> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of PAT MATHEWS > Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 2:44 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: We Will Not Be Afraid > > Dan said: They are usually created in gray areas. The biggest extension > of > Presidential power was from 1860-65. The second biggest one was from > 1932-45. With the exception of pushing the button, no president from > Truman > on had FDR's power. After Nixon's excesses, presidential powers were > reduced ~1974-80." > > I note that both times is was during times of national crisis. The only > pre-Lincoln precedent was John Adam's Alien & Sedition Act which was > post-crisis but while the national identity and course were still being > firmed up, and it was pretty promptly rejected.
Jefferson expanded Presidential powers beyond what he believed they should be when he made the Louisiana Purchase. He did it because it was too good for the nation to pass up. That doesn't match Lincoln or FDR, but it might match Adams. The other point worth noting was the peaceful transition from Adams to Jefferson was something people didn't take for granted at the time. It really meant something. > As for the national government turning into witch-hunters, I can think of > three times in our history previous to ours and every one of them came at > a time when a foreign revolutionary movement was giving us serious panic > attacks, as one is today: > > The Alien & Sedition Act on the heels of the French Revolution. > The Palmer Raids on the heels of the Russian Revolution. > The McCarthy Era, after we'd had it proven to us that Stalin was gobbling > down as many chunks of Eastern Europe as possible and who knew where he > would stop? > And of course today's Clash of Civilization., when jihadists seems as > great a threat as any of the ones listed above and are operating much > the way we imagined the Communists did in the 1950s. (And for all > I know, they did. But very few people were really listening.) There were Communist spies during the time of McCarthy, but there were no cases of sabotage that can be attributed to USSR sponsored terrorists. My main points when I started contributing to this thread was to point out how the reaction to threats that were not as real was much larger in the past than the present reaction to a threat that has been realized. During and after WWI, the risk of Communists causing severe damage to the nation was minimal. Yet, the willingness of Americans to deny liberty to other Americans was strong. For example, membership in the KKK numbered in the millions. There were tens of thousands of lynchings during that period. After WWII, the risk posed by Communist spies was real. But, it certainly wasn't from blacklisted Hollywood actors and directors. A much more reasoned debate could/should have taken place during that time. Still, while blacklisting is bad, it is nothing like lynching. A friend of mine was blacklisted in the '50s, and lost his job as a Congressional aid (he lost it because he was a member of the Abraham Lincoln brigade in the Spanish Civil War). But, he had a long and happy life after that, with a good law practice, and stayed active in politics for decades. So, I'd argue that the '50s, while bad, was a step forward from the '20s. And, I'd argue that now....given the fact that massive damage has taken place from sabotage, the reaction is mild compared to earlier reactions. Indeed, the most questionable actions of Bush are tied to legal precedents that stem from these earlier times. One could see the strong presidency advocates in the Bush administration as looking towards FDR's power as a goal to aspire to. He's tried to assume some of those powers...and has met modest resistance on the way. None of this contradicts what you wrote...it's just that what you wrote is a good starting point for restating what my original case was. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
