This comment has been removed by the author.
 

The Democrats problem is their base self-segregates in a relatively few urban districts and their woke socialism and identity politics alienates swing voters in districts outside of these deep blue urban concentrations. Thus, Republican legislatures can easily herd donkey voters into small compact urban districts sharing common interests - the anti-thesis of actual gerrymandering.

Kennedy gave the Dems hope he would rewrite the Constitution to decree a new right for political parties to enjoy districts which maximize the effectiveness of their voters. The Donkeys came up with districting algorithms to extend their urban majorities out into the suburban and rural areas specifically written to give Kennedy a workable "solution" to "partisan gerrymandering." Unfortunately for them, Kennedy retired and the new five member conservative majority was not about to go along with Kennedy's latest "evolution."

Keep hope alive, my friends!

All the Democrats need to do to win House majorities is drop their socialism and identity politics, then at least pretend to represent the interests of the heartland districts. The Democrat majority margins in both 2006 and 2018 won heartland districts by campaigning from the center to center-right.

The question is whether the woke Dem base will allow their candidates to continue to do so?

This week's Dem POTUS debates suggest the answer is no. The donkeys on stage competed with one another to stake out positions to the left of Euro-socialist parties. Pledges to strip 180 million Americans of their private health insurance and raising their hooves to provide free health care to illegal aliens to the cheers of their woke audience are not exactly placing their heartland district frosh in a great position to convince returning Trump voters to give them second terms.
 

This column makes an important point: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/opinion/gerrymandering-rucho-supreme-court.html

It notes that, though the Court says that the states engage in partisan gerrymandering as much as they want, the states still may not engage in racial gerrymandering. Here is the key paragraph from the column:

“The entire exercise [of distinguishing partisan from racial gerrymandering] is nonsensical in a place like North Carolina, where about 90 percent of African-American voters support Democratic candidates and about two-thirds of white voters support Republicans. One cannot discriminate against Democrats without discriminating against African-Americans in North Carolina, and vice versa.”

 

Where the Lord closes a door, somewhere He opens a window.

Maria, the Sound of Music.

I guess it is up to state courts and others to set standards. When the federal courts denied "one person, one vote" requests, pressure continued. In time, the personnel changed.

Election Law Blog and others discuss this opinion. Maybe, Roberts et. al. will this time around uphold independent commissions. Will not find some other problem with reform efforts, especially by the Democratic Congress (HR 1 deemed by some unconstitutional). Maybe, the opinion won't be used to limit further the fight against racial discrimination.

Either way, one fights on. NY, e.g., is due to put a ranked choice measure on the ballot. The Democrats regained control of the state and many positive changes were passed. Time marches on.
 

My advice: If you really, really want an organized and effective movement to end gerrymandering, you're going to have to do something very painful: Accept that both parties are guilty, and any successful uprising against this problem is going to need support from both ends of the political spectrum.

Which means it's going to have to be an uprising against gerrymandering, not "maps that aren't ideal for Democrats."; Part of the reason for this ruling is that too many of the cases that went to the Court were trying to trick the Court into outlawing the latter in the name of outlawing the former.

Don't go into this fight with half your potential troops driven off. It's too important for that.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Henry's comment suggests that in the long run the battle will continue in some form in the federal courts. As to channeled direct democracy, sometimes the elected representatives think the people are "wrong" and try to get around what they say. See, e.g., Florida: https://electionlawblog.org/?p=105866

Gerrymandering like rotten boroughs is something that not only one party over the years have used. Popular movements challenge both parties. So, e.g., in a major upset of the Queens NY political machine, a reform candidate won on Tuesday in the Democratic Primary for District Attorney. As with campaign finance reform, good ideas gain support across party lines.

One conservative legal mind wondered about the support of the dissent in this opinion largely coming from liberals since "both sides do it." Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog) responded: "It has become a partisan issue because Democrats have looked for ways to end the practice without unilateral disarmament (as in H.R. 1) but Republicans have looked for ways to keep doing it. Only Rs supporting redistricting reform in places like CA, where Dems have leg lock."

