4 ms·

There is obviously debate, but Michael Lind argued that Jeffersonianism lost to Hamiltonianism, or the idea of a strong central government. It has been effectiv

There is obviously debate, but Michael Lind argued that Jeffersonianism lost to Hamiltonianism, or the idea of a strong central government. It has been effective, America is a superpower. But it has also shaped the way Americans see themselves and the role (or threat) of government in their lives. https://bostonreview.net/michael-lind-john-stoehr-a-new-hamiltonianism-land-of-promise https://bostonreview.net/michael-lind-john-stoehr-a-new-hami... Personally, I think the inability for America to move beyond a 2 party system hampers it far more.

stonemetal12 5y ago
Isn't a strong central government one of the reasons we only have 2 parties? Aiming to control the national government is the only reason to have a party that crosses state lines.
- kelnos 5y ago
  I don't think so. Many other countries have strong central governments and more than two political parties. I think the way they make that work is that parties generally don't amass majority power, but they form coalitions in order to gain control. My take on it is that our voting system is what leads to two parties. Something that allows people to vote their conscience rather than having to strategically vote for the lesser of two evils, like ranked-choice voting or approval voting, could allow more parties to win representation at the national level.
- int_19h 5y ago
  US had a two-party system pretty much since its inception - the two major parties changed over time, but the basic premise (that third party competitors are generally non-viable) holds. The reason why US only has 2 parties is because its electoral system is first-past-the-post, and all legislative districts are single-member. The moment it switches to something like, say, MMP, I'm certain that the existing parties will disintegrate across factional lines.
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> Michael Lind argued that Jeffersonianism lost to Hamiltonianism, or the idea of a strong central government. It has been effective, America is a superpower. But... that doesn't conflict with the ideas above. >> I believe [Thomas Jefferson] felt the primary countermeasure to this problem was a limited federal government. In his time the federal government was dramatically smaller and the average person had nearly zero interaction with it during their lives. Those descriptions, "limited" and "strong", are independent of each other. The government of Ming China was a superpower. It was strong and centralized in the Hamiltonian sense. It was also quite sharply limited in the Jeffersonian sense. How limited? When the dynasty fell, the conquering Qing had to deal with a Ming loyalist who just happened to control all of China's oceangoing shipping via his own private navy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koxinga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koxinga They eventually defeated him by evacuating the coast. The entire coast. The government had the power to do completely absurd things. But they didn't, as a rule, involve themselves with much.

stonemetal12 5y ago

Isn't a strong central government one of the reasons we only have 2 parties? Aiming to control the national government is the only reason to have a party that crosses state lines.

kelnos 5y ago
I don't think so. Many other countries have strong central governments and more than two political parties. I think the way they make that work is that parties generally don't amass majority power, but they form coalitions in order to gain control. My take on it is that our voting system is what leads to two parties. Something that allows people to vote their conscience rather than having to strategically vote for the lesser of two evils, like ranked-choice voting or approval voting, could allow more parties to win representation at the national level.
int_19h 5y ago
US had a two-party system pretty much since its inception - the two major parties changed over time, but the basic premise (that third party competitors are generally non-viable) holds. The reason why US only has 2 parties is because its electoral system is first-past-the-post, and all legislative districts are single-member. The moment it switches to something like, say, MMP, I'm certain that the existing parties will disintegrate across factional lines.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> Michael Lind argued that Jeffersonianism lost to Hamiltonianism, or the idea of a strong central government. It has been effective, America is a superpower. But... that doesn't conflict with the ideas above. >> I believe [Thomas Jefferson] felt the primary countermeasure to this problem was a limited federal government. In his time the federal government was dramatically smaller and the average person had nearly zero interaction with it during their lives. Those descriptions, "limited" and "strong", are independent of each other. The government of Ming China was a superpower. It was strong and centralized in the Hamiltonian sense. It was also quite sharply limited in the Jeffersonian sense. How limited? When the dynasty fell, the conquering Qing had to deal with a Ming loyalist who just happened to control all of China's oceangoing shipping via his own private navy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koxinga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koxinga They eventually defeated him by evacuating the coast. The entire coast. The government had the power to do completely absurd things. But they didn't, as a rule, involve themselves with much.