Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ironic Hero: Why Republicans Should Stop Citing Thomas Jefferson

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 12:11 AM
Original message
Ironic Hero: Why Republicans Should Stop Citing Thomas Jefferson
Edited on Fri Jan-29-10 12:12 AM by Arkana
Ironic Hero: Why Republicans Should Stop Citing Thomas Jefferson

A short time ago, President Barack Obama delivered his first State of the Union address. I thought it was good--hell, I've always thought the man possesses a gift for oratory few of his contemporaries can match.

I saw, much like the rest of the nation, Republicans (and Democrats too) shifting guiltily in their seats when he called them all out for being selfish, obstructionist prima donnas (which they are). He even managed to zing the Supreme Court--Justice Samuel Alito apparently reverted to a happier time when he was five years old and no one called him on the bad things he did because he didn't know any better.

But what intrigued me most was what I saw afterwards in the Republican response. It was delivered by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, the new GOP wunderkind (until Scott Brown does his Senators Gone Wild spread, of course).

In it, he delivered the usual GOP tripe: small government (yeah, right), lower taxes (but only for the wealthy), terror, fear, panic, etc. That much I expected. But this quote in particular galled me.


It was Thomas Jefferson who called for "A wise and frugal Government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry ....and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned..." He was right.


Aside from the fact that it looks like he scoured the Ayn Rand Book O' Political Talking Points for speech lines, you just heard one of many incidences of Republicans adopting Thomas Jefferson as the mascot for their virulent anti-Obama rhetoric. McDonnell wasn't the first, and he won't be the last.

Personally, I've always thought that Republicans (and conservatives in general) citing Jefferson was appallingly stupid of them after eight-some odd years of almost Stalinist rhetoric: "You're with us or with the terrorists", etc. But that's not what really bothers me. Everyone sees the hypocrisy in that.

What bothers me is this: Thomas Jefferson as pre-Presidential statesman and Thomas Jefferson as President were two completely different men. Yes, Republicans are correct about his pre-Presidential philosophy--limited government, agrarian-based economy, religious and economic freedom, etc. Jefferson was the poster boy for those in the country hostile to a strong central government and those devoted to a strict constructionist view of the roles of each branch of it. That much was apparent in his disapproval of what he viewed as the Marshall Court's overreaching on Marbury v. Madison.

But apply a critical eye to Jefferson's years in the Presidency, and some of the decisions he made are bound to jump out at anyone who sincerely believes he was an unflinching advocate of so-called "small government".

Foreign affairs dominated Jefferson's Presidency to a greater extent than most think. First there was the episode with the Barbary pirates. For around 100 years, the West had paid bribes to the Barbary states (on today's map, they'd be Algeria, Tripoli, Tunis, and Morocco) in order to keep pirates from attacking and harassing merchant ships. But the pasha of Tripoli wasn't happy, and he increased his demands. In what was considered a MASSIVE overextension of Presidential power, Jefferson ordered warships to the Mediterranean and blockaded Tripoli in response. Tripoli backed down, but it was the first of many instances where Jefferson would pull a complete 180 on the philosophy of government he'd espoused his entire life.

The Louisiana Purchase is perhaps the greatest example of Jefferson's hypocrisy on the subject. He purchased Louisiana (and the port of New Orleans along with it) from a cash-strapped Napoleon, effectively doubling the size of the country in one fell swoop. He even used Alexander Hamilton's financing system to do it--a system he'd vehemently opposed since the Constitution was written. The Federalist criticisms of hypocrisy were well-founded: Jefferson had campaigned on the idea that government's power was that which was strictly guaranteed by the Constitution. Now, not only had he decided to land-grab half the continent on a whim, but he was proposing that it be ruled by military governors. The discrepancy's gotta be pretty obvious.

