"America...goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy...The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. the frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished luster the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."- John Quincy Adams, 4 July 1821

Sunday, March 15, 2009

http://www.wikio.com

(19) Comments

Of Hyperbole and Hypocrisy and the Great Socialist Interstate System

Hrafnkell Haraldsson

,

Welcome to pre-socialist America, back in the day when the federal government pretty much kept to itself. Or, in another way of putting it, neglected the country it had been put in place to govern. Evidence of this neglect is, to the left, Iowa, but this photo is illustrative of the entire country just before the First World War. Dirt tracks. Some 2.5 million miles of roads, most of them looking exactly like this when it rained (a mere 150 miles of roads were actually paved).

Many roads went nowhere. Nobody was responsible for building them, really, and nobody was responsible for repairing them. There was no rhyme or reason to them; they just developed over time as need demanded. Some were built by states for various reasons. Military roads, mostly. All in all, it is safe to say that travel across the United States had not progressed much since the days of the covered wagon.

Alexander Winton, who made cars for a living, became famous for a failed attempt in 1901. He managed to escape California but his wheels spun to a stop in the deserts of Nevada. National Geographic reports on a later attempt:
Two years later, Dutch reporter Marius Krarup successfully crossed the same stretch of sand. He rode in a 1903 Packard driven by Tom Fetch, one of three teams that left San Francisco for New York City to claim records in cross-country driving.

The pair failed in their bid to be first, but they did chart the most treacherous route.

Upon reaching Colorado Springs, Colorado, Krarup spoke of the conditions that preceded: "Nevada is awful, but Utah is the worst I ever saw. We carry a pick and shovel along, and we found it necessary in more than one instance to use them when we had to build roads ourselves, cutting along the sides of hills."

Colorado provided a brief respite. After Denver, Krarup and Fetch wouldn't see another surfaced road until Illinois.

The first driver to make it from coast to coast was Dr. Horatio Nelson Jackson, who drove out of San Francisco in a 20-horsepower Winton touring car in the Spring of 1903. The America Jackson encountered was frozen in time. As recounted by Ken Burns
Traveling with his co-driver Sewall K. Crocker and a bulldog named Bud (who wore goggles, just like his master, to keep the dust from his eyes), Jackson had the adventure of his life. He encountered pioneers in wagon trains, cowboys who used their lariats to tow him out of sand drifts, ranch wives who traded homecooked meals for a brief ride on the "Go-Like-Hell Machine," and people who deliberately sent him miles out of his way just so their relatives could get their first glimpse of an automobile.

If America was to have roads worthy of the name, transportation arteries that encouraged travel, private citizens would have to build them. The first such highway was the Lincoln Highway, organized by Carl Fisher, the man who created the Indianpolis 500 and who developed Miami Beach. His dream came about in 1912, almost a decade after Jackson's fabled trip. The estimated cost was $10 million.

John Ford declined to donate to the project. He was one of those rich men from whom wealth is supposed to trickle down. In this case, as in so many others, it did not. He thought the public should pay for the roads, not private industry. In other words, the average working man, the middle class, should bear the brunt. Not the class from whom Republicans believe today will provide prosperity and development if we but decline to tax or regulate them heavily.Funding for the almost 4,000-mile-long highway came from a variety of sources. He sought donations from auto manufacturers like Ford, and automobile accessory companies (he himself owned a company that made headlights) of 1 percent of their revenues. Members of the general public was able members of the highway organization for a five dollar donation. The Federal Government, presided over by a Republican president, William Howard Taft, was spending $1.7 million on a statue to Lincoln but was not building any highways to improve the nation's infrastructure.

That said, it is useful here to note that Taft would have found little support among today's Republicans. For one thing, he considered himself a progressive. Among his sins was a strong regulatory bent: strengthening the Interstate Commerce Commission, expanding the civil service, establishing a better postal system, and promoting world peace. A socialist if there ever was one, by today's standards. We would do well to steer clear of the assumption that today's Republicans are not those of yesteryear, whatever claims they make today.

But back to our highway and funding. Carl Fisher lamented that "the highways of America are built chiefly of politics". It is interesting that today, our infrastructure maintained in largely the same manner - by Congressional earmarks. And Henry Ford had his wish in a way: the Interstate system is largely maintained by tolls paid for by the public and by gasoline taxes, also paid for by the public. Even so, it was the federal government that finally build a highway system.

The Lincoln Highway was the pre-war's Route 66. It had a mystique about it that persisted long after the highway had become US Highway 30. The loss of its name was part of a process begun in March 1925, when the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) began to set up the by now familiar US highway system. Every highway got a number. Every named highway lost its name - including the Lincoln, when in November of that year, the secretary of agriculture approved AASHO's plan.

