Let’s Bring Back the Whigs
By Scott R. Cooper, Crook County Judge
published in the Powell Butte View, December 2003
http://www.centraloregonian.com
In fact, I’m a Republican, as much because I was raised in a home where both my parents were Republicans as for any other reason, plus I generally tend to side with Republicans when economic issues are at stake. Still, like a lot of Oregonians who lean toward moderate, centralist policies, I often feel like a “fish out of water” when I listen to leaders of both major national parties stake out some of their more extreme positions.
That’s where the attraction of “Whiggery” comes in. Unlike the polarizing politics that characterize our national and state political scene today, the central core of Whig politics tended toward a search for compromise. They sought a middle ground among factions representing different interests within the country, and they were commited to spreading prosperity throughout the country by aggressively investing in physical infrastructure to serve the American economy.
Now that’s a philosophy I could get behind.
The Whig platform was based on the idea that the federal government should take an active role in promoting and protecting the national economy. Primarily they supported construction of major infrastructure (roads, canals and railroads). They also sought to protecting domestic industry (through high tariffs). And they advocated for centralized economic management by a national bank (which we now call the Federal Reserve.) Whigs also brokered several compromises in an effort to try to prevent the Civil War, which they correctly foresaw as devastating to the economy and the ability of regions with differing economic interests to forge a national consensus.
Echoes of Whiggery exist today in American political parties: Like Republicans, Whigs favored business-oriented policies designed to continually rev the national economic engine. But like Democrats they also believed in policies which protected wages and jobs for the working man. Where Whigs differed from both the major parties is that any true Whig would have taken a dim view of debating on the national stage divisive issues such as gay marriage or rabid environmentalism. They believed the national agenda ought to be kept narrow, focused on the economy and national security. They believed the nation’s statehouses and town halls were best suited to resolve the breadth of issues which occupy much of Congress’ time today.
Whigs also took a middle-of-the road approach to national security, the theme of which is still popular today. While Whigs believed that defensive actions were sometimes necessary to defend American borders (the Mexican-American war, for example), they generally shied away from military conflict. They believed as they did that the costs associated with engagement on foreign soils inevitably cost dollars and lives far in excess of the value they returned—certainly a position that has an eerie resonance today.
It seems to me that the Whig approach to governance might be just the thing we need in Washington today. If Whigs were in charge, the federal government might be more likely to spend its time debating bills recently introduced by our own Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Greg Walden proposing the placement of a federal forest research center in Prineville instead of arguing whether the dime ought to bear the portrait of Ronald Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt. (Two bills on this non-issue were actually proposed in the Senate the day I wrote this column.) I don’t think Whigs would have joined Senate Republicans in their “pillow fight” a few weeks ago when Republicans kept the Senate in session all night in an effort to literally exhaust Democrats into approving the president’s judicial nominees.
Unfortunately for me and perhaps for the country, I can’t join the Whig party because it no longer exists. Whigs were dogged by political disaster. Although they managed to elect two of their nominees as Presidents, Benjamin Harrison and Zachary Taylor, both died shortly after they took office. The party was finished after 1852 when their party leader, Henry Clay, unexpectedly died just before the election.
Despite this ignominious end, and some rather troublesome positions the Whig’s took toward the end of their political life, I think there is a kernel of wisdom in the Whig’s philosophy. The American people have more common sense than most politicians and parties give them credit for. Governments rise and fall on the strength of their efforts to revitalize the economy and protect the country, not on their stands they take on how other people ought to live their lives. Although he wasn’t my favorite President, Mr. Clinton was right when he directed his campaign staff to adopt a tightly focused message: “It’s the economy, stupid.” It’s a message I wouldn’t mind hearing any major political candidate repeat today.
It seems to me that what’s lacking in national politics today is the moderate voice of the ill-fated Whig Party. It’s a pipe dream to think that the Whigs will ever come back, but perhaps its not impossible to think that partisan politicians in the nation’s capital might someday develop some common sense and start incorporating some of the Whig’s put-the-people-first philosophy into their rhetoric.
That would be a welcome change.
published in the Powell Butte View, December 2003
http://www.centraloregonian.com
Although most of us know nothing about them, there was a time in American politics when the Whig Party was as well known and influential as Republicans and Democrats are today. Unfortunately, the party was short lived, emerging on the American political scene in 1834 and gone by 1856. That’s a pity, I’ve been thinking lately that if Whigs were still around, I might become one.One party understood the value of moderation.
In fact, I’m a Republican, as much because I was raised in a home where both my parents were Republicans as for any other reason, plus I generally tend to side with Republicans when economic issues are at stake. Still, like a lot of Oregonians who lean toward moderate, centralist policies, I often feel like a “fish out of water” when I listen to leaders of both major national parties stake out some of their more extreme positions.
That’s where the attraction of “Whiggery” comes in. Unlike the polarizing politics that characterize our national and state political scene today, the central core of Whig politics tended toward a search for compromise. They sought a middle ground among factions representing different interests within the country, and they were commited to spreading prosperity throughout the country by aggressively investing in physical infrastructure to serve the American economy.
Now that’s a philosophy I could get behind.
The Whig platform was based on the idea that the federal government should take an active role in promoting and protecting the national economy. Primarily they supported construction of major infrastructure (roads, canals and railroads). They also sought to protecting domestic industry (through high tariffs). And they advocated for centralized economic management by a national bank (which we now call the Federal Reserve.) Whigs also brokered several compromises in an effort to try to prevent the Civil War, which they correctly foresaw as devastating to the economy and the ability of regions with differing economic interests to forge a national consensus.
Echoes of Whiggery exist today in American political parties: Like Republicans, Whigs favored business-oriented policies designed to continually rev the national economic engine. But like Democrats they also believed in policies which protected wages and jobs for the working man. Where Whigs differed from both the major parties is that any true Whig would have taken a dim view of debating on the national stage divisive issues such as gay marriage or rabid environmentalism. They believed the national agenda ought to be kept narrow, focused on the economy and national security. They believed the nation’s statehouses and town halls were best suited to resolve the breadth of issues which occupy much of Congress’ time today.
Whigs also took a middle-of-the road approach to national security, the theme of which is still popular today. While Whigs believed that defensive actions were sometimes necessary to defend American borders (the Mexican-American war, for example), they generally shied away from military conflict. They believed as they did that the costs associated with engagement on foreign soils inevitably cost dollars and lives far in excess of the value they returned—certainly a position that has an eerie resonance today.
It seems to me that the Whig approach to governance might be just the thing we need in Washington today. If Whigs were in charge, the federal government might be more likely to spend its time debating bills recently introduced by our own Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Greg Walden proposing the placement of a federal forest research center in Prineville instead of arguing whether the dime ought to bear the portrait of Ronald Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt. (Two bills on this non-issue were actually proposed in the Senate the day I wrote this column.) I don’t think Whigs would have joined Senate Republicans in their “pillow fight” a few weeks ago when Republicans kept the Senate in session all night in an effort to literally exhaust Democrats into approving the president’s judicial nominees.
Unfortunately for me and perhaps for the country, I can’t join the Whig party because it no longer exists. Whigs were dogged by political disaster. Although they managed to elect two of their nominees as Presidents, Benjamin Harrison and Zachary Taylor, both died shortly after they took office. The party was finished after 1852 when their party leader, Henry Clay, unexpectedly died just before the election.
Despite this ignominious end, and some rather troublesome positions the Whig’s took toward the end of their political life, I think there is a kernel of wisdom in the Whig’s philosophy. The American people have more common sense than most politicians and parties give them credit for. Governments rise and fall on the strength of their efforts to revitalize the economy and protect the country, not on their stands they take on how other people ought to live their lives. Although he wasn’t my favorite President, Mr. Clinton was right when he directed his campaign staff to adopt a tightly focused message: “It’s the economy, stupid.” It’s a message I wouldn’t mind hearing any major political candidate repeat today.
It seems to me that what’s lacking in national politics today is the moderate voice of the ill-fated Whig Party. It’s a pipe dream to think that the Whigs will ever come back, but perhaps its not impossible to think that partisan politicians in the nation’s capital might someday develop some common sense and start incorporating some of the Whig’s put-the-people-first philosophy into their rhetoric.
That would be a welcome change.
posted by Scott Cooper | 1:43 PM
|
0 Comments
