Dak
mentat
The US still has pretty significant variance, although state identity has fallen from where it was 150 years ago.
Yeah, FDR was one of those rugged individualist types.
FDR is overlooked when it comes to his drug policy, but he didn't have a lasting effect on it nor social or police policy in general, it was basically all directed towards economic policy. FDR was more notable in the things he allowed the government to encompass, since most of his actions were ended willingly or ruled unconstitutional by the 50s.
Regionally speaking, it's still the case. Maybe not state by state, but there's still widespread regional identification, and there's definitely still an identitarian rift between north and south.
Also between urban and rural, clearly.
Gotta el-mow on this one. The New Deal dramatically altered society in a social sense, by creating an expectation of Federal "problem-solving" and covering at least the "to grave" portion of the "cradle to grave" goal of socialist government.
Just because he didn't start the drug war doesn't mean he wasn't terrible.
I never said he wasn't terrible, but I'd put social security under the umbrella of economic policy, even if it has the word "social" in it. He was to Reagan what McKinley was to... well, also Reagan in terms of international policy. You have the guys that set precedent to create legal problems, and then you have the guys that take precedent to create practical problems. FDR was Caesar to Reagan's Nero.
Contrary to recent claims, Richard Spencer is not a “Wilsonian Progressive.” How could he be? Woodrow Wilson pushed for foreign war in the name of “Democracy,” saw the administrative state as the cornerstone of government action, and sought the spiritual uplift of Americans from the “hosts of sin” and a “heartless” economic system.
Spencer on the other hand, despises foreign interventionism, does not support democracy, and says very little on the subject of economics and public administration. It is true, as Dinesh D’Souza notes, that both Wilson and Spencer reject the American Founding. It is also true that both consider European civilization to be a product of something unique and superior in the “blood” of those who built it.
On the surface it's amazing how dramatically different Teddy and FDR, as relatives, were in their conceptualizations of grand state power. On even a more cursory examination, their personal abilities or lack thereof resolve any amazement. Teddy was Putinesque in his persona, while still privileging many progressive policies. Overall though, the thrust was increasing opportunities for masculinity.
FDR on the other hand, wanted opportunities for as many people as possible to experience being a cripple cared for by the state. Misery loves company.
On the surface it's amazing how dramatically different Teddy and FDR, as relatives, were in their conceptualizations of grand state power. On even a more cursory examination, their personal abilities or lack thereof resolve any amazement. Teddy was Putinesque in his persona, while still privileging many progressive policies. Overall though, the thrust was increasing opportunities for masculinity.
FDR on the other hand, wanted opportunities for as many people as possible to experience being a cripple cared for by the state. Misery loves company.
No, Richard Spencer Is Not a ‘Wilsonian Progressive’.
Richard Spencer is my favourite lolcow lately.
Teddy was the last true renaissance man as far as I'm concerned. Probably my favorite President in historical terms.
Spencer has no consistent behavior beyond trolling non-white people and praising muh European forefathers.
Teddy was an egocentric fuck that sabotaged Taft's reelection to put Wilson in power over a personal slight of Taft being a better progressive than him. He was still an incredible character and despite all his dick-swinging managed to do good with it, but people need to get over his sex appeal.
A media whore.
Breaking apart dozens of corporations and passing many of the early safety/consumer-protection laws isn't a form of nanny-stating?
Some would argue that public-run pensions aren't the nanny-state and it was LBJ that started the nanny-state-proper. It all starts somewhere.