This is not Mr. Lincoln's Republican Party

Abraham Lincoln's presidency is well-known, and for good reasons.  Of lesser recognition are the facts that he was the first Republican president, and the second presidential candidate of the Republican Party.  The first was John C. Fremont in the election of 1856.

Perhaps even less well-known is this:  in significant and amazingly contemporary ways, the Republican Party of one-and-a-half centuries ago was the polar opposite of what it is today.  For example, today's Republican Party for the early 21st Century positions itself as the champion of state's rights and of smaller government; smaller Federal government, anyway.  This is entirely the opposite of what the party stood for when it was founded and saw the election of its first U.S. President, Abraham Lincoln.

An adherent of the Republican Party who is reading this might have understandably negative reactions to these opening assertions.  A sampling of possible responses from that perspective could include things like -- "This guy is a Democrat and he doesn't know anything about the Republican Party!"  "What a dummy!"  "Where's he getting these screwy ideas?!?"  And those are probably among the milder ones.

If you've been reading this blog for a while now, you know that my essays will dredge up obscure historical facts and episodes and present them for one simple and very good reason:  history matters.  If you don't know how you got to where you are, then it's pretty hard to figure out where you are going.  In this case, where did the Republican Party come from, and where's it going now?

Today's Republican Party likes to evoke memories of Abraham Lincoln as a premier example of its heritage.  Lincoln--the first Republican President--was the "Great Emancipator," he guided the nation through the horrific and agonizing experience of the Civil War and ultimately was responsible for preserving the United States as a single nation, rather than seeing it split up into two.

Abraham Lincoln

All true.  But that's just part of the story.  The whole story is much more interesting.

According to my analog (pre-digital, pre-Internet) version of the Encyclopedia Britannica, the name "Republican" was chosen for the new party in 1854 because the intent was to draw in people who "generally placed the national interest above sectional interest and above states' rights."

Some might want to remark, "Well, so what?  It was all about slavery then.  That was a long time ago.  Things are really different now."

Good points (sort of).  Abolishing slavery was a catalyst for the formation of the Republican Party.  Boundless credit to the GOP for that.  But there was lots more to the American political scene then than just slavery.  In the mid-1800s the United States was confronting national issues dealing with economic growth, business development, infrastructure investment and immigration.

"Great Caesar's ghost!" you might say.  "Those things sound oddly familiar!"

Take a look at how the Republican Party of 1860--and its presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln--addressed those national issues.  In addition to the confrontation over slavery, Chapter 8 of Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" tells us that the stage was set for the electoral contest of 1860 when the Republican Party adopted a platform calling for ". . .a railroad to the Pacific, protection for naturalized citizens, and government support for harbor and river improvements. . ."

Route of the first American transcontinental railroad

At a time of national crisis, Mr. Lincoln and his Republican Party stood up and called for the preeminence of national imperatives over those of states' sovereignty; for assimilation of immigrants who were often unwelcome by big parts of the native-born American population; and for huge amounts of national infrastructure investment.

How do the Republican Party's 2012 platform and campaign pledges address today's issues of economic and business development, infrastructure investment, state's rights and immigration?  To me, the approach that today's GOP will make to such issues has only a tenuous connection with its origins.  The Republican Party does not seem to be capable of supporting, nor would it be even remotely spiritually-aligned with, notions of federal government policy solutions to national issues such as these.

However, Mr. Lincoln's Republican Party of the 1860s was strongly supportive of such policies.

The Republican Party was started with an abundance of great ideas.  The Party's formation history is an incredibly positive story.  But in recent years Republicans seem to have lost sight of much of this history.

Where is that Party headed now?


  

Would we be better off without political parties?

Choose your answer to the question above:

1. Yes.  
2. No. 
3. Maybe.  
4. Who knows?  
5. Who cares?  
6. It's just a party, try to enjoy it and don't fret about it!

The last answer might be the one that is best for our mental health.  However, it's the first one and the second-to-the last one that seem to be the off-the-cuff answers for many people.

