of the current dysfunction in Washington (though it is constitutional dysfunction since the Constitution was designed with built-in dysfunction) to a war that took 640,000 lives and that forever underscores the dysfunctions of the founding (as in states vs. federal prerogatives or the legality of slavery). For all of the memorials that Americans have funded, built, and maintained, they don’t seem to be very adept at remembering arguably the bleakest part of U.S. history.
But Judis sticks to his comparison:
There is no simple explanation for why this is happening now, but there are precedents in American history for the kind of assault on government that the Republicans are mounting. First, there is the South of John Calhoun, which Sam Tannenhaus wrote about in The New Republic. Calhoun developed the doctrine of nullification—that states, claiming a higher Constitutional authority, could refuse to obey federal laws—in order to justify South Carolina’s opposition to tariffs adopted in 1828 and 1832. Calhoun’s doctrine became the basis of the state’s rights argument against attempts by the federal government to limit the expansion of slavery and a century later to enforce racial desegregation.
Secondly, there is the rise in 1937 of a conservative coalition of conservative Southern Democrats and rural Midwestern Republicans to block and repeal the New Deal through parliamentary maneuvers and investigations, which I wrote about two years ago. Calhounist nullification anticipates the anti-federal tactics of today’s Republican right. The conservative coalition of the late 1930s anticipates the composition of today’s Republican coalition and its grievance: the expansion of the federal safety net. Both of these older movements cited the United States Constitution as their authority for attempting to defy or dismantle the federal government. Like today’s Republican rightists, both older movements claimed to represent tradition and morality against a decadent modernity. They looked backwards. They were reactionary rather than conservative movements.
What happened to these movements gives some indication of what could happen to today’s Republican intransigents. The Calhounists precipitated a civil war, in which over 600,000 Americans died. The conservative coalition, on the other hand, faded temporarily from view and only reemerged in the last decades. That was because in 1941 Americans went to war against Nazi Germany and Japan. World War II unified Americans. In modern wars, the national government has to call upon all its citizens to do their part and to submerge their differences. Business made peace with labor; blacks served alongside whites. And that spirit of national unification lasted for 15 years after the war. It helped to give rise—although not without conflict—to a social compact between business and labor, an end to racial segregation and the preservation and expansion of New Deal programs like social security. If World War II had not intervened, it’s very likely that the conservative coalition would have grown stronger, and would have been able to stop the expansion of, if not undermine, social security.
Dismissing these rebellious Americans as reactionary is one way to make sense of U.S. history, but it stumbles and breaks its neck when U.S. administration after U.S. administration supports rebel groups in places like Syria and Egypt. Had a U.S. administration in 1861, say, opted for a two-state solution to the U.S. — which is what many Americans support in Israel — the South may have had the U.S.’s blessing in secession. In other words, Americans on both the left and the right are remarkably selective in how they celebrate freedom fighters, independence, and resistance to tyranny. What is still lacking is some kind of metric that says Muslim rebels are better than Christian southern rebels who are both inferior to deist Tea Party (original) rebels. Don’t get me wrong. I’m no advocate of rebellion at all times and in all places. But I do tire of making the South the whipping boy for defenders of the federal government when America has a long tradition of resisting the consolidation of power in the hands of centralized (national) authorities. If folks like Judis can seen the problem with Hitler or Assad, how about the NSA under Bush and Obama?
The other annoying part of Judis’ comparison is to suggest that the Shutdown may turn the U.S. into the Weimar Republic.
The civil war, as Marx once wrote, was a revolutionary clash that pitted one mode of production against another. Nothing so momentous is at stake today. It also pitted one region against another, and it was fought with rifles and men on horseback. The largest effect is likely to be continued dysfunction in Washington, which if it continues over a decade or so, will threaten economic growth and America’s standing in the world, undermine social programs like the Affordable Care Act, and probably encourage more radical movements on the right and the left. Think of Italy, Greece, or Weimar Germany. Or think about what the United States would have been like if World War II had not occurred, and if Europe, the United States, and Japan had failed to pull themselves out of the Great Depression.
