The modern travesty of Thomas Jefferson’s political organization to which you have attached yourself like a barnacle has the effrontery to call itself The Democratic Party. You are a Dem-o-crat. What’s the matter with you? Are you wicked?
Congressman Thaddeus Stevens (R. Pa.) to Congressman Alexander Coffroth (D. Pa.) in Lincoln.
Jefferson-Jackson dinners have long been a fixture of the Democrat party, although Jefferson had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the Democrat party which was the handiwork of Old Hickory. Steve Yoder at Salon has a post, here, where he urges Democrats to dump their creator. I oppose this move. Although there are obvious differences between Jackson and the modern Democrat party, he established certain themes that have resonated in his party ever since:
1. Political Spoils-Andrew Jackson certainly did not invent the concept of firing workers in the Federal government and replacing them with members of his party, but he greatly expanded the concept and made it a fixture of American political life. The phrase political spoils was first used in reference to the wholesale firing of Federal workers by the newly elected Jackson. Government employees have ever since been one of the foundation stones of the Democrat party, only slowed a bit by the largely Republican initiated Civil Service reforms of the late nineteenth century.
2. Economic Ignorance-Andrew Jackson’s war on the Second Bank of the United States is a classic example of how politics can have a large negative impact on the economic life of the nation. With the Second Bank of the United States dead, state banks stepped into the breach to take over the lending throughout the nation on large private projects that had mainly been the responsibility of the Second Bank. Jackson’s policies led directly to the irresponsible printing of paper “money” by state banks, so-called “wild cat money”, and an orgy of speculation and unsound loans. This was ironic because Jackson always hated paper money, believing that the only sound money was coin in gold and silver. When the economic bubble caused by the creation of this new “money” collapsed, the panic of 1837 ensued, and the economy would not recover until 1843. It was the first great depression in American history. Economic illiteracy and the Presidency are always a bad combination, and the Democrats have a long history of placing in the White House men with economic ideas that run the gamut from bad to loony.
3. Class Hatred-In his veto of the bill by Congress rechartering the Second Bank of the United States, Jackson skillfully painted supporters as being a pack of Eastern and foreign investors and appealed to class prejudice against the rich:
Daniel Webster in his speeach on the veto in the Senate noted the political purpose of Jackson’s message: It manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against the rich. It wantonly attacks whole classes of the people, for the purpose of turning against them the prejudices and the resentments of other classes.
The appeals to class divisions have been part of Democrat standard political tactics ever since.
4. Fake Populism-The election of Jackson was hailed as the triumph of the Common Man, as symbolized by the near riot at Jackson’s Inaugural Ball when hordes of Jackson’s supporters, around 20,000 showed up, were let into the White House and basically trashed the place. The drunken mob dispersed only when drinks and refreshments were placed on the White House lawn. The damages ran into the tens of thousands at a time when most Americans earned around $15.00 a month. However, the populism was merely a surface show. Jackson relied upon supporters with great wealth just as much as any of his predecessors and Jackson was quite rich himself. Additionally his war against the Bank hit poorest Americans the hardest. Since that time the Democrat party has specialized in running candidates for the White House who are usually well to do, but who sound as if they are the tribunes of those who do not have two cents to rub together.
5. Speech Codes-Jackson sought legislation to allow post masters in the South to intercept abolitionist publications. (Southern postmasters did this de facto, but Jackson wished to give them de jure legal authority to do so.) He also proposed that post masters be allowed to reveal to local communities the names of those who ordered abolition material, which in many parts of the South would be tantamount to calling for the lynching of such individuals. Thankfully this legislation never passed Congress. The bubble zone legislation passed by several States and local communities to restrict the rights of pro-life demonstrators at abortion clinics, indicates that contempt for the civil liberties of political opponents remains a grand tradition of the Democrat party.