The major political parties in America and Europe have become unattractive to people.  Does this mean that political parties are doomed?  If they are doomed to irrelevance, would that be a good thing for us?

Once every four years the Democratic and Republican Parties hold their big shindigs to nominate their candidates for president and vice president.  The Republican gathering is taking place right now; the Democrats do theirs a few days later.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party, their convention--located in Tampa, Florida--is being rained on by a hurricane.  Nobody is going to accuse me of being overly-sympathetic to their cause (whose idea was it, anyway, to hold a national convention in a hurricane-exposed city during hurricane season?) but I still think that the Republicans deserve their time in the limelight without the interference of a natural disaster.  Well, it looks like the darn storm will pass through pretty quickly now.  And then they can do their business and state their case and look for as much news coverage as possible.

(Here's my partisan commentary; it's brief:  If part of their convention business is to preach about the evils of the big, bad, Federal government, how will they do that and expect to be taken seriously when there's a storm outside that might be flooding and blowing things down across multiple states?  In addition to adequately providing for critical emergency needs, does it make any sense to advocate for a shrunken Federal government that is replaced by a largely local response to an event that can pound a locality--let's just randomly pick New Orleans, for example--and where said pounding will affect outbound grain shipments from Illinois and Missouri and other places up-river and in other states?  No, of course it doesn't make any sense.)

Political parties -- helpful or hurtful?

Back to the central question:  Does all this political party stuff help us or hurt us?

Well, if you're going to have political parties, then you're going to have these conventions and other gatherings.  The old days of the dramatic entertaining suspense in the convention nominating process--the "roll call of the States"--seem to be gone forever, what with all of the elections and caucuses of the so-called "primary season."  But, for anybody who wants to pay some attention to the quadrennial convention, I believe that there's value to be had in learning first-hand what the official party line is on the issues of the day and of the upcoming election.

If the conventions come through and make these positions clear, whether they do it via the party platforms or in some other way, then they score some points.  Clarity is more helpful to the general population than is obscurity.

We'll see something about how much of this clarity shows up later this week as the Republican convention proceeds, and then also a few days later with the Democratic convention.  Assuming, of course, that the Democrats aren't interrupted with a new storm, or power failure, or who-knows-what type of problem that could beset their convention. This is one of those times where both parties will probably take their cues from the motto of the U.S. Postal Service; if they have to, they'll just slog through and get things done.

As for the concept of the political party itself -- I think it's here to stay.  And I think that in the long run we are better off for having them around, even if they sometimes seem out of touch, or conniving, or secretive, or controlling, or just plain freakish.  It's natural for people to group themselves with others who share similar interests.  These conventions might make us think that the similar interests revolve around having lots of balloons floating in the air, wearing funny hats, eating, drinking and yelling (go back to the beginning and see #6), and maybe for some people that's all that it amounts to.  But I think that for most of the people involved, there's more to it than that.

Are they here to stay?

The political party is a concept that has been around for a very long time.  It's part of human nature to freely associate with others of like mind.  More than twenty-five hundred years ago, the peoples of the Roman Republic and Golden Age Greece created the far-distant predecessors to the institutions that we now call political parties; they probably built on things that they picked up from older cultures, so we're talking about something here that has roots that go back thousands of years. 

The methodical Romans--obsessed with property ownership, status, family heritage and accumulation of more of the same--formalized political power structures based on class distinctions that persisted for centuries.  The Greeks--more volatile and disputatious by nature (still true today)--tended to group themselves according to ideas in order to support a preeminent leader.  That practice worked for the Greeks for a few hundred years, even if the affiliations themselves lasted only for a few decades at most.  Admittedly, that's a very superficial historical summary, but better than nothing, and probably all that is needed.

Our American Democratic and Republican parties evoke ancient themes, starting with their names.  Politically, we've been working on it for a couple of hundred years now.  The old Greeks and Romans would probably feel that such a passage of time just barely qualifies us to be considered as adolescents in the games of politics. 

