Share
I did a good bit of reading of American political speeches over the weekend from Thomas Payne to the present. I never intend to embark on a civics lecture, but I think the whitewashing or rewriting of history is important to be cautious of. Please read on.
As I hear today’s Republicans appeal to the public they frequently talk about “returning to traditional American values,” “increasing our military spending to fight terrorists,” and “legislating to keep over-regulation from choking industry and job creation.” I often feel that the Republican party has moved further to the right and away from the interests of ordinary Americans over my lifetime, but some reading I did of historical American political speeches confirmed that in the “good old days” the Republican party was far more enlightened than it is now. I’m not saying I would have agreed with every policy choice from the speakers I reference, but many of the ideas they champion in these speeches would be blasphemous to the current conservative orthodoxy. One thing they all have in common is an appeal to think of the common good over partisan ideology or the demands of special interests. These principles reflect what should be a very basic interpretation of democracy, the nation as a whole comes first! I’ll tackle these speeches chronologically.
First, Republican Teddy Roosevelt called for the regulation of industry. The practices of large companies, including those with monopolies or near monopolies called “trusts,” was showing a need for regulation to prevent ethical abuse. Too much power corrupts, and of course the need for regulation to prevent abuse still exists, but is constantly vilified as “socialist,” “anti-free market,” and “anti-freedom” by the Republican party of today.
Here is an excerpt from Roosevelt’s speech:
It is no limitation upon property rights or freedom of contract to require that when men receive from Government the privilege of doing business under corporate form, which frees them from individual responsibility, and enables them to call into their enterprises the capital of the public, they shall do so upon absolutely truthful representations as to the value of the property in which the capital is to be invested. Corporations engaged in interstate commerce should be regulated if they are found to exercise a license working to the public injury. It should be as much the aim of those who seek for social- betterment to rid the business world of crimes of cunning as to rid the entire body politic of crimes of violence. Great corporations exist only because they are created and safeguarded by our institutions; and it is therefore our right and our duty to see that they work in harmony with these institutions.
You can read the whole speech here but the regulation of industry portion begins after Roosevelt’s remarks about president McKinley’s assassination.
Next I’d like to reference Dwight D. Eisenhower’s speech on the Military Industrial Complex. I have referenced this speech before in explaining my “Imperial Glory” print, but it is worth repeating because Eisenhower was both a Republican and a war hero, yet he saw the collusion between government and the arms industry as dangerous. Today’s Republicans are never satisfied with U.S. military spending, even though we outspend the next 70 countries combined! Members of the Bush administration had business interests in the military industry, which was clearly a conflict of interest with the public. Eisenhower’s words would be practically treasonous to today’s Republican party other than a few Libertarians, but even Rand Paul towed the party line of promoting a strong military when he announced his presidential candidacy.
Eisenhower said:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
You can read his entire speech HERE.
Lastly, the politics of fear and division have been the dominant Republican strategy over the last 15 years. George W. Bush famously said “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” after the 9/11 attacks. The message was clear… there was no room for a nuanced discussion about the variables of U.S. policy before, or in response to, 9/11. Any dissent about U.S. policy was not only “un-American,” but also support for the terrorists by default. Not only did this attitude suppress reasonable discourse, it led to widespread irrational fear of Arabs and Muslims. This was not always the Republican approach, and in fact, Republicans in the past have stood up against the politics of fear and division. During the anti-communist frenzy stirred up by Senator Joseph McCarthy, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, a fellow Republican, made a speech she called a “Declaration of Conscience” in response to McCarthy’s tactics. Here is an excerpt:
Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism —
The right to criticize;
The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
The right to protest;
The right of independent thought.
The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know some one who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn’t? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.
You can read the entire speech HERE.
In conclusion, I’d like to examine some of the variables that may have changed the culture of the Republican party over the years. I should also mention that the Democratic party has moved further to the right as well. I’m not an expert, but I think some of my ideas are valid. One of the biggest problems is campaign finance structure. As it has become a trend for politicians to spend increasingly greater amounts campaigning, the impetus to pander to corporate and special interests to fundraise has increased. This process corrupts democracy. Both parties are guilty of accepting legal bribes, but because it is the more pro-business party, Republican rhetoric about not “strangling the free-market” has intensified. Corporate productivity and profit has grown, but the benefit is not shared with the working classes. Media-culture has changed too. Media diversity and short-form social media platforms have led to sound bites and sensationalism replacing long-form examination of issues as desperate media outlets scramble for eyes and ears. Partisanship gets ratings in the new-media landscape because people respond to drama and friction. It is much easier to appeal to the basest side of humanity, and Republicans have mastered that. If the public doesn’t demand deeper, more sophisticated, information from media outlets we won’t get it. If we want a higher level of discourse we need to not only demand it, but also educate ourselves well enough to participate in a meaningful discussion and not be susceptible to disinformation. When partisanship, disinformation, and ultimately dysfunction are met with cheers rather than a vote to move a different way in the next election, we are only going to get more of the same. Thanks for caring.
-Shepard