This is the Chamber-of-Commerce take on the Shutdown — it’s bad for business and all those programs that the economy funds through taxation and regulation. What Judis seems to forget (again) is that if you want economic growth, at least the kind we now “enjoy” with a stock market that rises seemingly independent of employment rates, property values, manufacturing, or agricultural output, a civil war may be what the Chamber ordered. Here is a reminder from Allen Guelzo:
Northern financiers benefited in even more remarkable ways [from the Civil War]. The seven Democratic administrations that straddled the first six decades of the nineteenth century gave little if any encouragement to the development of American finance by holding the government’s role in the economy strictly to exchanges of specie. A good deal of the capitalization of American industry in the 1820s and 1830s had to be imported from abroad. But the war and the Republicans changed that: First, the threat of the civil war drove foreign investors off the American securities market, drove down demand, and allowed American investors to step into the vacuum; then, the Republicans dismissed the Democrats’ abiding suspicion of the financial markets and took the nation off the gold standard; finally, the immense amounts of money needed to carry on the war crated a new class of financiers — bankers, insurers and brokers such as Jay Cooke — who dealt in unprecedented volumes of cash and securities. The creation of the national banking system in 1863, and the subsequent disappearance of state bank currencies from Northern circulation, helped to further shift massive new amounts of financial power in the hands of financiers.
But there was a downside, one that may still be fresh in our memory:
Northern finance quickly outstripped the capacity of the Federal government to oversee and regulate it, and the financial community soon found itself agitating for a return to the gold standard, to to restrain the freewheeling dealings of the financial markets, but to slow down currency inflation and attach the markets to a standard independent of federal control. This meant, in effect, returning the United States to its dependence on the international flow of specie, especially through the hands of British financiers, and when the British financial markets failed in 1873, they carried Jay Cooke and other American financiers down with them.
Guelzo continues:
The most important change in the shape of the postwar American economy was organizational rather than industrial or agricultural; . . . Before the Civil War, only about 7 percent of American manufacturing was organized in corporations. . . . By 1900 corporations accounted for 69 percent of all manufacturing. . . “Now,” warned James A. Garfield in 1874, “a class of corporations unknown to the early law writers has arisen, and to them have been committed the vast powers of the railroad and the telegraph, the great instruments by which modern communities live, move, and have their being.” (Fateful Lightning, 519-21)
The lesson very could well be that original notion of too big to fail came with a refusal to allow the South to secede and thereby reduce the size of the U.S. By insisting on perpetual union and continuing to mock those who dissent from the federal government’s demands for uniformity and standardization, the U.S. has become the sort of imperial power against which its founders rebelled.
Old Life 
Picked up “The Death of Christian Britain” by Callum G. Brown, 2001, Routledge, for $.25. Cheapest copy on Amazon? $116.01. One to read (someday) and then sell.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=0415181496&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3A0415181496
Routledge has a lot of good titles in history and religion. Nice looking design-wise, as well.
LikeLike
James Madison took copious notes of the debates that preceded the U.S Constitution. Issues such as slavery and the powers relegated to the states were discussed long before John Calhoun developed his doctrine of nullification.
BTW, the so called “affordable care act” is anything but affordable. Evidently the U.S. Senate concurs.
LikeLike
I think Thomas Sowell’s explanation ‘the shutdown’ is the best I’ve heard yet:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell100413.php3#.Uk-Q9xbfQeo
Short…and sweet.
LikeLike
Did some middle-of-the night book scouting last night (don’t ask). Among the finds: Harry Emerson Fosdick’s autobiography.
I rolled into the McDonald’s drive-thru at 4:45 hoping to get a double cheesburger. The lady tells me they’re on a full breakfast menu. So I decide to go in and order Hotcakes and Sausage. I place my order and the lady says, “Your number is 399”. I look around the restaurant — sure enough I’m the only one there. 60 seconds later she calls out “399”. I get my food.
Oh, and she forgot to give me silverware, butter, and syrup.
LikeLike
E-man got 99 (first world) problems but the book ain’t one.
LikeLike
The Old,
Sowell is great. I started reading him in college. Way too much logic for the average American.
LikeLike
Every time I go into McDonald’s I marvel at the (lack of) competency of the long-term, chronically unemployed. If these people are actually getting a paycheck how bad do you have to be to not be able to get one in America? Or maybe they’re really not trying to find work…
The McDonald’s franchisee in Ames recently demolished and rebuilt one of his stores and remodeled the other. He apparently can’t pay any more than minimum wage to hire some employees who can count higher than 10 and form a coherent thought, however.