We've made progress over that time, what with decreasing the number of fist fights and gun fights among the various participants, whether elected or not.  Nonetheless, it's true that there's a feeling that the political parties--all of them, not just the Republicans and Democrats--are not meeting the needs of the country.

However, since we Americans are a prideful folk, we do not take well to defeat and we like to keep whacking away at something until it ends up looking the way that we want it to.  Unless an electoral and political replacement of compelling success shows up, we are not likely to be throwing the current design of our politics into the trash bin and trying something radically different anytime soon.  We'll probably just keep whacking away at the parties' current formulations to try to make them more useful, and be content with that approach.

So, this is the week for the GOP to have its fun, try to get its show on the road and strut its stuff.  A few days later the Democratic Party takes the stage to do the same. 

And then--after the conventions--there will be lots more to talk about.

American politics - are we all for Big Government? (fun with numbers)

If you are interested in how this November's election will affect the size of the Federal Government, here's a little quiz to help you get your bearings.  The statement below is either True or False; which is it?

Under the Obama Administration, the U.S. Federal Government is bigger than it has ever been before.

What's your answer?  Is the statement True or is it False?

So as to not prolong the agony -- that's a false statement.

Here's another one for you; is it True or False?

Republican Presidents consistently preside over smaller Federal Governments than do Democratic Presidents.

What do you think of that statement?  Is it True or is it False?

It, too, is an incorrect statement; it's false.

At this point, you might be thinking things like this:  (a) What kind of measurements are we talking about here?  (b) What does he mean by "bigger" and "smaller?"  (c) Whatever evidence this guy has must be the result of cherry-picking from some very special circumstances, right?  (d) Is he crazy?!?

All are good questions.

When has the U.S. had "big government?"

The reality that explodes the myths inherent in the political rhetoric about "big government types" versus "small government types" is that the size of the Obama Federal government is pretty much at the mid-point of the ranges that have been the case since 1962 for all Administrations, whether they have been Democrat or Republican.

Over the last half-century, total Federal personnel--not including the military--peaked in 1989 and 1990 at just over 3.1 million.  Those years were during the George H. W. Bush Administration.  1990 was a U.S. Census year, so its employment figure includes the temporary Census employees, but that fact doesn't make any difference to the rankings.  Military personnel are not included in these counts; these are just the civilian Federal employees for all three branches of the Federal Government.

By the way, primary source material here is the Historical Federal Workforce Tables compiled by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  You can see the numbers for yourself by clicking the links as the mood strikes you.

At the other end of the scale, the smallest Federal Government workforce was during the years of 1962 through 1965--Kennedy and Johnson Administrations--when the employment number was right around 2.5 million.

During 2009 and 2010, President Obama presided over a Federal Government that required about 2.8 million employees (including the temporary Census employees during 2010).

So, the two statements posed at the beginning of this essay are False because (1) President George H. W. Bush's Administration required Federal employment that was about 11% greater than under President Barack Obama; and, (2) President Bush is and was a Republican, and President Obama is a Democrat (admittedly, a partisan statement of mere factoids with which the reader during 2012 is already familiar, but potentially of greater importance in years hence in case this blog survives long enough that some future reader might be far enough removed from the peculiarities of late-20th Century and early-21st Century American politics to have forgotten about party affiliations).

To be fair, Federal employment under President George W. Bush was smaller than under President Obama, with numbers that were typically in the range of 2.7 million to 2.8 million, but we're starting to talk about very small differences here.  And, under the Clinton Administrations of 1993 to 2000, Federal employment started at about 3.0 million and trended down from there to about 2.7 million, which is the point at which things were picked up by the Bush Presidency.

Aw, shucks -- what about Reagan?

In 1985, during the Reagan Administration--the icon of small-government adherents--Federal government employment was about 3.1 million.  That's quite a bit larger than during the Obama years cited above.