There is one more event that defines Jefferson's political flip-flopping--the Embargo Act of 1807. The Embargo Act was a direct (and most historians agree, completely disproportionate) response to British impressment of American sailors. A true small government advocate would never have intervened, not because trade with Europe was one of the major pieces of the American economy, but because of a sincere belief in the free market. But, once again, Jefferson (by his definition, anyway) overreached. The Embargo Act didn't just cut off trade with England--it cut off trade with all of Europe. The economy went into a nosedive, and the Northeast--particularly New England--felt the crunch most. Jefferson backed off near the end of his administration, but the Embargo Act wasn't repealed completely--it was just replaced with the Non-Intercourse Act, which banned trade with only England and France (which, at the time, was at war with Great Britain).

Phew. That was some dense stuff. Most Republicans I know would have stopped reading at my Justice Alito insult.

The point is this--Republicans cannot keep pointing to Thomas Jefferson as the paragon of small government. They cannot keep quoting him as the be-all end-all to any argument they get in over current policy issues. In fact, I cannot think of ANYONE in Presidential history who actually practiced REAL small government philosophy AND was successful with it. Neither Bush did. Ronald Reagan didn't. The last true small-government Republican was Hoover--and he's not the guy you want to hitch your wagon to when the country's having economic problems.

And one more thing--if the media ever picks up a history book, Republicans are SO screwed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 12:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. The Non-Intercourse Act? I don't like the sound of that. ( n/t )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Clinton or Kennedy never would have signed that law.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 12:23 AM
Response to Original message
2. Staunch defender of separation of church and state too
That whole slavery thing though is a hard issue for me to write off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Like I said--religious freedom.
Edited on Fri Jan-29-10 12:26 AM by Arkana
But my focus was on why Thomas Jefferson should never, EVER be cited in concern with small government. In addition to all the other hypocrisies inherent in Republicans adopting his rhetoric after eight years of goose-stepping fascist lunacy, this one is buried deeper than the media's willing to go.

Jefferson realized when he sat in the big chair that it wasn't as simple as his rhetoric made it seem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SUMMERTREE2 Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Jefferson found a need to rewrite the Bible
Jefferson felt that the Bible contained a lot of information that could never be substantiated such as the divinity of Jesus and that it would benefit from reorganization. He took it open himself to undertake the task to create his own version that focused on teachings and removed material that could be construed as mysticism.

http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Jefferson-Bible-Morals-Nazareth/dp/1599867168/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264788884&sr=8-5
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meldread Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
5. Agreed.
Edited on Fri Jan-29-10 01:43 AM by Meldread
As you pointed out in the end, virtually every President who has espoused a love for small government didn't really live up to their ideals.

I've always claimed that being elected to the government, in any position, but in particular the Presidency, is like stumbling upon the One Ring. It's so powerful... and you only want to use it for good... It's as the old saying goes, 'Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.' It is one reason why I believe more power needs to be taken from the Presidency and the Federal Government in general. The more dispersed the power is, the easier it is to hold people accountable for their actions.

Just look at how President Obama has fallen silent on repealing some of the power held by Bush, at best he's made some minor concessions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib_wit_it Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
6. Good one! Now can you do one on why they have no business taking credit for Lincoln just
because he was a "Republican"? Seriously. I'm no political genius (obviously), but I know that present day Republicans would have hated Lincoln. I just don't know how to sum it up in a concise and intelligent fashion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. How about the fact that the Republicans nominated Fremont to run against Lincoln in 1864?
That's right, a sitting President in wartime was denied his party's nomination. Way to support your President, guys! Lincoln quickly cobbled together something called the Union Party, and ran as a candidate on that ticket.

Fremont eventually realized it was a mistake to have accepted the nomination, and withdrew his name.

The Republicans blamed the whole thing on a takeover of the Party by a small group of extremists. Thank goodness that could never happen again!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BolivarianHero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 02:01 AM
Response to Original message
7. The GOP is the Party of Lincoln...
The party of a bisexual secularist who freed African-American slaves and corresponded occasionally with Karl Marx.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-29-10 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. Kicking for the morning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib_wit_it Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-31-10 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
11. We need the "Gideon" of history who will put one in every hotel room.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 06:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC