The Role of Uncle Sam

David Brooks NY Times

From the dawn of the republic, the federal government has played a vital role in American economic life. Government promoted industrial development in the 18th century, transportation in the 19th, communications in the 20th and biotechnology today.

But the federal role has historically been sharply limited. The man who initiated that role, Alexander Hamilton, was a nationalist. His primary goal was to enhance national power and eminence, not to make individuals rich or equal.

This version of economic nationalism meant that he and the people who followed in his path — the Whigs, the early Republicans and the early progressives — focused on long-term structural development, not on providing jobs right now. They had their sights on the horizon, building the infrastructure, education and research facilities required for future greatness. This nationalism also led generations of leaders to assume that there is a rough harmony of interests between capital and labor. People in this tradition reject efforts to divide the country between haves and have-nots.

Finally, this nationalism meant that policy emphasized dynamism, and opportunity more than security, equality and comfort. While European governments in the 19th and early 20th centuries focused on protecting producers and workers, the U.S. government focused more on innovation and education.

Because of these priorities, and these restrictions on the federal role, the government could be energetic without ever becoming gigantic. Through the 19th century, the federal government consumed about 4 percent of the national gross domestic product in peacetime. Even through the New Deal, it consumed less than 10 percent.

Meanwhile, America prospered.

But this Hamiltonian approach has been largely abandoned. The abandonment came in three phases. First, the progressive era. The progressives were right to increase regulations to protect workers and consumers. But the late progressives had excessive faith in the power of government planners to rationalize national life. This was antithetical to the Hamiltonian tradition, which was much more skeptical about how much we can know and much more respectful toward the complexity of the world.

Second, the New Deal. Franklin Roosevelt was right to energetically respond to the Depression. But the New Deal’s dictum — that people don’t eat in the long run; they eat every day — was eventually corrosive. Politicians since have paid less attention to long-term structures and more to how many jobs they “create” in a specific month. Americans have been corrupted by the allure of debt, sacrificing future development for the sake of present spending and tax cuts.

Third, the Great Society. Lyndon Johnson was right to use government to do more to protect Americans from the vicissitudes of capitalism. But he made a series of open-ended promises, especially on health care. He tried to bind voters to the Democratic Party with a web of middle-class subsidies.

In each case, a good impulse was taken to excess. A government that was energetic and limited was turned into one that is omnidirectional and fiscally unsustainable. A government that was trusted and oriented around long-term visions is now distrusted because it tries to pander to the voters’ every momentary desire. A government that devoted its resources toward future innovation and development now devotes its resources to health care for the middle-class elderly.

I’ve taken this tour through history because we are having a big debate about what government’s role should be, so, of course, we are having a debate about what government’s role has been. Two of the country’s most provocative writers have taken stabs at describing that history — imperfectly in my view — in order to point a way forward.

In his illuminating new book, “Land of Promise,” the political historian Michael Lind celebrates the Hamiltonian tradition, but, in his telling, Hamiltonianism segues into something that looks like modern liberalism. But the Hamiltonian tradition differs from liberalism in fundamental ways.

In his engrossing new book, “Our Divided Political Heart,” E.J. Dionne, my NPR pundit partner, argues that the Hamiltonian and Jacksonian traditions formed part of a balanced consensus, which has been destroyed by the radical individualists of today’s Republican Party. But that balanced governing philosophy was destroyed gradually over the 20th century, before the Tea Party was even in utero. As government excessively overreached, Republicans became excessively antigovernment.

We’re not going back to the 19th-century governing philosophy of Hamilton, Clay and Lincoln. But that tradition offers guidance. The question is not whether government is inherently good or evil, but what government does.

Does government encourage long-term innovation or leave behind long-term debt for short-term expenditure? Does government nurture an enterprising citizenry, or a secure but less energetic one?

If the U.S. doesn’t modernize its governing institutions, the nation will stagnate. The ghost of Hamilton will be displeased.

Obama and Gay Rights

Editor's note: Frida Ghitis is a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World Politics Review. A former CNN producer/correspondent, she is the author of "The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television."
(CNN) -- After two years of claiming that his views were "evolving," President Obama said on Wednesday that he has finally reached a conclusion and supports same-sex marriage. Obama's public endorsement is an important step in the right direction, but it does not undo the fact that he has a mixed record on gay rights.
This defining moment came only after the issue was pushed to the headlines by Vice President Joe Biden's open support for same-sex couples.
When Obama first took office, many had high hopes. After all, six months in, a press release was sent out entitled: "President Obama Announces Benefits for Gay Partners of Federal Employees." It seemed like a momentous occasion, the fulfillment of a promise by the candidate who had vowed to become a "fierce advocate" of gay rights.

Instead, what followed was mostly a charade, and a very successful one.
At the time, almost everyone thought Obama was extending equal rights to same-sex employees in the government. Why wouldn't they? There was a White House ceremony, seen around the world, that showed the president signing some sort of impressive-sounding document regarding federal benefits and nondiscrimination.
Give the Obama team credit for a successful political maneuver. But the discrimination against same-sex federal employees did not end. Not even close.
Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter and Facebook.com/cnnopinion
Benefits for gay federal employees are much closer to those of their heterosexual colleagues, if they are posted abroad. So if you want the federal government to stop discriminating, you basically have to leave the country.
It also turned out that federal employees cannot sign up their partners -- even their legally married ones -- for benefits as basic as health insurance. Obama's highly touted memorandum gives partners of same-sex federal employees the ability to apply for private long-term care insurance, with no discernible advantage over what they would find elsewhere.
Let's be clear -- it's not Obama's fault that Congress passed and Bill Clinton signed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which says marriage refers only to heterosexual couples. Obama has said that he opposes the legislation.
But the Obama administration has gone out of its way to create an impression that it has done much more for gay people than it actually has. In fact, Obama's Justice Department actively defended the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act in court until last year. When Karen Golinski, a federal lawyer, managed a rare victory in obtaining coverage by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program for the woman she legally married, the Obama administration made sure the benefits would not extend to anyone else.
In light of these contradictory -- almost deceptive -- moves by his administration, it's no wonder that Obama has found himself swirling in turbulence over his wobbly position on gay rights.
Comparatively, discrimination on employee benefits is not controversial and it requires much less ammunition than fighting against other forms of discrimination. Americans reject it decisively. Several years ago, two-thirds of Americans told Gallup that "gay and lesbian domestic partners should have access to health insurance and other employee benefits." And that was before support for gay marriage became broader.
The president can only gain from taking a strong position against same-sex discrimination. It will energize his base and help him look like an advocate for fairness and not just another cynical politician. The people who strongly oppose equality in employee benefits would never vote for him anyway. Everyone else would probably find it refreshing to see a politician march out of the morass of ambiguity and double-talk and for once take a clear strong position.
Ironically, Obama has mocked Mitt Romney for flip-flopping on gay rights. In fact, both of them have tried to play all sides of this issue, coldly calculating political advantage.
Some have thought that Obama's personal experience as the African-American son of a mixed-race couple would make him into a fierce advocate of equality and justice. Instead, many in the gay community have derided him for his "cowardice."
But the president's record hasn't been all misses. He achieved an important victory when he had don't ask, don't tell overturned. But until he seemed to have no choice, he remained extraordinarily quiet on gay issues, even though he continues to collect millions of dollars in donations from gay activists.
He has spoken out only when absolutely necessary and sometimes not even then. Gay leaders implored Obama to lend support before a close vote on gay rights in Maine. They blamed him partly for the loss. On the recent North Carolina constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Obama issued a statement against the amendment through a spokesman, and declared that he was disappointed only after it passed.
Obama's claims that he cares about equality for gays have not seemed sincere. Now that he has emphatically stated that same-sex marriage should be legal, he ought to make passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act a priority. He should take a stand personally, not through press releases and spokesmen, against discrimination. He should support the bill that calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Now he should follow up his landmark statement with actions that will have practical, not just symbolic impact
As country after country removes barriers to equality for gay couples, the United States should take a lesson. Same-sex marriage, one of the highest hurdles, is already recognized legally in places as different as Canada, Argentina, Israel, South Africa and Spain, among others. Nondiscrimination in employee benefits is far more common, not just for reasons of fairness but also because it allows organizations to compete for the best talent.
The decision to at long last finish the evolution and come out in support of gay marriage is a major step. But, Mr. President, when it comes to fighting discrimination, there are principles to defend, promises to keep and miles to go before you sleep.

Dissident's Plight

BEIJING — Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese dissident who fled house arrest last month in a dramatic escape from security forces, left the American Embassy in Beijing on Wednesday after securing assurances from the Chinese government that he would remain safe, American officials said in the first account of his diplomatically tense six-day stay there.

