Gene Healy beat me to the punch in commenting on Karl Rove's Time essay on Teddy Roosevelt.
My colleague (and office neighbor) John Samples is always telling me that Bush supporters are capital-P Progressives. In the course of some parallel research a while back, I happened on an article by the historian William E. Leuchtenberg that explains the Progressives' comfort with ambitious, activist government, both at home and abroad. Fudge the language a bit in places, and it sounds frighteningly similar to the Bush administration today.
[I]mperialism and progressivism flourished together because they were both expressions of the same philosophy of government, a tendency to judge any action not by the means employed but by the results achieved, a worship of definitive action for action's sake, as John Dewey has pointed out, and an almost religious faith in the democratic mission of America. The results of the Spanish-American War were heartily approved not merely because the war freed subject peoples from tyranny, but because, since the United States was the land of free institutions, any extension of its domain was per se an extension of freedom and democracy. It was an age that admired results, that was not too concerned with fine distinctions and nice theories. The Progressives, quite apart from sharing in the general excitement of middle-class America in the rise of the United States as a world power and the sense of identity with the nation which imperialism afforded in a time of national stress, admired anyone who could clean up the slaughterhouses or link two great oceans, who could get a job done without months of tedious debate and deference to legal precedents.
The Progressives believed in the Hamiltonian concept of positive government, of a national government directing the destinies of the nation at home and abroad. They had little but contempt for the strict construction of the Constitution by conservative judges, who would restrict the power of the national government to act against social evils and to extend the blessings of democracy to less favored lands. The real enemy was particularism, state rights, limited government, which would mean the reign of plutocracy at home and a narrow, isolationist concept of national destiny abroad, which would deny the democratic mission of America and leave the brown peoples pawns of dynastic wars and colonial exploitation.
William E. Leuchtenberg, "Progressivism and Imperialism: The Progressive Movement and American Foreign Policy, 1898-1916," The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 39, no. 3 (Dec. 1952), p. 501
Karl Rove has an essay about Teddy Roosevelt in the current issue of Time. In it we learn--or, at least, we read--that T.R. had "a larger-than-life personality"; that "leadership matters;" and that "Roosevelt holds a special place in the American imagination." Edgy stuff.
T.R.'s enduring appeal is an enduring mystery. What, after all, is so attractive about Roosevelt's political philosophy, such as it was: a loudmouthed cult of maniliness; a warped belief that war can be a good tonic for whatever ails the national spirit; and a contemptuous attitude toward limits on presidential power?
Michael Chapman deflates T.R.'s legacy in this Cato Policy Report article [.pdf], and, starting this August, you'll be able to buy Cato senior fellow Jim Powell's new book Bully Boy: The Truth about Theodore Roosevelt's Legacy.
I've received a couple of thoughtful e-mails from Dr. Thomas Davis (the Missouri physician, not the legendary basketball coach) concerning my earlier post criticizing the American Medical Association for wanting to rein in the emergence of retailer-based health care clinics. With Dr. Davis's permission, I'm posting a few of his comments for readers' consideration.
First, lest anyone want to straw man Dr. Davis as a pro-regulation, anti-market, rent-seeking weasel, he writes:
I would prefer a world where a patient can get any medication over the counter without a prescription, where doctors are not licensed, there is no insurance and patients paid cash at the time of service. Health care would be far more efficient and transparent in such a world.
He also stresses that he is not a member of the AMA and that he has some serious qualms with the organization.
Dr. Davis raises three concerns with the in-store clinics:
- If they are operating without direct physician supervision, the clinics lack important medical expertise, and many customers could suffer unnecessary medical expenses (not to mention pain and suffering) from undetected or misdiagnosed afflictions.
- If the clinics siphon off customers who are seeking annual checkups or treatments for minor problems, traditional MD practices will become financially strapped, affecting the care of patients with more complex medical problems.
- The in-store clinics' business model could create perverse incentives for their employees and for tort lawyers, who may likely see the major retailers' clinics as deep-pocketed malpractice suit targets.
Readers can make up their minds on these points. As with most thoughtful arguments, I believe there is some merit to each, but not enough to change my opinion that the clinics are a welcome addition to the health care marketplace.
Indeed, a comment Dr. Davis makes in his second e-mail supports this idea better than anything I could write:
My point is not that these clinics are "bad." The competition in the short run is probably a good thing, and I can out-compete Wal-Mart on the delivery of high quality health care any day.
That, I take it, is a sentiment we all want to hear from health care providers.
Warren Buffett is giving away $44 billion of his fortune, $30 billion of it to the Gates Foundation. Much of that money will go toward education. If it is used for more fiddling about with our existing school monopoly, it will have a negligible long term impact on American education. If it is used to help empower parents with an unfettered choice of public and independent schools, it will transform the lives of millions of children.
Soon we'll find out how well Mr. Buffett's investing acumen translates to the education philanthropy business.
Interesting column in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review today, advocating school vouchers as a way of reducing taxes while improving families' educational options. Not a bad idea. Of course, education tax credits would be an even more direct solution to the problem. But this guy is definitely on the right track.
Kudos to the New York Times for Sunday's article critically examining the United States' dubious infatuation with ethanol. A sample:
For all its allure, though, there are hidden risks to the boom. Even as struggling local communities herald the expansion of this ethanol-industrial complex and politicians promote its use as a way to decrease America's energy dependence on foreign oil, the ethanol phenomenon is creating some unexpected jitters in crucial corners of farm country.
A few agricultural economists and food industry executives are quietly worrying that ethanol, at its current pace of development, could strain food supplies, raise costs for the livestock industry and force the use of marginal farmland in the search for ever more acres to plant corn. . . .
But many energy experts are also questioning the benefits of ethanol to the nation's fuel supply. While it is a renewable, domestically produced fuel that reduces gasoline pollution, large amounts of oil or natural gas go into making ethanol from corn, leaving its net contribution to reducing the use of fossil fuels much in doubt.
The article is not without its faults; for instance, it gives an uncritical airing of the opinion that American agriculture should be used for "food first, then feed" for livestock, "and last fuel." (If the economics are such that demand for ethanol is more intense than the demand for corn chips, then why shouldn't U.S. corn go to ethanol? Of course, that's an enormous "if.") Still, the NYT article is a very welcome departure from the claptrap on ethanol offered by other media.
The U.S. Supreme Court this morning struck down a set of restrictions on campaign finance enacted by Vermont. Six members of the court believed Vermont's spending limits and extremely low contribution limits violated the First Amendment.
The six justices agreed that the Vermont law was invalid. But they disagreed about quite a bit, too. Justices Breyer, Roberts and Alito focused on the shortcomings of the Vermont law. Breyer and Roberts also rejected Vermont's demand that Buckley v. Valeo be overturned. Justices Thomas and Scalia concurred in the opinion but rightly called for overturning Buckley in order to offer better protections for political speech. Justice Kennedy rightly expressed dismay with the Court's recent campaign finance jurisprudence. In the larger picture, he seems closer to Thomas and Scalia than the other three in the majority.
This ruling was expected, but nonetheless good news. The majority opinion shows that we now have a majority of the court who recognize some limits on the power of the state over political speech. After McConnell v. FEC, it was far from clear than the judiciary would draw any lines limiting state restrictions on speech.
Still, this is hardly a robust affirmation of the First Amendment, and it is somewhat discouraging that the new justices, Roberts and Alito, were unwilling to overturn past errors by earlier majorities on the Court.