Sunn O)))
INTL Alumni
14 year RP master
Zan-beef
Ballkicks: (+761 / -127)
Posts: 5458 (0.784)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laputa
Gender: Male |
Reply 8 of 88 (Originally posted on: 10-10-09 12:13:07 PM)
Edit Post
| Edit History
| Send PM
| Change Title
| Reply w/Quote
| Report Post
| Ignore
| Show All Posts
If you're seeking the pivotal moment when America stopped being the America the founding fathers might have intended, you wont find one.
Though, if you're looking for a specific era, you have to look earlier than that. I would argue that the period of 1880-1919 really ended the United States as it was intended to be. The founding fathers never desired the country from replicating the British in style and global influence; they considered it a form of outright corruption. Nor did they see America's control of global capitalism a good thing, or the United States being replicated across the world as a good thing. The country was intended to be a shining beacon, in which any other state may admire and join, but which remained distant from international politics.
The US always sought to remain outside the affairs of the rest of the world - to be a country of merchants and farmers - not an empirical power. Beginning in 1880, you had the start of true professional militarism, where militias became less important, and the people themselves less relevant, to soldiers and particularly naval officers. The United States was content (for the most part) to allow the British to control the Seas, so long as American businessmen could operate trade. What changed in 1880? Nothing in the international sphere had changed, the British were still in control of the Seas. However, strategists (as with Mahan) and leading on the example of other states (Germany and Japan in particular), the US government (with the people) decided it was ample time to compete with a navy. This sparked no less an arms race, with the United States as a competitor with Great Britain. The US was falling right into the trap of "European Politics" which the founding fathers abhorred.
At the same time, high tariffs were coupled with financial problems in the US. Those high tariffs were set after the Civil War, and were against the practices of the early United States. The Republicans at the time considered high tariffs important for protecting American industries, yet they also blocked the US off from competition in the markets it had overseas. This would lead, to some sense, to the financial reforms (the gold/silver crisis), and the later introduction of an income tax during Wilson's presidency.
Then of course, in foreign policy, there were several events which (as a cascade effect) changed the course of American policy. The US had run on the concept of Manifest Destiny throughout the 19th century, and that was fine. For the most part, it was a consolidation of continental territory. Ignoring Alaska, subsequent territories acquired by the US were neither on the continent, nor were purchased without war. The United States annexed Hawaii in the late 1890s from a legitimate government. Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam followed in 1898. Cuba became a protectorate. Panama became a protectorate in 1901. At the time, the US was deeply involved in China, Japan, South America, the Middle East and South-East Asia. It had essentially become an empire, both in nature and in tactics used against these areas.
The building of the Panama Canal further linked the United States with the welfare of the rest of the world.
I can't say if this is a belief of the founding fathers, but I doubt they intended for big business or interest groups to influence a weak government, in which the United States is. This was always a characteristic of the US, but one which was hardly at conflict prior to 1880. After 1880, both the government and the businesses were fighting, both over tariff issues, but also to what amount of influence the government could have over businesses. Needless to say, with tariffs diminished, these big businesses grew in a short amount of time to be vast multinationals, influencing areas of the world beyond the US. Linking irrevocably their own policies elsewhere to those of the US. This was always true - that merchants were most important in foreign policy - but I don't think the founding fathers truly understood competition as it would end up, nor that competition mixed with late 19th century imperialism would lead to the US government being heavily influenced by the interests of those multinationals (occasionally, not of their own territory). In essence, because a company requires credit to invest in another state, and the structure of the US government facilitates those needs through American investors, American investors became tied to the policies of that other state, and their lobbyists tried to make sure that the inept structure of the government did what they wanted. Don't get me wrong, the US government structure is admirable, but not complete by any means, and in comparison to other structures, is weak by creation. Which, of course, was the founding fathers' intentions.
Either of these policies - both domestic and foreign - made the United States both powerful and prosperous. These are the same policies the founding fathers abhorred and tried to avoid during their tenures. At the same time, if you are an American and you're watching your country become increasingly more powerful and wealthy in comparison to other states, you're going to be proud. You're going to want to see more. People, like last year, wanted to see progress.
Woodrow Wilson represented that to his constituents. His first act was to secure, not create, the Federal Reserve. Which wasn't actually a bad idea at the time. The changing nature of the tariff system, the big business mentality, and further industrialization caused financial panic after panic, the Federal Reserve was intended to decrease the amount of panics. This failed, of course, when within decades the stalled panics compounded into one huge one. In all honesty, this would have been one of the least controversial issues for the founding fathers. It was attempted before twice, once during their lifetimes. The idea that the government might have to step in to assist business is not a new one, nor a bad one. More often than not, if left alone, businesses fluctuate the market far too often to be considered reliable. Prosperity typically grows out of involvement of some sort.
Despite all this, Wilson actually did put a stop to many of the policies of the previous generation. He put a stop to the conflict between big business and government, by setting guidelines as to how businesses should act, and where the government fit. He openly tried to assist big businesses with their labor unions, which were at the apex of blossoming (a world-wide phenomenon).
His foreign policy culminated from a decades old trend, that the United States held treaties with Great Britain over the stability of both states' merchant fleets. Wilson was actually a dove, his predecessors, as with Teddy Roosevelt, actually wanted to intervene in the war. All depending upon the big business, there were mixed desires to either stay out or go into the war, based solely on their own interests. Many businesses had stake in European infrastructure and goods, which were in high demand during the prolonged conflict, but were also at risk of being undermined by the conflict (eg. The rise of the Soviets in Russia, 1917, which nationalized American investments. This would later lead the United States to intervene in Russia throughout the Russian Civil War of 1919-1921.)
When the US entered World War One, most Americans wanted it. Congress wanted it - only 6 senators voted against it. Even early on, the US was on board for Wilson's ideals, which had attempted to position the country in a strong capacity for being a mediator. The tiny little federation on the fringe of civilization, as the founding fathers had seen it, was from this point on a significant world player. More so after WW2.
Throughout Wilson's presidency, he continued the policy of intervention throughout the world - in Mexico, Haiti, Nicaragua. He sought to become a mediator in the Armenian Genocide, brought about in part from his own humanitarian needs, and also that of decades old business interests in the Ottoman Empire (which was on the road to final collapse).
This period - to me - represents the final end to the values that the founding fathers intended - in part - to have for the United States. Not one president is to blame for it all; any event in time is a product of other events. Wilson was a product of Theodore Roosevelt, as much as Roosevelt was a product of his predecessors. Textbooks teach you the "American ideals" as a fallacy, not because they exist the same at the time of the founding fathers, but because they were wise concepts for the time in which they were written. More often than not, they are taught to indoctrinate Americans with American culture, which is build on passive aggressive hostility towards a federal government, than to actually expect you to live those values.
Now what represents the beginning of the end? I would say, look no further than the XYZ affair.
This reply was last edited on 10-10-09 12:27:21 PM by Sunn O))).
|
