6 ms·

> Freeing the slaves was necessary and proper, but far from immune to the original argument Yes, the abolition of slavery in the US is actually the perfect pro

> Freeing the slaves was necessary and proper, but far from immune to the original argument Yes, the abolition of slavery in the US is actually the perfect proof of OP's argument, that sweeping, panacea-like proposals are rarely effective in achieving the desired end-goal. We should have executed a strategic plan for reintegrating freed slaves into society, providing them with the means to succeed and overcome the unbelievably disastrous impact that centuries of the slave trade had on their lives. This is in addition to the abolition of slavery, not instead of it. Instead, we used a very blunt tool (the abolition of slavery) and followed it up with.... nothing[0]. Unsurprisingly, we are still feeling the effects of this massive failure today. [0] Reconstruction, in many ways, did more harm than good, because it gave people the impression that the work had been done and 'was over', when in reality it was a band-aid sloppily placed over a gaping, septic chest wound.

mikeash 11y ago
Ending slavery was extremely effective. Millions of people gained freedom and human rights overnight. The result was a vast improvement in their situation. Was it perfect? No. Could it have been done a lot better? Clearly. But your proposals for doing it better involve even more intervention! The original argument was that policy changes should be kept small, incremental, and evolutionary, or that they should be done at the state level.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > Ending slavery was extremely effective. Millions of people gained freedom and human rights overnight. The result was a vast improvement in their situation. Yes, it was 'extremely effective' if you stop the clock on Jan 2, 1863, and don't look at what actually happened in the long run afterwards. People gained some basic freedom overnight, but that's only a small piece of what needed to be done, and that remaining part... never actually happened. So while it was a success in 1863, it was not a success in 1870, or 1900, or 2000, at which point the targets for 'success' were considerably higher. There was no plan for executing Reconstruction, no process for evaluating its success or failure, no strategy for providing the support needed to have it occur successfully. It was assumed that the initial step taken would solve all the problems, and that no additional incremental steps would need to be taken beyond that. > But your proposals for doing it better involve even more intervention! Yes, and in this case (abolition of slavery and the reintegration of freed slaves into society), more intervention is exactly what I'd advocate was necessary.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    When you say it was "not a success" in 2000, do you mean that we'd have been better off in 2000 if slavery had not been abolished? If so, I'm going to need something to back that up, because I don't buy it at all. If not, and we were better off, then in what way was it "not a success"?
    - chimeracoder 11y ago
      > When you say it was "not a success" in 2000, do you mean that we'd have been better off in 2000 if slavery had not been abolished? No, I'm saying that, 140 years after the end of slavery, "success" means more than "we no longer have 4 million people living as slaves". Success metrics aren't static; they're time-dependent, and it's not sufficient to say that what counted as "success" for a plan in 1863 is still "success" a century and a half later (or even a decade and a half later).
      - mikeash 11y ago
        I don't see the relevance, then. The comment I originally replied to was arguing against this sort of policy, not on the basis of what it proposes, but simply because it's too big and too centralized. They propose that policy-making should be incremental and evolutionary, or local. I use the abolition of slavery as a counterexample, since it was a huge centralized policy change that was a great improvement, where incremental, evolutionary, or local changes had failed to do anything meaningful. So unless you're saying that we'd have been better off without federal abolition of slavery, I don't see how your time-dependent "success" criteria has any bearing on this discussion. The argument I replied to wasn't that big sweeping policies need to be done right, it was that they need not to be done at all.
lukeschlather 11y ago
The reconstruction did attempt to do what you suggest. I'd more describe the failure as what has become the prototypical American war. An attempt to impose an egalitarian democracy through force which was ultimately foiled by terrorist insurgents after a period where the US declared victory and was attempting to rebuild.

mikeash 11y ago

Ending slavery was extremely effective. Millions of people gained freedom and human rights overnight. The result was a vast improvement in their situation. Was it perfect? No. Could it have been done a lot better? Clearly. But your proposals for doing it better involve even more intervention! The original argument was that policy changes should be kept small, incremental, and evolutionary, or that they should be done at the state level.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> Ending slavery was extremely effective. Millions of people gained freedom and human rights overnight. The result was a vast improvement in their situation. Yes, it was 'extremely effective' if you stop the clock on Jan 2, 1863, and don't look at what actually happened in the long run afterwards. People gained some basic freedom overnight, but that's only a small piece of what needed to be done, and that remaining part... never actually happened. So while it was a success in 1863, it was not a success in 1870, or 1900, or 2000, at which point the targets for 'success' were considerably higher. There was no plan for executing Reconstruction, no process for evaluating its success or failure, no strategy for providing the support needed to have it occur successfully. It was assumed that the initial step taken would solve all the problems, and that no additional incremental steps would need to be taken beyond that. > But your proposals for doing it better involve even more intervention! Yes, and in this case (abolition of slavery and the reintegration of freed slaves into society), more intervention is exactly what I'd advocate was necessary.
- mikeash 11y ago
  When you say it was "not a success" in 2000, do you mean that we'd have been better off in 2000 if slavery had not been abolished? If so, I'm going to need something to back that up, because I don't buy it at all. If not, and we were better off, then in what way was it "not a success"?
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > When you say it was "not a success" in 2000, do you mean that we'd have been better off in 2000 if slavery had not been abolished? No, I'm saying that, 140 years after the end of slavery, "success" means more than "we no longer have 4 million people living as slaves". Success metrics aren't static; they're time-dependent, and it's not sufficient to say that what counted as "success" for a plan in 1863 is still "success" a century and a half later (or even a decade and a half later).
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I don't see the relevance, then. The comment I originally replied to was arguing against this sort of policy, not on the basis of what it proposes, but simply because it's too big and too centralized. They propose that policy-making should be incremental and evolutionary, or local. I use the abolition of slavery as a counterexample, since it was a huge centralized policy change that was a great improvement, where incremental, evolutionary, or local changes had failed to do anything meaningful. So unless you're saying that we'd have been better off without federal abolition of slavery, I don't see how your time-dependent "success" criteria has any bearing on this discussion. The argument I replied to wasn't that big sweeping policies need to be done right, it was that they need not to be done at all.

lukeschlather 11y ago

The reconstruction did attempt to do what you suggest. I'd more describe the failure as what has become the prototypical American war. An attempt to impose an egalitarian democracy through force which was ultimately foiled by terrorist insurgents after a period where the US declared victory and was attempting to rebuild.