Another political scientist noted: "It is easier for the more rural and exurban party to engineer extreme gerrymanders, so the Court’s abdication will overwhelmingly favor the party of all five members of the majority."

https://prospect.org/article/split-decision-supreme-court-which-might-not-be-split-long

But, Hasen's citation of CA shows that Democrats might find partisan gerrymandering appealing. Instant run-off voting might have denied that progressive DA candidate her victory. Long term, as Mark Field would argue with more citation to original understanding than I find helpful, the battle is worth it though.




 

Henry: "One cannot discriminate against Democrats without discriminating against African-Americans in North Carolina, and vice versa.”

You think this sophistry will fly with the Supremes majority?
 

Not sure what PRof. Hasen said about CA, but at one time, the “Burton Plan” had CA heavily gerrymandered in favor of Dems. The GOP, on the ropes, acquiesced in an independent commission, which duly delivered a plan that again heavily favored Dems (the natural majority in CA after disastrous GOP losses). Of course, the GOP sued to invalidate the work of the commission, and failed.
As a CA Dem, I would love to see CA find a way to reduce the remaining GOP House delegation to 1, conspicuously excluding Nunes and McCarthy. Even McConnell might agree that turnabout is fair play.
 

"Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog) responded: "It has become a partisan issue because Democrats have looked for ways to end the practice without unilateral disarmament (as in H.R. 1) but Republicans have looked for ways to keep doing it. Only Rs supporting redistricting reform in places like CA, where Dems have leg lock.""

I hate to have to say it, because I like the guy, and he didn't used to be, (Or at least not as much as today.) but Hasen is a partisan hack.

It became a partisan issue because of people like him. People who rationalized that the only parts of voting reform that were important were the parts that favored Democrats. Even the parts he cares about he rationalized didn't matter where it wasn't beneficial to Democrats.

He could treat NC reducing early voting by a week, to only about a month, in a state that offered absentee ballots without cause, as an outrage, while not being the least bit concerned with NY having neither early voting nor easily accessible absentee ballots.

Because, Democrats already controlled NY, so it was no big deal.

HR 1 is emblematic of that. A little bit of ballot security and a mountain of poison pills.

HR 1 wasn't in any way, shape, or form an effort to improve ballot security. If they'd wanted that, it would have been a short, single topic bill, and might actually have become law.

Rather, it was designed to be predictably rejected by Republicans so they could be accused of wanting our elections to be insecure, and that's all.

It's emblematic of why things aren't being fixed, and so of course Hasen approved of it, because people like Hasen imagine themselves the solution, when they're the problem.
 

Brett calls Rick Hasen a "hack," but does not show his work.

Any number of things Hasen finds a problem can and do in certain cases benefit Democrats. He does not suddenly, e.g., stop supporting limits on money in politics for that reason. Brett can oppose such things on the merits all he wants. But, Rick Hasen does not selectively support them. Hasen's comment as to why Democrats find reform useful as well as right on the merits does not change this.

Brett yet again brings out a favorite example that I addressed in the past, which is not really germane to the specific conversation. Anyway, again North Carolina and New York are not similarly situated in various respects. The Voting Rights Act coverage system, however, very well applied to New York in part, including regarding Puerto Rico voters in NYC.

Party control only is not why the two states are somewhat different. That is Brett's mistaken ideologically affected gloss. New York has various issues too and voting reform is very well pushed for there. I cited an example of the political machine in Queens that lost out. And, an instant runoff proposal is in the works. Such attempts to be comprehensive is perhaps wasted on certain people at some point, but well, I try.

HR1 is not merely for "ballot security." It is meant to be a comprehensive voting bill. But, more limited voting security measures are proposed. One party is blocking them at this moment. Shades of the fall of 2016. Hasen is the problem though, apparently.
 