6. Appeals to Race-Jackson was a firm believer in slavery and the removal of Indians, and his party often resorted to the basest appeals of race prejudice. Henry Clay, who helped found the Whig Party in opposition to Jackson, and who was Lincoln’s ideal of a statesman, spoke out against the Indian Removal Act, and also spoke out against slavery, even though he held slaves. The idea that the federal government should not discriminate among Americans on the basis of race became a founding principle of the Republican party, a principle which the Democrat party has ever opposed. As demonstrated by Vice-President Biden last year, the Democrat party remains fond of using racial appeals to gain votes:
7. Cult of Personality- Jackson was the first president to develop a cult of personality. His opponents referred to him as King Andrew I and compared him to King George III. They took the name Whigs to identify themselves with the American Whigs, the patriots, who fought native Tories and the British during the Revolution. Since the time of Jackson several Democrat presidents have had a cult of personality.
That some Democrats are now unhappy with the father of their party could be considered a step in the right direction, exept that I suspect the same people probably continue to embrace most of the striking features of Jackson’s term in office as cherished parts of the core beliefs of their party.
With respect Don, the Civil Servicewants to be independant and many of us are Republicans, Independants, and Libertarians… How could it be otherwise when so many of us are veterans? The problem with the Civil Service is that the political jobs that shift with administration go deeper into agency administration than ever before. There was a time when just the agency heads would be political hacks and everyone below would be career. Now it goes down to the division an d branch management levels. Worse yet, those jobs are not subject to congressional oversight because they are posted but only filled by non-civil service.
If you want to see the area in which this administration has enjoyedits greatest success, look there. With even branch and dvision directors beholden to the administration rather than the agency they ostensibly work for, the Administration’s worl-view cuts deep onto the heart of the Civil Service, far deeper than in any of the five administrations I have worked for.
As regards class hatred, Jefferson, too, was a lifelong opponent of entails, perpetuities and primogeniture – ” To annul this privilege, and instead of an aristocracy of wealth, of more harm and danger, than benefit, to society, to make an opening for the aristocracy of virtue and talent, which nature has wisely provided for the direction of the interests of society, and scattered with equal hand through all its conditions, was deemed essential to a well-ordered republic…”
His letter of September 5 1789 to James Madison is very instructive.
Oh, I have no doubt that many civil servants do not have a love for the Democrat party, however they are in the minority. The political transformation of Northern Virginia due to the influx of government employees from Washington is striking evidence of that.
Your comments about the spreading of political hacks in administration are well taken. Some parts of the Federal government, the Department of Justice for example, have developed a history of making life intolerable for employees who differ from the pre-dominant left wing view within a department.
“But other aspects of the department’s investigation were deeply troubling. As conservatives have long charged, many of the career civil-service employees in the Justice Department’s voting section are strong liberals. Conservatives who worked at the department, especially on cases involving the protection of white voters, were ostracized, called “Klansman,” “Nazi,” or subject to ridicule in department emails or in anonymous items posted on political blogs. One voting-section employee admitted to lying under oath to investigators about posting such comments. She said she did it in response to a series of harassing comments made by three male conservative colleagues in February 2007, including “highly offensive and inappropriate sexual comments about the employee, including her sexual orientation, and remarks about how she was ‘pro-black’ in her work.”
The lack of professionalism and level of personal nastiness in the report in some cases is appalling. As Andrew Cohen remarked, “ ‘At least we are better than Bradley Schlozman’ is no standard for a Justice Department.” And while hiring practices have improved in the Obama administration, the inspector general found that department’s use of civil rights and voting rights experience as criteria for hiring tend to skew the section’s hiring toward Democrats and liberals—experience that the inspector general said was not always necessary to do the job. Further, one of the members of the voting-section hiring committee often sent emails within the Justice Department “that were highly critical of Republicans or conservatives.” This “would lead a reasonable person to question [his] ability to evaluate job applications free from political or ideological bias.”
The voting section’s troubles went beyond personnel issues into the question of whether the Voting Rights Act was fairly enforced. Some department employees, including a current manager “admitted to [IG investigators] that, while they believed that the text of the Voting Rights Act is race-neutral and applied to all races, they did not believe the Voting Section should pursue cases on behalf of White victims.” Even if the department had “infinite resources, [two career attorneys] still would not have supported the filing of [a case against black officials discriminating against white voters] because it was contrary to the purpose of the Voting Rights Act, which was to ensure that minorities who had historically been the victims of discrimination could exercise the right to vote.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/03/justice_department_s_inspector_general_report_is_the_voting_rights_section.html
Civil Service with Left leanings are likely the overwhelming majority in DC. That isan extreme danger too since it makes agency policy myopic and more politically charged than it need be. However, most field government employees work their entire government careers in the office most convenient to their homes. That is the majority of federal government employees too. I suspect that the political and social leanings of field public servants allign with the general views of the communities they live in. Thinking now of friends in our offices, I think this is true. Perhaps the disconnect between agency policy and field work is a product of that reality, the ambitious, movable headquarters staff flowing with the administration and largely Left and the field sticking with the loyalties of their family and friends. That bears some thought.
Outstanding post, Mac.
The democrat party persists-on-steroids in advancing all seven of Jackson’s mass evils.
Worse yet, the evil SOB’s are even more harmful. They exercise far more control and power over the economy, the lying media, and tens of millions of Americans and illegal immigrants that the government feeds, clothes, and houses.
Re: the CS employee. It is the “rare bird” that is not either libidinously liberal or democrat-leaning based on personal, pecuniary interest. Right or wrong, the GOP and conservatives are seen as desirous of cutting pay and benefits.
My answer to such monetary motivation, “You can’t take it with you. It will burn.”
T. Shaw, does it matter that you are wrong and being uncharitable or are we to be condemned on the basis of opinion alone?
Many Civil Servants make less than $50,000 a year and haven’t seen even a cost of living increase in years. Beyond any doubts, the creation of hundreds of Special Executive Service positions and the upgrading of headquarters positions to GS 14 and 15 pay has bloated yhe federal payroll. I offer no defense of this… It is further evidence that the core problem with the American government is congressional abdication of responsibility.
The majority of the Civil Service are just like the commenters and posters here; working to middle-middle class, struggling to make ends meet, working whatever overtime they can, while caring for spouse, children, and aging parents. Our pensions are lousy, our healthcare is expensive and lousy, and our promotion opportunities are few unless we are willing to move around the country.
We are like you and it is fundamentally unfair and uncharitable to visit on us your ill-will.
As for our political leanings, you are wrong. It is far more complicated a picture than you imagine or pretend.
Finally, let me state that I am intensely proud of my staff. To a person, they are loyal, smart, hard working, and creative. No matter what is thrown at them, they respond with good will and a Can Do Attitude that never fails to lift my spirits and affirm my faith in the Civil Service. I’d stake my officers, administrators, and support people against any private company’s any day of the week!
This isn’t an oddity. You are wrong in your assessment and I’ll be damned if I let what I know to be false pass without standing up for the people and job that I love.
“The problem with the Civil Service is that the political jobs that shift with administration go deeper into agency administration than ever before. There was a time when just the agency heads would be political hacks and everyone below would be career. Now it goes down to the division an d branch management levels.”
About 20 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case titled Rutan vs. Republican Party of Illinois, which involved political patronage hiring. The case was brought by a mid-level employee of a state agency who was a registered Democrat and was fired from her job when a Republican became governor, although she had no role or influence in agency policy making. Both parties in Illinois have been notorious for patronage hiring and it used to be common for State employees all the way down to secretaries and janitors who voted the “wrong” way in primary elections, to be let go when a governor of the opposite party took office.
Anyway, the court ruled that political considerations in hiring or promotion for State jobs were forbidden unless the jobs directly involved policy making or implementation on behalf of the governor or an elected constitutional officer (e.g. agency heads and deputies). Such jobs are now known to State of Illinois employees as “Rutan exempt.” Most mid- to low-level State jobs are also under a civil service Personnel Code; jobs that are both Rutan exempt and not governed by the Personnel Code are known as “double exempt” and these are the easiest to fill with political hacks. So while political hiring and firing is far from dead, it’s not as blatant or rampant as it used to be in Illinois. That’s why I find it ironic that political hiring seems to have become MORE common at the Federal level, particularly given the long-standing SCOTUS decision against it.
Civil Service schemes are not the remedy for Big Government.
Small Government is the remedy for Big Government.