The notion of the size of the Federal government in relation to the size of the American population has relevance here.  As an example of what could be done for the employment numbers during all of the different Administrations, let's note that in 1985 the total population of the United States was approximately 238 million.  Total U.S. population in 2010 was about 309 million according to that year's Census.

On a per capita basis, President Obama is presiding over a much smaller Federal government than did President Reagan!

It's really pretty simple

To simplify this for those of us with MBAs and other such advanced degrees -- current USA population of 309 million is about 129% of what it was in 1985 (238 million), so adjusting for that population difference means that the Federal employment during that Reagan year would be the same as if Federal employment were over 3.6 million during the Obama Administration (2.8 million Obama Federal employees multiplied by 129%)!

Another way of looking at it is to observe that Federal employment during the Reagan year was about 11% greater in absolute numbers than it was in the Obama year, even though the nation's population was about 23% smaller.

The passage of a quarter century's worth of time has seen the introduction of a huge amount of productivity changes in all forms of employment.  The Federal government--in fact, all levels of American government--has participated in that productivity boom.

Nonetheless, if the size of Federal government is measured by its employment numbers, there is scant evidence to support the notion that Democrats in general, or President Obama in particular, can fill the role of standard-bearer for "Big Government."

Nor would it necessarily be true to say that Ronald Reagan, or either Bush, or Republicans overall are advocates for a big Federal government.  Recent and current political rhetoric would seem to indicate their predisposition to just the opposite; the problem with that rhetoric is that it is not supported by the realities of history.  However, let's be generous here and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps we all like big government. . .or not

All of this begs the questions:  "Where are all those 'Big Government' types, anyway?  Where did they all go?"

Beats me.  Maybe all of us are for big government, as long as it is doing whatever it is that we want it to do.  Or, maybe we are all in favor of small government, and that's what we have, indeed, and we just don't want to admit that we already have it right in front of us.

Naturally, there are other measures that can be used to compare the size of government from one year to another.  Perhaps all such measures are of equal worth.  It seems, though, that employment must be counted among the most worthy of all the measures, because it is real, live people who are employed--"numbers" are not employed, those employees are genuine people; and, importantly, what they do touches in some way on real people and not just on sterile enumerations of constituencies, and of groups, and of minorities and of majorities.  From beginning to end, and at all points in between, government is ultimately about people.

(Cynics, take note:  you've been baited!)

We have different opinions about the role of government in our lives.  That's been a fact for the United States since the beginnings of the country.  It's such an ingrained part of the American political psyche that it would seem downright weird if it were to ever go away.

But opinions must be evaluated in light of the facts.

The consequence of thinking odd thoughts and having fun with numbers

Almost forgot about the issue of sanity; well, let's keep that for another time.

Mars has waited a billion years for this

By the time you read this, the story will either be finished or just beginning.

At this point, there's a big robot that's been flying to Mars for most of the last year.  Scheduled arrival time is 10:31pm Pacific Time today, Sunday the 5th of August in the year 2012.

Just to be clear, in case you've been busy with other things and you haven't heard about this robot -- it's from Earth.  Built by humans; Earth humans, that is.  The Earth humans at NASA and especially at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, right here in Southern California, are in charge of the mission.

The robot is called Curiosity--this is a NASA image of what it will look like once on the Martian surface--a name submitted in a contest a few years ago by a very creative teenage girl from the Midwest.  Her entry won, and so Curiosity is the machine that will land on Mars.  Not a bad name, considering its mission, but perhaps a more exciting name could have been found.  Enterprise is a good name, too, and has become linked to exploration, but it's already been used a lot.  The darn thing is armed with a laser cannon--well, that might be overstating the design specs by just a bit--so it could have been named Blaster, but that sounds too hostile.  After all, we come in peace.

So be it -- Curiosity it is.  The excitement will be in the discoveries.  At some point in the not-too-distant future, some scientist will look at an analysis of the Martian surface performed by the robot and will quietly remark "curiouser and curiouser."  Mark my words on that.  Curiosity is a good name, after all.

