WOW... check a big one off the bucket list.

I should write a book .... "How To Get A Concession in 10 Easy Years."

Well my friend, my only concern is now is that I will be forced to develop a deep seeded hatred for the Twins in order to match the passion of this debate. I find that prospect particularly alarming given this means I would be forced to endure hours of televised baseball games.

Concession accepted.

I wanted to make mention of something, and I'm not blowing smoke up your backside. I've heard from various conservatives (pick your title) whom were rabid leftists in their youth. And each of them strike me as men willing to be intellectually honest enough to examine the evidence, hence their conversion in thought and position. They've all been thoughtful, intelligent, and able to prosecute their conservative arguments better as a convert than their counterparts whom simply "grew up" that way. I'm not patronizing you, I wouldn't do that. I want to simply say that you are no exception.

And speaking to the "new incarnations" of this same debate, I sensed over the last three years (and Jambo articulated this to me as well), that there was an opportunity to reopen this debate based on how rabidly disillusioned you have become with large (versus small, obviously) government. And that's the key here - the ability to honestly gauge what is working and what is not. And in my view what works is adhering to the process (defined as fidelity to the Constitution) rather than concerning ourselves with the inequalities in results leftists so frequently rail against. And in your critique of Obama these last years I know you have had to go back and cite historical examples to prosecute your argument on why his infidelity to the Constitution does not work. This naturally lead me to a new avenue of attack - "why then do you think New Deal did?"

In my opinion, in crafting the Constitution, the Founders were interested in process, not results. If we follow their lead - if we allow the process they set in place to work - we will not have a perfect society, we will have unequal results. And I think that is the struggle for Progressives. They, well intentioned though they may be, desire to build a perfect society using imperfect men. It's not achievable. And destruction often is the result of their efforts. The process, not results were what mattered from George Washington to Grover Cleveland (a generalization, but a warranted one I believe). Woodrow Wilson represented a break with the Constitution and its' restraining view on government. In Wilson's opinion government did not merely exist to protect Rights: "We are not bound to adhere to the doctrines held by the signers of the Declaration of Independence... The limited government enshrined in the in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution may have been an advance for the Founders, but society has evolved since then. " In contrast, Cleveland vetoed 414 congressional spending bills alone in his first term to stop what was in his view "unconstitutional spending." Wilson, unlike his predeccessor(s), intended to be a President working with a "living Constitution." And these ideas - that one man could shape his nation to fit the times - weren't limited to America, it purveyed much of organized civilization (my definition for the West plus Russia) for much of the first half of the 20th Century. Wilson regulated overseas shipping rates, subsidized loans to farmers (which is still going on), instituted the 8 hour work day for railroad workers, resegregated the military (and there hasn't been such a rabid a racist in the White House since, perhaps ever), and he implemented the progressive income tax starting at 1% and ending with 77% - all in an attempt to reorganize society to fit this progressive world view: that utopia was achievable with the right administrators. FDR served in the Wilson administration. I believe he bought into this "beneficent government" world view, and the Great Depression undoubtedly served to offer him proof that it was not only necessary, but just. If you listen to the footage of Roosevelt's first swearing in (oh yeah, you want to party? Hang out with me on You Tube - "fun times" as my kids say with both eye brows raised), Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes noticeably emphasizes the words, "promise to support the Constitution of the United States." Roosevelt responded in kind, elevating his voice to match Hughes’s. Later Roosevelt said he wanted to yell at Hughes, "Yes, but it's but it's the Constitution as I understand it ..." And therein lies the doom - the living, breathing version of our foundiung document.

I'll get to your "no depression since FDR" query in a moment, but I want to say in summary that I see a common theme from Wilson, to FDR, to LBJ, to Carter, to Obama. They each thought the Constitution was outdated, or inefficient, or inadequate, a charter of negative liberties, something we should no longer be bound by, and no longer up to the task. Starting with Wilson we see the framework set up within the US mindset of a "beneficent government", of an emphasis on new Rights rather than Natural Rights. The "success" of FDR in this regard (and from a progressive's point of view) is that he embedded such polices into the American landscape and psychic so much so that later office holders, even those who hold an opposite view of the Constitution, were too scared to dismantle them, sometimes, as you've pointed out, even expanding them both directly and in theme. But I think since Wilson each time this interpretation was the chief oar rowing our policy, the darkest chapters of American economic history over the last 100 years were written (or made worse). And given you seemed to rapidly be coming to that conclusion yourself as of late, in your critique’s of Obama, I thought it might be time to see if you'd apply that conclusion to New Deal and FDR. It seems you have. And I feel like I was just pardoned for a crime I didn't commit ... hehehe. As I told Jambo the other day, "With most people whom I can't bring around I have the luxury of shrugging them off as ignorant or dense ... I have no such luxury with your brother."

****

No Depression since FDR ... undeniably true. Bear in mind, I'm no professional economist, so the attempt to describe the 80 years since WWII, and why their has been no depression, all in a brief post is undoubtedly the height of hubris. So large in fact, even my ego did a double take as I sat down to answer this question ... but as that has never stopped us before "ensign, engage engines."

I sincerely believe that what FDR put in place in terms of the manipulation of the money supply and the FDIC - which in all honesty is the ideological precursor to bail outs for Bear Sterns et al (a federal floor for failure established, "here and no further") - was a cure that will eventually prove itself worse than the disease. I'm forecasting now. Now certainly, you don't expect for me to account for the last 80 years of US and world economic policy, all of which play factors in the aversion of another Depression. However, I will say one major contributing factor (in averting another Depression) was the post war deal put in place that made the US Dollar the world reserve petro dollar of choice. Up until very recently sovereign nations could only buy oil with US currency. This combined with the Federal Reserve's ability to infuse dollars no longer attached to the Gold Standard into the market at will, created a cohesive world economy (among allies of advanced nations) that has a one for all, all for one mentality. An economic MAD if you will (mutually assured destruction) - everyone is now "too big to fail", and thus no one is allowed to. We are seeing the natural evolution of this in the EU. And the inherent flaws. Germany is being forced into bailing out Greece and others to ensure their own economic security. If Germany fails in its task and the EU falls, then it will be incumbent upon the US - as it's already being said - to put together a bail out package for Western Europe. And I think the cost of that plan, combined with the progressive policies that Europe will not cease (its part of their modern culture at this point) means we have an economic day of reckoning ahead of us that will make the Great Depression seem like a mash note in comparison.

There has been no depression since FDR. I can not deny that. But because the time lines correspond, it does not mean one caused the other. The few New Deal programs that survived, surely, could not be the source of preventing another world wide economic catastrophe (the rest of the world affected by the Great Depression has neither suffered a repeat, and they haven't New Deal to point to). I should add, I think the economic mutually assured destruction the allied nations (Cold War allies) entered into post WWII was as much to prevent another war on and amongst Continental Europe as it was to prevent another economic collapse. Much like US politicians (after FDR died) got together and quickly (in Constitutional terms) passed the 22nd Amendment, almost to say, "whoa, lets not do that again", I think post WWII the Cold War allies brought their economies together in a sense saying that European conflicts rarely stay confined to their continent, lets not allow that to happen again. If our economies are all codependent, invasion is less attractive. After FDR the cyclical invasions of neighbor nations in Western Europe also ceased, and I do not assign New Deal credit for this either. I do, however, assign FDR credit for being the CIC that won the war. The immensity of that achievement can not be discounted. It is, as I have conceded in the past, enough for anyone to legitimately praise his tenure as an overall success (even though I would disagree).

After all, if you don't win the war the rest of this is academic ... and in German.

I'm off to purchase a suitable frame now.