In 1919 an army convoy followed the Lincoln Highway. One of the members of the expedition was a young lieutenant, Dwight D. Eisenhower. In 1956 Eisenhower, by then a Republican President, would remember that trip and the German autobahns built by Hitler's Third Reich. As a result, the federal government, under the auspices of a Republican administration, undertook one of the biggest socialist building projects in America's history. The Interstate System is not only the largest highway system in the world but the largest public works project in history. And let us reiterate here: It was built by a Republican administration.Given the extent of Eisenhower's crime against everything the Republican Party stands for, should we give it back? Should Republicans refuse to drive on it, or perhaps be banned altogether? Or should they simply drop the hypocrisy and shut up?

Let's take a look at the expense. Begun in 1956, finished in 1991, the actual Cost to build the Interstate Highway System was $114 Billion over 35 years ago, and $500 billion in 2008 dollars.

What was the cost of FDR's New Deal, in comparison? According to The Nation, "During the New Deal, the Roosevelt administration spent about $250 billion (in today's dollars) on public-works projects, building about 8,000 parks, 40,000 public buildings, 72,000 schools and 80,000 bridges. The entire cost of all the New Deal programs (in today's dollars) was about $500 billion."

It is safe to say the Interstate System transformed America. But it cost $500 billion. The same price as the New Deal. Identical in value. Both transformed America. Is it hypocrisy to condemn the one and laud the other? I am unaware of any Republican criticism of the Interstate System. Republicans use it as much as Democrats. But Republicans detest the New Deal with a religious fervor. Yet both projects came from government spending. An identical amount of government spending. Why is one evil, and the other not?

If, as Republicans say, government spending is itself the sin, then they must shut their mouths or be hypocrites. There seems to be no other option. That, or they can stay off our Interstates and out of our libraries and away from every thing else government spending has provided for our benefit.

For more information, please see also The New Deal Worked


Bookmark and Share
19 Responses to "Of Hyperbole and Hypocrisy and the Great Socialist Interstate System"
Unknown said :
March 16, 2009 at 1:39 AM
ALOO CHAAT!!!
Catch al d fun, gossip, behind d scenes masti on the official Aloo Chaat Site!

>>>>>http://www.aloochaat.com/?um=9

Videos, pictures, quizzes…the site is realy njoyable!!!
Andrew L said :
March 16, 2009 at 2:07 AM
From what you've said, it sounds like the interstate project was commissioned because it was believed that it would actually produce something that was worth $500 billion, whereas the New Deal started from the belief that spending government money on something -- on anything -- would improve the state of the economy.

Could it be that this hypocrisy you claim to have found in today's Republicans is really just a desire for government money to be spent only when necessary, instead of sprayed about in the hope that it will somehow stimulate growth?
Anonymous said :
March 16, 2009 at 2:07 AM
Just because it was wrong doesn't mean you can't use it. Take, for example, Obama's stimulus bill. Many Republican governors thought the bill was wrong, but they're going to take the money anyway since it was passed by Congress. They say the bill should not have been passed in first place, but deny constituents money they've already contributed makes no sense. So the question is really not about whether Republicans should use the interstate system. It's whether it was right or wrong in the first place, and whether something better could have been built by the private sector.
John Mun said :
March 16, 2009 at 2:10 AM
The Interstate highway system was primarily a military project(and thus Constitutional), though the civilian benefit was extremely enormous. The New Deal? Give me a break - mostly unconstitutional and the vast majority of it was wasted money, and it only extended the length of the depression...
Cliff Meyers said :
March 16, 2009 at 2:16 AM
The Interstate Highway Act would not have been passed were it not for the argument that development of these highways was crucial to national defense. Most viewed it as an aggressive expansion / use of power by the Federal government that was not compatible with the Constitution. By tying the need for highways to national security, these concerns were discarded.

