3.1. Wilsonianised Status-quo
Majority of the Democratic supporters, Modern Liberals (also known as Political Liberalists), and socialists in all over the world tend to think that the Republicans are war-mongers and fiscally extravagant. Nonetheless, the time when the Republicans were aggressive and extravagant are the Lincoln's administration time periods and the time periods from 1980s onward. By contrast, the Democrats, since Wilson was elected as the president, have been far more aggressive and fiscally extravagant than any other political parties. In particular, since Franklin Delano Roosevelt became the president, the Democrats have always engaged enemies, and started the war.
The Republicans also provoked some wars, but they cared about the fiscal prudence and the productive consequence derived from their cause and action. Therefore, the Republicans used their force to a certain limit to secure the safe trade routes and American national defence. Like Theodore Roosevelt's administration, their ulterior motive of provoking wars in outside America was to deserve their national material interests, and they were only eager to defend the liberal democracy and the natural right in inside America.
The reason why they intervened to the South America and the pacific ocean was that building relationship with these nations there would be the necessary condition to compete with the contemporary European empires and also highly beneficial for American future. These nations were struggling with the contemporary unilateral diplomatic relationship with Europe which deserves European sides more than their South American counterparts. Then, America emancipated them from the occupation under European colonisers by fighting against their European rulers. However, Theodore Roosevelt avoided intervening to both Atlantic Ocean and Europe itself by following Monroe Doctrine. He and the old Republicans knew that the excessive intervention and the devotion in moral objective would result in unproductive consequences.
The Democrats have been far more aggressive and fiscally imprudent and provoked wars. These wars provoked by the Democrats resulted in various unproductive consequences for both America and the others and the heavy reliance of citizens and American economy on the federal government. The aggression of the Democrats were motivated by their devotion in the universal moral principle which Wilsonian Democrats demand to encourage the entire world to follow.
In the domestic policy, Wilson also put a harsh persecution against his opponents and severely restricted freedom of speech among citizens during his regime. He even imprisoned those whom he suspected as oppositions to his politics under the name of his devout cause in the Natural Right. As explained in Ch1, the Natural Right principle basing American Liberal Democratic ideal itself is a very attractive cause. Nevertheless, having learned from the history, any enthusiasm based on good cause and principle may lead to a bloodshed when these devout supporters become fundamental to stick to it. Then, they tend to ignore the prudence and the consequence derived from their zealous action.
Wilson's intervention to the European war in the Wold War I (WW1) was encouraged by a good loyal cause to defend the Liberal Democratic alliance oppressed by the old monarchist totalitarians based on the Continental Realism. Despite of his good cause, the excess negative sanction toward the enemy nations created a strong antagonism and ressentiment of these former enemy nations enough to let them establish a new form of the oppressive politics. In addition, the ally nations have became excessively dependent on American foreign aids since then. All in all, America have been obliged to keep intervening to European politics in order to aid the dependent allies and repress the old and the new oppressive nations. Monroe Doctrine had avoided inducing this kind of result so that Americans had followed Monroe Doctrine as their wisdom to avoid their excessive intervention to the world outside America. But, Wilson ignored and destroyed the teaching of this wisdom.
Wilson himself faced a lot of enemies in his own party. In the contemporary Democratic party, there were still a large proportion of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian members who opposed the federal government power expansion. Wilson's reformation was a revolutionary movement in inside the Democratic party, which was transformed from the old conservative isolationist party to the aggressive progressive party. The Democratic party in 20th century onward completely follow the latter model, and the former model has been repealed off gradually from Wilson's administration to F.D.Roosevelt's administration. Afterward, the Democratic party has completely turned up to be a pure Wilsonian party.
Bush Jr. seemed to attempt to look like a Jacksonian (A moral relativist isolationist populist) in order to pretend a populist to attract countryside Americans and urban American mobs. At the same time, he restored the old moralist tradition before the secular moralist like Kantinan deontologist and John Rawls's secular Political Liberalism became popular. He tried to attract Christian voters who have been disappointed by the current Democratic party which is secularised nowadays, and adapted the religious side of Wilsonian politics to his new Republican party. All in all, in order to attract those who detest the Democrats' interventionist policy, and to distinguish his new religious sort of Wilsonian policy from the Democrats' secular sort of Wilsonian, he played with the two face mask which contains the two opposing personalities. On the other hand, the outcome of Bush Jr.'s administration was completely a Wilsonian.
However, since Bush Jr. and his fellow Neoconservatives took over the office, Jacksonian votes have realised that the Bush Jr.'s administration was completely based on their opposing Wilsonian policy. Then, some Republicans started forming a new faction called the Tea Party which clearly distinguishes themselves from Bush Jr. and his fellow who pretended as though they were Jacksonians. Because both the Democrats and the Republicans are now Wilsonian, and the only difference between them is that the Democrats are secular and the Republicans are more religious, these Jacksonian votes were frustrated in finding their favourite party. Then, the Tea party members of the Republicans fulfilled their favour.
The Wilsonian transformation of the Republican party started at the time when Ronald Reagan was elected as the president. Reagan himself was not a pure Wilsonian, and reminded many characteristics of the other 3 American political party ideology groups. Reagan was a unique and flexible politician who cannot be fit in the box. His Wilsonian side of personality was recognised in his federal government policy. Many political philosophers think of his tax cut and minimising public expenditures other than the military expenditure as Jacksonian minimisation of the federal government compared to states'. Nonetheless, his policy domestic policy he introduced far more focused on the big centralised scale rather than the small decentralised scale. He verbally put emphasis on the interest of small local communities in order to attract the isolationists' voters. But, his ulterior motive was to create promoting strong individualism and big private business growth which deserved more for the individuals favouring diversity more than the communitarian traditionalism and the corporations thriving with deregulation and tax cut in the urban areas. Ronald Reagan was wearing Jacksonian Cloth but Wilsonian inside.
Reagan should rather be seen as Wilsonian by means of his economic policy. Wilson tried to regulate excessively deregulated economy meanwhile Reagan tried to deregulate excessively regulated economy. The characteristic of these two are different but their quality of policy is same. Both Wilson and Reagan were willing to achieve in the economic system following the Natural Right principle which protects the individual freedom and right. The similarity of both is that they go extreme to reform the government policy. Wilson made the government too big meanwhile Reagan made the government too small.
At the time when Wilson was in charge of politics, the federal government power of Wilson's government imposed the regulation on the contemporary capitalists and their owning private sector industries, which operated the monopoly violating majority citizens' Natural Right, to protect the individuals' Natural Right from the contemporary capitalists owing the big private sector businesses. By contrast, the structure of American capitalist economy significantly changed from that time period. Erik Olin Wright, one of Neo-Marxist sociologists, described that the bureaucrats nowadays are closely tied up with the owner of big corporations and have started controlling the means of production as the new capitalist class since the Welfare state policy was introduced to capitalist nations. Furthermore, Wright mentioned that various entrepreneurs not fortunate enough to have a close relationship tie with both the big corporate tycoons and the bureaucrat have lost their power as the bourgeoisie since then. Therefore, the federal government power of Reagan's government reduced the tax taken by the bureaucrats, the new capitalists, and deregulated the entire market to discourage the monopoly of capital by the bureaucrats and their owning public sector industries.
All in all, Wilsonian, inspired by Lincoln's policy, became the mainstream political ideology of the status-quo in the 20th century onward.
3.2. The New Rebels: Jeffersonian (Libertarians) and Jacksonians (Tea Party)
Compared to any other nation, America has been a successful modern democratic nation where majority of citizens are interested in politics and ambitious to reflect their opinion. So, unlike the other nations, America has had provided these ambitious citizens with the democratic opportunity of representing their opinon. American political structure used to allow four unique political ideology groups to compete in obtaining the political power. So, in order to defeat the opponents, these groups always had to recruit their supporters as many as possible. Therefore, this structure enabled many citizens to participate into politics by joining one of these groups.
By contrast, as the power of American politics is monopolised by fewer groups, as these mainstream groups no longer need to make an effort to either aggressively recruit supporters nor aggressively advertise for the campaign, they require less citizens to help them. Thus, nowadays, more Americans are frustrated in their ambition of reflecting their political opinions than ever.
Those who disagree with the centralised autocratic government who intensively interfere with foreign affairs now no longer trust any mainstream political parties, and lost their interest in participating in the mainstream politics. However, this does not mean these citizens have lost their interest in the entire American politics. They have started a new revolution against the mainstream American politics which has been hijacked by the monopolistic status-quo. This seems to be a new American Civil War between the federal government of the status-quo and the isolationist popular politics lead by the new rebellion groups. This new rebellion is called Libertarianism which promotes for an isolationist foreign policy and the decentralised domestic policy.