As this thread proceeds, it should be kept in mind that the Republican Party has been 'TRUMPT"as has SCOTUS' conservative five. Readers of this thread are no doubt aware of the performance of the Trump/Putin comedy team at the ongoing G-20 conference in Japan, as well as Trump mentally saber-dancing with Saudi Arabia's MBS while giving the needle to Japan about America coming to its defense while the Japanese watch ..... As to election issues, consider Putin's role in helping to elect Trump. Trump doesn't like journalists but seems to have no problems with the many murders of journalists in Russian under Putin, as they both joke about "fake news." Trump is the leader of the Republican Party that Bert and Brat walk in lockstep with, lockstep following their leader. If Bert and Brat had been mature enough back during Watergate, they probably would have been cheering for Nixon. The Republican Party has long not been the party of Lincoln.
 

This is "work": "He could treat NC reducing early voting by a week, to only about a month, in a state that offered absentee ballots without cause, as an outrage, while not being the least bit concerned with NY having neither early voting nor easily accessible absentee ballots."

"Anyway, again North Carolina and New York are not similarly situated in various respects."

And, there you go: You're making excuses for only caring when it benefits Democrats, too. The fact remains that NY had no early voting at all, and absentee ballots only available for cause, and NC caught hell for reducing THEIR early voting to 'only' a month.

The only relevant difference appears to be that Democrats already control NY, but might gain from challenging what NC was doing.

This crusade of Sandy's is going nowhere until that attitude changes. This is a partisan issue because Democrats won't let it be anything else.
 

Brett ignores the context of the Republican Party of Trump and the greed of Trump's con. Context, please. Brett is engaged in swallowing his leader. As to crusades, consider religious liberty as a means to keep white supremacy in power with the demographics changes (to which Brett has contributed).
 

Brett, is the lack of early voting in NY a disadvantage for Rethuglicans?
 

I have to say that I'm surprised by the OP. I mean, sure, let's organize and do what we can to mitigate the problem. But the whole point of gerrymandering and other forms of voter suppression is *to assure that the political process can't function properly*. There is no "democratic" solution to the problem of minority rule most of the time. As we saw with segregation, and as the examples of pseudo-democratic systems all over the world demonstrate, minority rule can persist for much longer than our grandchildren will be alive. Short of revolution, most of the time change is forced from the outside.

So that brings us to Roberts. I'm not sure he's the worst CJ since Taney -- Melville Fuller would like a word -- but he's at least next on the list already. And one reason why he's on that list is his extreme partisan (and racist) behavior. Even if voters mobilize in individual states, and even if Congress passes statutes to enforce fair elections, we can't trust this Court to uphold them. Not even neutral commissions; though the Court upheld those a few years ago, replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh could provide the vote to overrule the decision.

The Republican party is desperate. It can't win free and fair elections in its current configuration. In its drive to preserve that configuration, it can only win by undermining democracy at every turn. That's what it will continue to do, and the Roberts Court is very likely to lend its support to that project at every turn. It's going to take court reform to solve the problem.
 

Sandy's third paragraph closes with this:

"If he [Roberts] adheres to his previous view, and gets the support of Brett Kavanaugh to provide the fifth vote to overrule the earlier Arizona case, then he would legitimately be described as the most truly awful Chief Justice since Roger Taney."

Is the Chief a colorful umpire calling balls and strikes as it serves the purposes of the Republican Party led by Trump? This is a hardball statement by Sandy, but I can live with it. Can the Chief, with a Republican political strike zone?

