"I’ve taken this tour through history because we are having a big debate about what government’s role should be, so, of course, we are having a debate about what government’s role has been. Two of the country’s most provocative writers have taken stabs at describing that history — imperfectly in my view — in order to point a way forward.
In his illuminating new book, “Land of Promise,” the political historian Michael Lind celebrates the Hamiltonian tradition, but, in his telling, Hamiltonianism segues into something that looks like modern liberalism. But the Hamiltonian tradition differs from liberalism in fundamental ways.
In his engrossing new book, “Our Divided Political Heart,” E.J. Dionne, my NPR pundit partner, argues that the Hamiltonian and Jacksonian traditions formed part of a balanced consensus, which has been destroyed by the radical individualists of today’s Republican Party. But that balanced governing philosophy was destroyed gradually over the 20th century, before the Tea Party was even in utero. As government excessively overreached, Republicans became excessively antigovernment.
We’re not going back to the 19th-century governing philosophy of Hamilton, Clay and Lincoln. But that tradition offers guidance. The question is not whether government is inherently good or evil, but what government does.
Does government encourage long-term innovation or leave behind long-term debt for short-term expenditure? Does government nurture an enterprising citizenry, or a secure but less energetic one?
If the U.S. doesn’t modernize its governing institutions, the nation will stagnate. The ghost of Hamilton will be displeased.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/opinion/brooks-the-role-of-uncle-sam.html?_r=1
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire