Rugged Individualism Versus Federal Paternalism in US History
Aug 24, 2010 Michael Streich
Rugged individualism, most commonly associated with President Herbert Hoover, has seen many faces in American history. It is the conservative side in the debate on how much governmental interference should exist in American society and in the regulation of American business. Speaking in New York in 1928, Hoover warned that the other side of individualism was “centralized despotism.” That argument has been raised politically many times since FDR’s New Deal. It helped fuel some of the 1930s opposition to the New Deal. Today, similar arguments are used politically to define the differences between the growing Tea Party movement and the policies of President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.
Individualism in American Social and Political History
In 1928 Herbert Hoover spoke of the American nation following World War I: “…we were challenged…between the American system of rugged individualism,” he stated, “and a European philosophy of diametrically opposed doctrines – doctrines of paternalism and state socialism.” Hoover was himself a self-made man who valued the lessons originally advocated by 18th Century philosopher Adam Smith and his views on laissez faire.
Hoover maintained that it was rugged individualism that produced the tremendous wealth of the nation. During those decades in American History, Henry Ford seemed to characterize that ideal of individualism. A man with a vision and unbridled determination, he built one of the largest industries. According to Time (September 11, 1933), however, he ran afoul of President Roosevelt’s National Recovery Administration (NRA). Under the NRA code, wages in his industry were capped at forty-three cents and hour; Ford was paying his workers fifty cents an hour.
The federal government, attempting for force compliance, threatened to license him out of business. According to Time, “It was the first clean-cut major encounter between the new ‘robust collectivism’ and a prime exponent of the old ‘rugged individualism.’” In 1957, novelist Ayn Rand published Atlas Shrugged in which a fictional individualist, Hank Rearden, is coerced by the government into giving up his secret formula for the revolutionary “Rearden steel,” at a time individualism was being replaced by socialist policies.
Individualism as a Part of the Great American Dream
Writing in Time (October 15, 1984), Roger Rosenblatt all but asserts that individualism was always a myth of sorts and that America was never a “collection of loners.” Rosenblatt was writing in the midst of the Reagan presidency at a time individualism was being debated intellectually and politically. Much like Teddy Roosevelt and Hoover, Ronald Reagan championed less government and an end to the welfare state. One of his 1980 campaign promises had been to eliminate the newly formed Department of Education.
Rugged individualism in American history never implied a collection of loners. Cornelius Vanderbilt borrowed $100 from his mother at age 16 and turned that money into one of the greatest shipping empires. The Vanderbilts, like Andrew Carnegie, gave back to society through philanthropic endeavors, much like Bill and Melinda Gates are doing today through their foundation.
Those who saw rugged individualism as an integral part of attaining the American Dream, like Teddy Roosevelt during the Progressive Era, recognized that there would always be “malefactors of great wealth” that needed to be reigned in through federal regulation. But this was very different from creating a system whereby the federal government provided long-term assistance to millions – or so the proponents of individualism argued.
The Renewed Date of Individualism and the Socialist State in 2010
In July 2010 members of an Iowa Tea Party received national attention after displaying a billboard that pictured Obama flanked by pictures of Hitler and Lenin. The phrase above Obama stated “Democrat Socialism.” Earlier in 2010, Obama’s health care initiatives, notably the “public option,” were labeled as being socialist. Those making these claims fervently believed that the “American way” was being threatened and that the Constitution was under attack.
In a more extreme case, Nevada Tea Party senatorial candidate Sharron Angle has, at various times, advocated America’s leaving the United Nations and eliminating Social Security and Medicare. She opposes separation of church and state, debunks global warning, and wants to do away with the Department of Education. (The Economist, August 21-27, 2010) Yet, according the Economist, she and her husband draw government pensions.
Angel’s extreme positions are not shared by all members of conservative groups like the Tea Party, but they all want to see less federal paternalism and are in favor of not letting the so-called tax cuts “on the rich” expire. It is the same debate that, in American History, pits less government involvement in the lives of Americans and in American business against expanding regulation and what some have called “Big Brotherism.”
The Blurred Debate of Federal Regulation and Rugged Individualism
President Theodore Roosevelt is one of America’s best examples of rugged individualism, although he was born into wealth. Roosevelt, however, challenged average Americans to pursue the American Dream in the same way Ralph Waldo Emerson a century earlier advocated a spirit of individualism compatible with America’s pioneering spirit. There was always a new frontier to conquer and tame.
Yet even Roosevelt saw that extreme laissez faire represented abuses. He attacked the ruthless business practices of John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan. He took a cue from the muckrakers of the time, like Ida Tarbell and Sinclair Lewis’ expose of the Chicago meat packing industry. Today’s debaters could learn from that.
Before the BP oil spill, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal called for less federal interference in the states, yet after the spill complained that the federal government wasn’t doing enough. Rugged individualism defines an American attitude. What comes out of that attitude must be addressed by balance.
Sources:
- William E. Leuchtenburg, The Perils of Prosperity 1914-32 (University of Chicago Press, 1958)
- Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America (Penguin Books, 1984)
No comments:
Post a Comment