BB, nice hearing from you
 

With the legal realism out on the table, let's talk about potential solutions. There are plausible to excellent Constitutional arguments for the following, starting at the federal level and working down to the states:

1. Admit new states.
2. Expand the size of the House to, at a minimum, the point where district size equals the population of the smallest state (WY). This will help reduce the disparity in representation between the larger states (CA, TX) and the smaller ones (WY). It will also permit geographically smaller districts, making it harder to "pack and crack" Dem voters.
3. Require statewide elections instead of district elections. There's historical support for this. This should also require proportional representation, though that would be open to challenge.
4. Pass an expansive voter protection bill which eliminates all the GOP voter suppression tactics now in use, and require pre-clearance from every state for new laws affecting the right to vote. Lots of states have good models, particularly Western states such as WA, OR, and CA.
5. Require the census to use estimation in order to account for persons uncounted. Ban the use of citizenship questions on the census.
6. Change the allocation formula for determining the number of representatives for each state (this is obscure and I'm not going to explain it further now).
7. Where available, use state initiative process to require neutral commissions to draw electoral districts (assuming these remain the standard at either state or federal level) and protect the right to vote in other ways.
8. Ask state supreme courts to enforce anti-gerrymandering under state constitutions, and to protect the right to vote using the same source.
 

Brett, one example is weak sauce to prove someone you said you previously had respect for a "hack," and the example doesn't show what you want anyhow.

It is only merely an "excuse" if the merits fall apart upon scrutiny, just as when you defend yourself it is not merely an "excuse" each and every time. Again, Hasen repeatedly supports things, without exception, even when in certain cases Democrats would be helped. He doesn't suddenly accept exceptions to his campaign finance reform proposals when Democrats benefit. This was not refuted. If anything, you are the one selectively picking and choosing.

The fact remains that NY had no early voting at all, and absentee ballots only available for cause, and NC caught hell for reducing THEIR early voting to 'only' a month.

People regularly support early voting across the board and that would include New York. NY just expanded early voting. I'm not aware of Rick Hasen being opposed to such reforms. But, Democrats are quite supportive of them. Likewise, looking it up, by state constitutional rule, NY has limited absentee ballot rules. But, the new law passed (after Republicans no longer controlled the Senate) moved to set the process moving to change that.

The only relevant difference appears to be that Democrats already control NY, but might gain from challenging what NC was doing.

The Democrats did not "control NY" -- the Republicans until the last election effectively controlled the Senate. Once Democrats did regain full control, multiple changes were put in place to expand voting rights. I assume Rick Hasen supports them in general but the argument isn't just about him anyway. So, you know, maybe not?

History, up to and including current events (such as attempts to weaken a popular amendment in Florida), suggests that attempts to weaken voting rights is suspect, especially in certain areas. While supporting improvements in places like NY, going backward was seen as problematic too. Finally, each situation would have to be looked at by the facts on the ground. For instance, NY doesn't have voting id laws and low turnout etc. leads to less problems in many cases. I noted this in the past -- the idea of long lines, where people wait for hours to vote? That sort of thing just really doesn't happen around me. In other states? It happens repeatedly.

Still, New York Democrats did reform voting and more probably can be done.
 

Mark Field's examples are interesting. As to his first comment, I think part of the point of the post was to inject Sandy Levinson's support of a constitutional convention etc.

One law professor suggested at large senators. By simple amendment, not a two step process (remove the Art. V rule & then set up a new one), it seems possible to do that. Each state would have the same number and then there would be at large senators. Various methods can be used to allot them. Anyway, the Queens DA race covers an area with a population bigger than fifteen states. Even the winner take all electoral votes rules burdens voters there.

A NYT op-ed also cited an idea recently about giving territories AND Native American tribes representation in the Senate. Crafting states to do both is possible. Membership in even tribal areas as compared to those off reservation would be more than the population of multiple states. I just cite these because they seem interesting. Not sure how useful they are.

Either way, by constitutional rule or otherwise, the voting rights of millions of territorial residents should be better protected.


 

"Finally, each situation would have to be looked at by the facts on the ground. For instance, NY doesn't have voting id laws and low turnout etc. leads to less problems in many cases."

Look, if a slight reduction in early voting in NC is an outrage, there's no objective reason no early voting at all in NY should have been "Meh". The claim, after all, is that by not having as much early voting NC would be suppressing the vote. And, per Ballotpedia, with the outlier of 2006, New York consistently has lower turnout than North Carolina.

Because they'd been suppressing the vote, but it was no big deal to 'voting rights' activists.

Bottom line, anyway: We could agree to do something about gerrymandering, but only if the left comes around to caring about gerrymandering, as such, to the point of being willing to tackle it in an honest way that Republicans could get on board with.

I don't see that happening.
 

Look, if a slight reduction in early voting in NC is an outrage, there's no objective reason no early voting at all in NY should have been "Meh". The claim, after all, is that by not having as much early voting NC would be suppressing the vote. And, per Ballotpedia, with the outlier of 2006, New York consistently has lower turnout than North Carolina.

This was a silly, dishonest argument when Roberts made it, and it hasn't improved. Let's consider the flaws:

1. The OP is talking about gerrymandering, a specific form of voter suppression, not early voting opportunities. It's an attempted diversion. This is particularly egregious because Brett claims that he also opposes gerrymandering, but that the Dems are "not willing to tackle it in an honest way", all while supporting the Court for refusing to intervene when it could have done exactly that.

2. When it comes to other forms of voter suppression, the Court is free to impose *nationwide* standards, same as with gerrymandering. There's no requirement to challenge every single state rule all at once.

3. The test is not the turnout in NY v. NC. Turnout might vary between states even with identical rules for all kinds of unrelated reasons. The test is "what would the turnout be in NC absent the suppression tactics it adopted?".

4. It ignores the clear evidence of discriminatory intent found in the NC case.
 

Look, if a slight reduction in early voting in NC is an outrage, there's no objective reason no early voting at all in NY should have been "Meh"

The general argument here is not Rick Hasen but the supporters, particularly Democrats, of change in general. The Democrats, when they regained full control of New York, passed voting reforms. Including addressing early and absentee voting. They, even though as I noted it can hurt certain Democratic candidates, are about to put instant run off voting on the ballot.

Rick Hasen et. al. also support change, even when it might hurt the Democrats in certain cases. Gerrymandering and campaign finance rules in general are two examples. They are working toward doing this. Not "meh." As Mark Field notes, and as I did too, it might be worse. To the degree voting rights supporters want the Roberts Courts and federal law in general to go further? Sure. Go right ahead!

Finally, the Voting Rights Act addressed specific problems that still were in place. It covers the nation as a whole in part. Some parts target specific problem areas and New York is covered here in part. I cited the provision protecting Puerto Rico voters in NYC. To the degree we should have a broader law, that is fine, but Republicans and conservatives on the Supreme Court repeatedly inform us that "one thing at a time" is an okay approach.

This includes continuing existing laws when (as the dissent in Shelby showed) the evidence showed they still were working. The laws again also covering New York as noted.
 

The most obvious reason why a U.S. election law expert would provide more time and scrutiny to NC than NY election law is of course the former's sordid history in using election law. This was, after all, the basis for 'pre-clearance' requirements of some jurisdictions (like NC) found in overwhelmingly bipartisan supported federal election law for decades, ending only recently when the Roberts Court used Law-as-not-Written, finding an equal dignity of the state's doctrine in a penumbra or emanation of the Constitution....
 

This discussion utterly and perhaps willfully misunderstands the purpose of our constitutional government.

As proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the purpose of government is to protect our rights to life, liberty and property (the product of our liberty); not to establish what Israeli professor J.L. Talmon called totalitarian democracy.

The Constitution establishes three firewalls between the government and our rights:

(1) Supermajority rule through a representative democracy. We elect our government through a hybrid of popular vote and geography, forcing the resulting government to achieve a supermajority consensus to enact any policy. This system is NOT minority rule. A minority cannot achieve anything under this system.

(2) Expressly limit the powers available to the national and state governments. National government power was limited to an enumerated list of national policy areas. We elect local and state governments to enact local and state policy (the vast majority of governance), not a Congress in the faraway Capitol.

(3) Expressly carve out areas of liberty in a bill of rights which no government power may infringe.

When combined with their unconstitutional expansions of national government power through the Commerce and N&P Clauses and unconstitutional delegation of absolute power to the bureaucracy, Democrat proposals to eliminate the geographical checks of the electoral college, the Senate and House districting will all but destroy the first two constitutional firewalls protecting our rights and go a long way towards establishing a totalitarian democracy. Instead of the single Capitol of the dystopian novel Hunger Games oppressing the outlying districts, a handful of blue megalopolises would issue decrees from DC stripping the people of smaller states like my Colorado of their health insurance, oil and coal industries, firearms or anything else they disdained.
.
 

The Declaaration explicitly states that our rights are *secured* via government. In the list of grievances you can find as many about English *restrictions* on colonial governments' powers as you can complaints about exertions of English government powers. So of course blocking the aims of the people is as much of a harm as an overactive government. And since government is only legitimate when it acts with the consent of the people a government set up allowing a small geographically dispersed minority to block that of the majority is in violation of the principles of the Declaration.

 

Mr. W: "of course blocking the aims of the people is as much of a harm as an overactive government."

Only in one case - when the people through their representatives seek to protect life, liberty and property from government itself or others. In all other cases, blocking the aims of the people is a virtue.

And since government is only legitimate when it acts with the consent of the people a government set up allowing a small geographically dispersed minority to block that of the majority is in violation of the principles of the Declaration.

If the virtue you seek is consent of the people, our checked and balanced system requires the consent of more of the people and is, thus, more virtuous than simple majority rule.

How? A system requiring supermajority rule requires the consent of more of the people
 

So SPAM confirms his view that The Gilded Age of the late 19th century were SPAM's MAGA days. The Robber Barons would agree. Jack Balkin has suggested (even pre-Trump) that we are in a Second Gilded Age what with political dysfunction. SPAM seems to think that America has been a totalitarian democracy alluding to the New Deal. Trump is firmly the current leader of the Republican Paty. Trump enjoys the political company of totalitarians not involved with democracy. Witness Trump's activities at the recent G20 meeting in Japan with Putin and MBS of Saudi Arabia I reference in an earlier comment. Shortly after the G20 meeting ended, Trump was literally on the ground alongside "my Mini-Me" Kim Jung un, hopscotching the DMZ line in Korea, another "first" for Trump as president after campaigning, per SPAM, as a fascist, in 2016. Are we in a totalitarian democracy [contradictory terms?) today under Trump?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Per the DOI (and the Constitution) government itself secures our rights and the general welfare and common defense, and as the instances of grievances show the Founders had no doubt that blocked government actions could be a source of deprivation of natural rights (because of course government, legitimated only by the consent of the people, secures these rights). Requiring a supermajority before it can act to secure rights deprives the people of their natural rights as surely as a proactive government interference would.
 

Shag:

Question: What political economy was superior to America's laissez faire during the so called "gilded age?" Why?
 

There was no 'laissez faire political economy during the Gilded Age. About 1/10th of the population lived under government enforced peonage and segregation, one half saw their economic rights and opportunities nearly completely curtailed. Government interference in the most basic aspects of social life was rampant (what kind of sex and with whom was policed, the large majority of today's entertainment would have been criminally punished under obscenity law, living arrangements were criminalized, etc.,).

It's an easy answer for me that the best decade in terms of political economy broadly understood was the 1960s. As I've shown here before it was comparable in traditional economic measures such as GDP growth rate or poverty amelioration to Gilded Age decades but also was a time of growing equality and freedom for all of our population.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mr. W:

It is true that African Anmericans who lived under Democrat oppression and terrorism did not enjoy laissez faire.

The other 90% enjoyed a better standard of living by every measure AT THAT TIME than those under any other political economy in the world. Millions of people from our developed economic competitors, not poor third world nations like today, voted with their feet and migrated to the US. Even Marx pointed towards the US as the most advanced nation in the world.

If we maintained a laissez faire political economy, our per capita GDP and all the benefits which follows from that wealth would be double or higher than what it is today.
 

SPAM ignores asking for whom in the days of The Gilded Age was the economy great beyond the Robber Barons. The current Second Gilded Age with its income/asset inequality gap benefits the 1% and particularly the 0.1%. But if the Trump Republican Party continues in power to thwart climate change, eventually the gap will be irrelevant for the 1% and 0.1% as well as for the rest.

SPAM closes his 1:37 screed with concern for: " ... decrees from DC stripping the people of smaller states like my Colorado of their health insurance, oil and coal industries, firearms or anything else they disdained." The fossil industries would require affordable health insurance to "repair" victims of those industries and victims of the firearms industry. Coloradans would be up in arms over climate change. Apparently SPAM doesn't care as he'll not be passing on his genes, in the traditions of libertarianism=selfishness uber selflessness.
.
 

Shag: "SPAM ignores asking for whom in the days of The Gilded Age was the economy great beyond the Robber Barons."

For a clue, from the specific to the broad strokes, read:

Burt Folsom, The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America.

Thomas J DiLorenzo, How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present, particularly Chapter 7.

Walter Russell Mead, God and Gold: Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World





 

"If we maintained a laissez faire political economy"

Again, we never had one to maintain.
About 1/10th of the population lived under government enforced peonage and segregation, one half saw their economic rights and opportunities nearly completely curtailed. Government interference in the most basic aspects of social life was rampant (what kind of sex and with whom was policed, the large majority of today's entertainment would have been criminally punished under obscenity law, living arrangements were criminalized, etc.,).

 

BD: If we maintained a laissez faire political economy, our per capita GDP and all the benefits which follows from that wealth would be double or higher than what it is today.

Mr. W: Again, we never had [a laissez faire] to maintain.

If your point is that increasing the laissez faire economy to 100% of the population would have more than doubled our current per capita GDP, we agree.

Government interference in the most basic aspects of social life was rampant (what kind of sex and with whom was policed, the large majority of today's entertainment would have been criminally punished under obscenity law, living arrangements were criminalized, etc.,).

And these laws somehow affected per capita GDP growth?
 

Here's a recent book SPAM apparently missed: Richard White, "The Republic for Which It Stands: The United States during Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, 1865‒1896 (Oxford University Press, 2017). Check out an interview of the author at:

https://www.loa.org/news-and-views/1380-cultural-panic-and-overwhelming-change-richard-white-looks-back-on-americas-first-gilded-age
 

"And these laws somehow affected per capita GDP growth?"

My point has to do with calling that era 'laissez faire.' It wasn't. Political economy is the study of economic and trade policy of a state and it's relation to the customs, laws and quality of life of a society. On the first side of the ledger the Gilded Age wasn't laissez faire-if you were black or a woman you faced greater curtailment of economic rights/opportunities than you do now (for them, a majority of the population, it's not even close-today's government policy puts hoops up one must jump through, for women and blacks [and other minorities] it put up walls). And on the second side of the ledger it was far worse than today.

The fact that so many libertarians and conservatives see the Gilded Age (or worse, for many, the Founding!) as golden ages of liberty speaks volumes: they totally ignore the state of freedom of people not like them, they are thinking of a golden age for white men (and, of course, it really wasn't for them either, unless white men wouldn't mind, say, every R rated movie and other entertainment source removed from them, to take one example of what life then would have been like even for them). This tells us to be wary of their current vision for our society, it will likely be obtuse as to the needs and rights of anyone not like them as well.
 

Mr. W:

Political economy is the intersection of government and economics. In this case, we are discussing classical liberalism - a free economy made possible by our constitutionally limited government. Laissez faire, if you like.

We have no argument concerning Democrat government oppression of and terrorism against African Americans. This is in all ways the antithesis of classical liberalism.

In the case of women, they were very much part of our free economy. Economic ceilings faced by women were primarily based on their physical abilities (bearing children) and physical limitations in an extremely physical economy. On the farm, work was a family affair. Women raised the children and both worked as much as they were physically able around the farm. As factories came online, women and children continued to work to do what they were physically able in the cities to bring money into the family. It was hardly as if then government removed women from the economy and they stayed at home with the kids cleaning house and watching TV. Thus, women participated in and were enriched by the free economy made possible by our constitutionally limited government. Indeed, the labor saving technologies which our free economy pioneered arguably benefitted women more than men.

Let us assume your premise that only men benefited from classical liberalism during our first century. Those benefits were historically fantastic. Thus, the answer to your complaints is to extend classical liberalism to all, not to engage in totalitarian democracy to oppress everyone more equally.
 

Shag:

The claims of Richard White, in The Republic for Which It Stands, from your link:

By the 1870s the gulf between the ideal and the reality had widened considerably and would continue to widen for the rest of the century. Americans listed as the markers of this failure the decline of independent labor and the rise of a large and permanent class of wage workers.

Translation: The migration from the family farm to the urban factories. The folks who voluntarily made this migration obviously thought they were improving their lot.

The inability of many wage workers to earn enough to support the gendered ideal of a home—men protecting and supporting families, women in charge of hearth and home and nurturing children as republican citizens—proved alarming. Particularly in cities, immigrant tenements became the antithesis of the home.

Translation: Our comparatively wealthy economy attracted millions of foreign citizens with limited employment skills and almost no language skills. Of course, these immigrants faced utter poverty until they gained both.

A kind of cultural panic, often racialized, ensued in which black people, Indians, Chinese, tramps, single working women, and many immigrants were defined as threats to the white home.

Racism was common, much of it generated by cheap labor of different races entering the labor force by the millions.

But a threat to the white home? This is modern identity politics grafted badly onto history.

Although the economy grew immensely, the evidence we have indicates that individual well-being declined. Americans grew shorter, sicker, and the children of the poor—particularly the black and urban poor—died in shocking numbers.

See the discussion of immigrants above.

In addition to Democrat government oppression and terrorism, freed slaves entered an economy ravaged by war with no education and few skills.

The old ideal of a working life—the original American dream of a competency, the amount of money needed to support a family, provide a cushion for hard times and old age and to set children up in life, rather than great riches—seemed harder and harder to attain.

Taken from the socialist propaganda of the era

Outside of ex-slaves and newly arrived immigrants (over the short term), American standard of living exploded during the Industrial revolution. American workers were the highest paid in the world and had the greatest access to an exploding cornucopia of goods and services.

Read the books I recommended.
 

SPAM enjoys living in a past in which he did not live. SPAM's feeble effort in his 8:27 AM response to Mr. W opens with the passe "classical liberalism" in an effort to make "Laissez faire, if you will" constitutional. Whether SPAM is a textualist or an originalist, what makes laissez faire constitutional, especially after the Reconstruction Amendments?

And once again SPAM brings up the oxymoronic "totalitarian democracy" that SPAM apparently believes exists today, with Trump 's Republican Party. Trump's 2020 campaign slogan "KEEP AMERICA GREAT" suggests that Trump, in his own mind, and perhaps in the minds of Bert and Brat, has "MADE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN." How does SPAM square "totalitarian democracy" with Trump's 2020 KAG? Perhaps SPAM is wallowing in the Second Gilded Age as he swallows his leader of the current Republican Party. It seems that SPAN accepts that laissez faire=income/asset inequality constitutionally.
 

SPAM's efforts at "translation" of current statements in English by White further demonstrates that SPAM lacks the abilities of a textualist.

Speaking of "cornucopia of goods and services" consider John Oliver's Lat Week/This week on Amazon's customers at the expense of its employees. Oh for the good old days of The Gilded Age of the late 19th century as seen by SPAM:A

"Outside of ex-slaves and newly arrived immigrants (over the short term), American standard of living exploded during the Industrial revolution. American workers were the highest paid in the world and had the greatest access to an exploding cornucopia of goods and services."

Or did SPAM merely have a classical liberalism wet dream?