LikeLike
Paul, not to mention that it was the South that was complaining that the Northern states were nullifying the fugitive slave laws in their secession documents!
For instance, from South Carolina, “The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution.”
Judis also gets it wrong for tying nullification with Republicans today. It seems that the most bold nullifiers recently have been the liberal west states.
LikeLike
Just turned the Michigan State at Iowa football game on. Woman doing play-by-play. Is nothing sacred?
LikeLike
Woo-hoo!
South Carolina gets mentioned on Old Life (even if it’s only in a quote!). First to secede. Last to succeed.
LikeLike
Thanks for reminding me to watch that game, Erik!! I’m an erstwhile Iowan.
LikeLike
Erik: Just turned the Michigan State at Iowa football game on. Woman doing play-by-play. Is nothing sacred?
I mentioned this a few weeks ago, she did the Ohio State home opener. And they match the women with effeminate sounding men so they meet in the middle of the butch range.
DGH, the New Republic again has called everything the GOP has ever done to be shades of Hitler? Say it ain’t so….
I’ve been a subscriber to TNR for over 25 years, the best back half of a magazine on earth and the worst front half of a magazine on earth, all under a single cover.
LikeLike
@Adam
Sowell’s piece is a bit dishonest. Yes, the House controls appropriations. Bu the amendments being added by the House are non-budgetary amendments. In other words, the House is refusing to carry out its Constitutional duty unless the President refuses to make substantive non-budgetary changes to a law that has already passed both houses of Congress and been signed by the President. In my opinion (as a conservative), the Constitution grants no such authority to the House.
It is really quite extraordinary for the House to refuse to perform its required duty because it otherwise lacks the legitimate political power to accomplish what it desires. In many ways, the conduct of the House is more Jacobin than it is Burkean.
LikeLike
The above should say: “unless the President agrees…”
LikeLike
Bobby: It is really quite extraordinary for the House to refuse to perform its required duty because it otherwise lacks the legitimate political power to accomplish what it desires. In many ways, the conduct of the House is more Jacobin than it is Burkean.
yup, everything the GOP does is evil and satanic and with the most malicious intent and the world will fall apart within 24 hours if they go into lockdown.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz….
LikeLike
@kent
I’m not making a judgment as to whether the conduct of the House is evil or not. I’m just saying that the House’s conduct is inimical to the Constitution and runs counter to a conservative approach to governing. These so-called “conservatives” are just a different variant of liberal.
LikeLike
Come on Bobby, get real.
They rammed it through in a distinctly disreputable undemocratic fashion in the first place and to top it off what is called the Supreme Court waved their magic wand and made the penalty into a tax. Yo pal, does Dred Scott, Roe Wade and Kelo come to mind, never mind Geo. Orwell?
Now people like the AFL CIO (wonders never cease) are seeing how bad it is and jumping ship – if not requesting a waiver, which the rest of us won’t get (equal protection anyone?) – not to mention that Congress is not subject to/is above the laws and healthcare it passes for the rest of us. (Hint, equality means equality before the law not “equal outcome” and since homosexuals can’t get married, we need to redefine marriage so everything is “equal” ala the last Supreme decision.)
As far as Judis and the three stooges of big govt. conservative talk radio goes, they deserve each other as a rule, but this time I’ll cut the latter some slack.
Yet for the money, I’ll go with the literary critic, Edmund Wilson, who in his Patriotic Gore; Studies in the Literature of the American Civil War compared Lincoln and his centralization of the American nation to Bismarck in Prussia and Lenin in Russia. All three “presided over the
unifications of the three great new modern powers.” Yeah, I know. Don’t let your jaw hit the floor. The Great Emancipator = the Head Bolshevik.
And then there’s the f word. Too big to fail governments and companies/corporations add up to fascism. True, the situation in Weimar Germany led to fascism, but if the Natl. Defense Authorization Act manifests any relation in part to the Enabling Act, never mind the Fuhererprinzip, clue up Dorothy. Maybe this ain’t Kansas or Weimar Germany anymore.
LikeLike
Bob S., ding ding on Wilson — Edmund, that is.
LikeLike
@Bob S
I don’t necessarily disagree with you on the merits. But the House’s tactic is not a process that the Constitution envisions for effecting such change.
If you want to achieve the kind of reform you envisioned, you’ll need to persuade the voting public of the merits of your vision, elect legislators and a President who agree with you, craft laws that embody those principles, work those laws through the Congress, and have them signed into law by the President.
This is an arduous task and it takes sustained effort. The House Republicans don’t seem to be interested in this process, and, at this point, the voters haven’t given them the authority to pursue it. So, they’ve orchestrated an end-run around the Constitution and partially shut down the government to extort that which they otherwise lack the legitimate political power to secure.
Your bloviating, however, suggests that you are likely too much of a partisan hack to appreciate this point. After all, we can’t hope to return this country to the principles of Burke by trying to achieve conservative outcomes by Jacobin tactics.
LikeLike
Speaking of bloviating, it’s too bad the pharmacological community hasn’t come up with Imodium for diarrhea of expression. Blogdom might cease to exist, but only if concerned parties slip the drug in our coffee, coke, or cognac.
LikeLike
The only way the “shut-down” has affected my life is this morning I couldn’t read a NASA webpage on the sun’s poles flipping. “Due to the lapse in federal government funding, this website is not available.
We sincerely regret this inconvenience.”
I’m sure they pay hosting on a daily basis.
I found another article, though, so it’s good.
“We can’t hope to return this country to the principles of Burke by trying to achieve conservative outcomes with Jacobin tactics.” Amen.
LikeLike
Bobby, I don’t envision any kind of reform. I only note that the way the unconstitutional healthcare act was foisted upon us, arguably leaves room to at least allow the Repugs to play a political game.
The constitution never envisioned this crap at all.
Socialized healthcare is jacobinism, never mind Romneycare, Bush’s Medicare Plan D if not the Heritage Foundation’s answer to Hillarycare in the beginning.
They are all unconstitutional.
On top of it, the Supremes made complete asses of themselves, if not that AbominableCare will fall of it’s own contradictions.
So now the Repugs are fighting a rearguard action and willing to fund everything but AC. I say go for it. Let the jacobin siamese twins have at it.
LikeLike
@Bob S
Forget to take your meds today?
LikeLike
Yeah, Bobby. Me, Sowell, Buchanan and Codevilla all forgot to take our meds.
You got a problem with that?
LikeLike
Things are getting a bit chippy! The real question is are your meds covered by Obamacare? I appreciate your passion, Bob S. Could the founders envision a situation where you have to pass a bill in order to know what is in it? Leviathan strikes again!
LikeLike
john, I liked Pat B’s comment. When the primadonna that was the speaker of the house at the time was asked and she said “Is it constitutional? Are you kidding?”, Pat said it was time for the hoi polloi to march on Washington DC. with torch and pitchfork and throw the bums out.
LikeLike
Judis once wrote a biography of William F. Buckley. I’m sure that was glowing.
LikeLike
The best part of the shutdown has been watching liberals hyperventilate on a daily basis.
Maybe if they want to expand the safety net they should first come up with a way to come remotely close to paying for the safety net we already have.
I sometimes think Republicans should just get out of the way and let Democrats own all of this. Have a 70% marginal federal tax rate that hits everyone making more than $50,000 a year and then see how jazzed everyone is about the beloved safety net.
This is all so ridiculous.
LikeLike
Paul – BTW, the so called “affordable care act” is anything but affordable. Evidently the U.S. Senate concurs.
Erik – If it is affordable it won’t be anything you really want to buy. The biggest impact will be that you will have to wait forever to see a doctor.
LikeLike
Katy – I’m sure they pay hosting on a daily basis.
Erik – That is hilarious. My crush on Katy only grows crushier.
LikeLike
The direction we are headed (if Democrats keep winning elections) is higher and higher taxes to pay for unproductive people’s lifestyles. A lot of those people waste money on stupid stuff, though, and wealthy people own the companies that produce the stupid stuff. So the wealthy people will make money and will pay most of it to the government. The government will turn around and give it to unproductive people who will give it back to the wealthy people, and on-and-on in an endless cycle. So the real concern with all this is how much will the politicians and bureaucrats be skimming off for themselves when it passes through the government?
LikeLike