There are two streams of Libertarian movement. Majority of Libertarians belonging to the political party called the Libertarian party are Jeffersonians, the booked based Civil Libertarian idealists. Self-dependent countryside citizens and the Republicans who are disappointed with the Wilsonianised mainstream party members are Jacksonians who prefer the straightforward policy to the complicated book based idealism.
Jeffersonians had had disagreed with Wilsonian federal autocracy which violates states' right and minimises individual sovereignty. However, Jeffersonians have realised that some federal intervention is necessary to avoid the complete collapse of the United States of America, and to negatively sanction against some states starting to violate individual citizens' liberty and right. Then, Jeffersonian and Wilsonian once allied to maintain the federal government power as a guardian of Natural Right because both groups are devout worshiper of American Liberal Democratic ideal based on the Natural Right ethical principle.
Since the beginning, Jacksonian has always been the most notable antagonist against Wilsonian politics, and been once disappointed by Jeffersonian when it formed an alliance with Wilsonian. Because Jacksonian is the populist derivation of Jeffersonian ideology, Jacksonians used to consider and call themselves as Jeffersonians even though Thomas Jefferson would have disagreed because of their unsophisticated characteristics. The obvious differences between Jacksonian and Jeffersonian are as follow. Jacksonian always puts priority on the states' right unless the USA is engaging a foreign enemy. Meanwhile Jeffersonians insist on their individualism for pursing American ideal,
Jacksonians support their individuality for their own basic need and want. Of course, Jeffersonian also encourages all citizens to be honest about clinging to their need and want. But, Jacksonian cause is far more straight forward and simplistic than Jeffersonian methodology.
A while after the Cold War, since the status-quo started being controlled by Wilsonian style politics, Jeffersonians have started to be sceptical about its former ally Wilsonian due to Wilsonian's monopoly over American political power and the current intensively centralised extravagant governance. Jeffersonians have then realised that their original way of pursing American ideal has been violated, and then started thinking that Americans now need to thinking the basic and the original spirit of American establishment. This is the cause to create a new revolutionary political party called the Libertarian party which rebels against both the Democratic party and the Republican party.
The old Republicans who are more fiscal conservative and realist in politics than the mainstream Republicans started feeling insecure under their current imprudent party politics. These fiscal conservatives and political realists of the Republicans used to be Hamiltonians who claim for the foreign intervention for their national material well-being. By contrast, nowadays, they are more likely to become Jacksonians, who are more aggressively insisting on minimising the federal government expenditure than any other political ideology groups. The other reason they have decided to choose Jacksonian path instead of Hamiltonian path is to gain the popular supports from countryside citizens and urban mobs. These countryside citizens and urban mobs are considerably more frustrated in ambition than Hamiltonian leaning rationalist individuals. So, these rebellious Republicans have chosen to be Jacksonian to attract these frustrated supporters in order to accomplish in their fiscal prudence which both realist groups Hamiltonian and Jacksonian put emphasis on. Then, this derivation of the Republican party, which declares the populist Libertarianism, is called the Tea Party named after Americans' rebellion against British autocratic occupation.
Both the Libertarian party, the new Jeffersonian, and the Tea party, the new Jacksonian, ally to challenge against the current authoritarian status-quo under the same shared interest of their Libertarian movement. Although both of them are prevented from being the mainstream, their influence among ordinary American citizens has become not ignorable. Their aggression is resemblance to the American rebels who fought for American independence. They aspire to resurrect the good old American life style, which they think of as America's attractive uniqueness from the rest of this world. They are also keen to show their proud traditional American economy as the freest economic model, which is detached from a heavy government intervention to economy, where citizens and entrepreneurs freely live and thrive purely by means of their voluntary will. Their motivation is encouraged by both their nostalgia of the original America-ness and their ambition to experiment an attractive and ideal economics.
On the other hand, their insisting isolationist policy is concerned to reduce American economic strength and cause the loss of the global order maintained largely by America's intervention as a guardian of the global market and the international human right. In addition, the disintegration of the macroeconomic policy, which Libertarians claim for, will cause the domestic economic instability and reduce the aggregate productivity level of American economy. Therefore, these Libertarians' policy is pretty much a resemblance to the original Jefferson's over-idealistic proposal which was highly criticised by Hamilton due to its inability to strengthen the national economy and expand the international trade network.
On the top of the structural issue, Libertarians' fundamental belief in their universal morality is warned to repeat the similar mistake as Wilsonian, which Edmund Burke would have criticised if he had been alive then. Furthermore, Libertarian reasoning process is critically normative (Quite vague and over expecting) so that their action tends to put priority on clinging to their right regardless of its costs more than keeping their action prudent, and on accomplishing their very long term ideal more than the affordable productive consequence. Both the Wilsonianised status-quo and Libertarians share the essentially same quality which contains a worrying risk of the moral universalism previously mentioned in Ethical Principles explained by Mathematical Logic Ch3 to Ethical Principles explained by Mathematical Logic Ch4.
American idealism was a strong manifesto which successfully liberated people of this world from the old traditional tyrannical autocratic politics of the Continental Realism which bases the philosophy of monarchism, aristocracy, and socialism. However, the nonhuman sovereign power influence of Americanism consequently transformed America from a super individualist nation to a centralised aggressive nation. Some of political philosophers wonder whether or not there can be an alternative political philosophy which is neither the traditional autocratic politics based on collectivism nor the moral universalism seen in America.
3.3. Who are Hamiltonians nowadays?
Despite the situation that Hamiltonian looks like having disappeared from American politics, there is still a politically influential group which promotes Hamiltonian. What has to be focused on is that politics of a nation is no longer controlled only by the political party members elected in a representative indirect democracy. Since the end of the Cold War when the information technology started to be rapidly developed and the world economy is globalised, various world financial institutions and multinational corporations have grown big.
When the global economy became globalised, a global scale reserve bank mediates and balances global economics and financial activities in order to stabilise the business cycle of all other the world. So, the financial institutes such as the IMF and the World Bank became authorised to hold the power to influence the world monetary policy which are independent from any national politics. As their objectives are clearly indexed, their action is not motivated by the abstract moral principle which is either impossible to achieve within resource and technology available or required to fulfil in an extremely long run. So, they require a strong prudence in their fiscal policy and encourage a pragmatic method to achieve their clearly indexed objectives.
The financial institutions such as investment banks and insurance companies freely invest beyond the national border lines as long as these investments are profitable, and nations have allowed them to do since the end of the Cold War. Since the end of the Cold War, the high politics such as the military power and the charisma of an ideological belief such as religion and political ideology has become less significant to enable a nation to have a strong initiative in the international politics. Since then, the low politics such as an economic management and a financial strength has become the key to hold an initiative in the international politics. Furthermore, individuals and companies have become less loyal to their own country's national politics, and then they have started welcoming foreign investors, who provide them with the opportunity to expand their business, and willing to invest to foreigners who seem to provide them with an enough return. The global corporations also build their branches and expand their business activity owing to the same cost and benefit analysis.
Many political philosophers and student of political or any social science may disagree with the analysis of this essay categorising financial engineers and global corporate entrepreneurs as Hamiltonian because these critiques may criticise financial engineers and global corporate entrepreneurs as too speculative to be Hamiltonians. Some anti-capitalist protestors argue that their investment strategy is highly speculative so that these financial engineers cannot be Hamiltonians. These anti-capitalist protestors seem to be ignorant of an economist point of view. The investment motivation of global investors is rather transactional than speculative. Their investment resource comes from the saving income, and their job is to convert the saving income to profitable investment. The investment methodology which anti-capitalist protestors know is merely an amateur technique rather than a financially professional technique. These anti-capitalists protestors seem to only guess how the professionals trade in the real world rather than deeply researching about the basic investment analysis and the complex algorithm used in it.
Furthermore, these critiques may also criticise that financial engineers and global corporate entrepreneurs are too imprudent to be Hamiltonians. But, this argument is contradicting by means of the economic theoretical point of view. Their government expenditure to recapitalise these financial institutes in the crisis was not a loose fiscal policy: These financial engineers and financial institutes have paid a high volume of the income tax. The government have already imposed taxation on them as the insurance to be prepared to a predicted financial collapse. In addition, the financial market is the most regulated market among all kinds of market due to avoid the rick caused by the fluctuant nature of this market. Therefore, the crisis was rather the accidental outcome than the federal government’s negligence to regulate.
These politically independent financial engineers and global entrepreneurs have become more influential and accountable to the national economy than political parties and electors owing to their financial influence which has grown even bigger than national governments' economic policy. They have realised that the proactive policies by political party of their country are no longer significantly affecting their economy. Since then, they have been indirectly manipulating American politics bypassing the party politics competition based on the ideological principle.
On the other hand, despite their detachment from the party politics competition, their business activities deserve for national economy and the well-being of the entire America is more likely to depend upon them than ever. As long as these financial engineers and global corporations are American base, their individual internal profit is transferred to American public finance via taxation by government and voluntary donations of these financial engineers and global enterprises. Thus, even though they are detached from pursuing American political ideal, their material contribution to American public still benefit to America thriving as an ideal nation of Liberal Democracy based on the Natural Right principle. This pragmatic political characteristic is indeed Hamiltonian.
The reason why these financial engineers and global entrepreneurs tend to be seen with some negative image by many citizens is that they are the elite members of America whose life style is different from the average ordinary Americans'. The rest of this world has the same situation as this American situation. The elites usually enjoy their distinctive life style which is different from the local life style of their home country. Furthermore, their highly rationalist mentality tends to be incompatible with the emotional whim which these local citizens stick to.
Since America was founded, Hamiltonian has been the least American and more European ideology even though it has lead the mainstream American politics so that Hamiltonian can be seen as the least nationalistic and the least idealistic of these 4 alignments introduced in this essay. Majority of Americans still put emphasis on the spirituality and their transcendental world view which enables them to keep pursing in American ideal. By contrast, Hamiltonian severely focuses on the material interest more than the spiritual and moral interest, and on the substantial world view rather than the transcendental world view. Even though American politics is often driven by this perspective, the deep characteristics of America and Americans have not take Hamiltonian policy for granted all the time. So, the opposing competitors have always attempted to overthrow Hamiltonian regime in their government since Thomas Jefferson. The antagonism of nowadays between the ideologically apathetic elites and the rest of American citizens can be seen as the resemblance to the antagonism of the past between the contemporary Hamiltonian governors and the rest of American citizens. Thus, these financial engineers and global entrepreneurs should be called the new Hamiltonian.
As same as the old Hamiltonian, the Pragmatist philosophy of the new Hamiltonian has also caused the academic authoritarianism since the new Hamiltonian became influential after the Cold War. The philosophy of the financial engineering has transformed economics, as the academic subject, to be ignoring the philosophical aspects of it. Then, the aim of studying economics has become the straightforward method of the indexed economic outlooks. Therefore, the loyal philosophical objective, such as what Adam Smith, the father of economics, aspired in, has been ignored since the introduction of Pragmatism in economics, and then the competition among different schools of economics has ceased away due to the imposition of the intensive peer group assessment by the authorised minority academics.
The epidemic of nihilism has been spread out to all over the world due to the denial of creating and believing in each human-being's own cause and reason. Chasing after the indexed economic outlooks used to be supposed to be simply a good tool to help our life, but has been only regarded as the goal after the Pragmatist philosophy became influential. When they become materially rich, they will no longer have the aim to live. When they suffer from the financial loss due to the crisis hitting the world market, they cannot analyse the market to look for the way out from this crisis when the existing algorithm does not help them. When the existing theories in one subject does not work, the comprehensive analyses involving the other sorts of subjects helps to draw an alternative conclusion. Nonetheless, the specialisation encouraged by Pragmatism has restricted majority scholars thinking this way, and excluded many non-mainstream ambitious thinkers away from the opportunity of reflecting their opinion. Thus, many individuals have become apathetic or relying the others such as a religious hope, a government, or authorised elites.
The new Hamiltonians were successful to grow the financial strength of individuals, their belonging institutes, and their nation in the market economy. But, its Pragmatist philosophy has castrated many individuals enough to lose their interest in economics, active participation in politics, and proudly believing in themselves with their own loyal cause and reasoning. The fundamental idealism based on the universal moral principle seems to contain the risk of violence and negligence of taking the material stability and prosperity into consideration. Nevertheless, the new Hamiltonian Pragmatism also contains the risk of excessively growing the academic authoritarianism and the nihilism. Hence, again, some of political philosophers wonder whether or not there can be an alternative political philosophy helping out from this world wide crisis.