Just the act of flying Curiosity all of the 350 millions of miles from Earth to Martian space is a great accomplishment.  It has completed a great and perilous journey -- undamaged, intact, and apparently ready to start exploring.  Lots of people have done terrific work to make it this far.

Now comes the payoff:  safely land an Earth-built machine that weighs in at almost 2000 pounds on the surface of another world.  While flying blind.  With no human hands on the controls.  And it's windy.

Curiosity might not make it; it might crash.  There's no way for people on Earth to guide it in for a safe and smooth landing because of that pesky thing about the speed of light.  The robot has to be constructed and programmed in just the right way so that no matter what conditions it encounters--whether atmospheric or on the ground below--it will do the proper things so that the parachute, the sky crane, the rockets and all the other systems work perfectly on their own.  Any cry of distress from the robot won't be heard here on Earth until fourteen or fifteen minutes after the fact, and any corrective instructions--once sent--will not be received by the robot for another fourteen or fifteen minutes.  That's a minimum of one half hour, plus the time needed to figure out the solution needed to solve an unexpected problem, before the robot can begin to take action on any new directions it receives.  Any problem encountered during the landing phase will likely need a solution within thirty milliseconds, not thirty minutes.

NASA and JPL have successfully sent other, smaller robots to Mars.  You probably know the story of the smaller machines--the rovers--called Sojourner, Spirit and Opportunity.  They landed safely by ultimately using an ingenious bouncy balloon system to cushion the final descent to the surface.  Curiosity is too big and heavy for that type of design.  So, all the smart robot-builders had to figure out something different -- it's a crane.  They call it a sky crane.

Not only have we sent a one-ton robot to Mars, but also included in the package is its very own sky crane that will gently lower Curiosity to the surface of the Red Planet.  Think about how you might see a big helicopter carry a hunk of heavy equipment from one place to another, and you'll get the idea of the sky crane, except that to work in the Martian atmosphere the crane uses rockets instead of whirly-blades.

NASA has lots of very good stuff about the Curiosity mission on its web site.  The short video with William Shatner doing narration is great; check it out.

What's the mission? (you might ask.)  Life is the mission.  Knowledge is the mission.  Looking for things, looking at things, and learning new things are all part of the mission.  We humans are young, and we have a lot to learn.  We don't even know what we don't know.

Mars has water now, even if what we see of it is all frozen.  Mars once had lots of liquid water, according to the geological and chemical evidence turned up by Spirit, Opportunity and other missions of the last decade.  Here on Earth, where there's water there is life.  Why not on Mars, too?

Mars is dry; having some snow and ice in its polar regions doesn't make it wet.  The polar caps shrink and expand with the changing seasons, so perhaps there is flowing, liquid water in those regions, or maybe all the liquid water has retreated to sub-surface aquifers.  At this point there is no way to tell.  Curiosity is not equipped to conduct an investigation on the whereabouts of existing water, but it is prepared to examine and evaluate evidence left over from events far in the ancient past.

Curiosity is chock full of instruments that will do more than just scratch the surface of Mars.  That laser is intended to vaporize rocks from a distance as part of the search for organic compounds.  It also has cameras, a drill and a scoop, and what amounts to a teeny, tiny on-board laboratory.

This is a modern marvel of compressed, efficient and effective technology.  After a safe landing, Curiosity and its human handlers back here on Earth will begin a new chapter in the story of discovery.

Even so, this is only a machine.  Curiosity and its handlers are all highly capable in accomplishing their assignments, but they cannot do the complete job of discovery.  For us denizens of Earth, Mars is a new land, and for all the ages of human history the fulfillment of discovery in a new land has been accomplished only by people who traverse the land, one step at a time.

What we see of Mars now is a dried-up, wrinkled, dessicated parody of what it once might have been a billion or two billion or more years ago.  Whatever it was like in those earlier days, it was not like Earth as we know it now; it would have been much different.  "Different" is not a problem, just a challenge.  There will be remaining the traces of what once was, and they wait for us to find them.