You can debate the merits of that argument but the fact that you missed this shows either some major historical ineptitude or the obvious intentional omission so you can win your straw-man argument.
Unknown said :
March 16, 2009 at 2:27 AM
Here is the problem with what you have said. You claim that the Republicans are being hypocritical in their condemnation of the New Deal because of their involvement in the building of the interstate highway system, which had a similar cost to that of the New Deal. Some Republicans however, believe that the New Deal actually prolonged and deepened the Great Depression, which is why they do not approve of Barack Obama's attempts to replicate the New Deal and spend our way out of recession. The GOP isn't bashing the New Deal because it was a large piece of government spending, but because they believed it to be an irresponsible and ineffective use of taxpayer dollars. Simply because the party as a whole believes in less spending does not mean they are hypocritical when they do choose to spend. They simply are trying to limit government as much as possible. If they opposed all government spending period, that would effectively eliminate the government and make them anarchists. I'm pretty sure the Republicans are not anarchists just as most Democrats aren't socialists. ;)
Hamilton said :
March 16, 2009 at 2:37 AM
I wish the feds would go back to "neglecting" us once again. What we're seeing now isn't even socialism, it's more like mass looting of the treasury by a bunch of offshore thugs.
Anonymous said :
March 16, 2009 at 6:41 AM
yperbole, Hypocrisy & the Great Socialist Interstate System. restitutororbis.blogspot.com — The New Deal and the Interstate System have the same price tag.
Annuity Payment Calculator
March 16, 2009 at 8:22 AM
Wow, makes pretty good sense to me!

RT
www.privacy.at.tc
ypsi-slim said :
March 16, 2009 at 7:40 PM
That's Henry Ford - not John Ford (movie director)othewise I enjoyed your post very much and think it is exactly on point.

ypsi-slim
former Vice-President of the Lincoln Highway Association
March 16, 2009 at 10:49 PM
The New Deal programs like Fannie Mae exist to this day. The damage done to market fluidity and freedom by the New Deal was tremendous.
March 16, 2009 at 11:04 PM
America would still have manufacturing vigor today if it wasn't for the wealth destroying restriction and tax sinks created in the New Deal.

Countries that have growing manufacturing sectors, trade surpluses, and increasing median wages all have one thing in common: LOW SOCIAL SPENDING.

Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea have historically very little government spending on unemployment insurance, welfare and health care.
Anonymous said :
March 20, 2009 at 1:26 AM
The difference is very clear, there is no hypocrisy. Most of the New Deal involves spending forever into the future. Public works themselves are fine, but committing to programs that will cause spending into the future are not. The former can (if prudent, such as the Interstate Highway System) pay for themselves. The latter lead to a nanny state, and less and less revenue, and class warfare between taxpayers and tax drainers.

Very simple concept: There are 2 kinds of purchases: (1) Buy an item, you have it, it's yours to do as you wish with. (2) Buy a subscription, pay a little at a time, never ends, never really end up owning anything. Which one is better if you're a business? Which one is better as a consumer?

I don't mind spending a lot, if I know that what I'm buying will pay for itself in the long run, and I'll get my money's worth, etc. I do mind having a subscription, a new bill that I must budget for out of limited income, which means I have less I can spend with discretion. Especially when the attitude is that some are entitled to that money, and you're evil if you want to stop that payment. What if my cable company said that I was murdering orphaned cancer patients if I stopped subscribing to their services? And that decision would be publicly lauded if I did so? Can I then safely decide to stop that subscription?
Nexpider said :
March 25, 2009 at 7:16 AM
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.Joyce
ING Annuities
March 26, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Thank you, Joyce. It really started as a way of keeping myself informed and recording my responses to Obama's policies. I'm gratified that you find it worthy of a read.
March 26, 2009 at 3:12 PM
ypsi-slim: Thank you. I missed the error when I spell-checked. Of course, that's the problem with relying on technology to catch your mistakes!

Sorry to be so long in responding. Have had a busy week or so. I'm glad you liked the article, and more, happy that you found it on point.
March 26, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Harold: Thank you as well. I really need to try to add an hour or two to each day so I can keep up with myself! Glad you liked it.
March 26, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Eric: I understand that Republicans say that, but its demonstrably untrue, as I argued in my post The New Deal Worked. I have since expanded that post into a longer article for publication at Associated Content. I will post a link for it as soon as it is posted there. Suffice it to say that no, I don't think all Republicans are anarchists, though I do think Obama is right that the position of the Republican Party at present (official position, not that of ALL Republicans) is that they want to do the opposite of everything he does. That's anarchy. That's not a solution, nor is it a way to find a solution.
March 26, 2009 at 3:18 PM
imzogelmo: The New Deal worked. The spending might not have a finite end date but it worked, and it continued to work until Reagan destroyed it.

A second point: spending on the Interstate System was not finite. It continues. It will always continue.

Finally, the New Deal built infrastructure. It wasn't simply a welfare system as Republicans like to paint it. Think about the roads and bridges, and libraries, etc, that were built. I understand the point you are trying to make but you can't make it stick once you consider the entire body of evidence.

Post a Comment

Share your thoughts