The agreement appeared to defuse a diplomatic standoff that threatened to overshadow strategic talks between the United States and China under way in Beijing this week.

But the future safety of Mr. Chen — and his reasons for agreeing to leave American protection — immediately came under scrutiny, setting off a controversy among human rights activists, some of whom questioned whether Mr. Chen acted under duress. Meanwhile, the Chinese government continued to demand an apology from the United States for interfering in the case.

American officials described details of the negotiations between both governments and Mr. Chen as well as a telephone call to the dissident from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton after he left the embassy compound for treatment at a medical facility here. They said the agreement involved significant concessions from the Chinese and was the best that could be achieved given Mr. Chen’s desire to stay in China rather than to seek asylum abroad.

Mr. Chen will be permitted to study law at a major university in the city of Tianjin, far away from his home village where he had been subject to harassment and intimidation for many years, they said.

Mrs. Clinton said in a statement that she was “pleased that we were able to facilitate Chen Guangcheng’s stay and departure from the U.S. Embassy in a way that reflected his choices and our values. I was glad to have the chance to speak with him today and to congratulate him on being reunited with his wife and children.”

“Mr. Chen has a number of understandings with the Chinese government about his future, including the opportunity to pursue higher education in a safe environment,” she added. “Making these commitments a reality is the next crucial task.”

But in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from his hospital bed late Wednesday evening, Mr. Chen said American officials told him while he was under American protection that Chinese authorities had threatened to beat his wife to death unless Mr. Chen left the American embassy, and that Mr. Chen therefore left under coercion.

An American official denied that account. The official said Mr. Chen was told that his wife, Yuan Weijing, who had been brought to Beijing by the Chinese authorities while Mr. Chen was in the American Embassy, would not be allowed to remain in the capital unless Mr. Chen left the embassy to see her. She would be sent back to Mr. Chen’s home village in Shandong, where no one could guarantee her safety.

“At no time did any U.S. official speak to Chen about physical or legal threats to his wife and children. Nor did Chinese officials make any such threats to us,” Victoria Nuland, the State Department spokesperson, said in an e-mailed statement. “U.S. interlocutors did make clear that if Chen elected to stay in the Embassy, Chinese officials had indicated to us that his family would be returned to Shandong, and they would lose their opportunity to negotiate for reunification.”

Mr. Chen told another media organization, Britain’s Channel 4 television station, in a subsequent phone interview that he hoped to leave China and seek safety abroad, expressing regret that he no longer had American protection. American officials also quickly disputed that account.

“At no point during his time in the Embassy did Chen ever request political asylum in the U.S.,” Ms. Nuland said. “At every opportunity, he expressed his desire to stay in China, reunify with his family, continue his education and work for reform in his country. All our diplomacy was directed at putting him in the best possible position to achieve his objectives.”

As word of Mr. Chen’s account filtered out on China’s version of Twitter, the community of human rights activists inside China and supporters in the United States questioned the United States’ decision to allow Mr. Chen to leave under a degree of pressure.

Bob Fu, president of the United States-based ChinaAid association, which has defended Mr. Chen and other human rights activists in China, issued a statement saying he feared that the “U.S. side has abandoned Mr. Chen” and that his departure from the embassy was not necessarily voluntary.

“We are deeply concerned about this sad development if the reports about Chen’s involuntary departure (from the U.S. Embassy) are true,” Mr. Fu said. He added that he did understand Mr. Chen’s desire to remain in China rather than to seek asylum in the United States or another foreign country.

The dispute over the terms of his departure erupted even as American official provided fresh details of the six-day saga involving Mr. Chen and his efforts to seek American protection, as well as the negotiations over his status inside China going forward. Mr. Chen entered the American Embassy late last week with the assistance of American officials because of the “exceptional circumstances, including his disabilities,” a senior American official told American reporters traveling with Mrs. Clinton. “On humanitarian grounds we assisted him and allowed him to remain on a temporary basis,” the official said.

Mr. Chen, a lawyer who had campaigned against forced abortions and sterilizations conducted as part of China’s policy of limiting families to one child, suffered an injury to his foot during his escape from his house in Shandong province last week and was walking with the help of a crutch, the official said.

During his time at the embassy, Mr. Chen adhered to his position that he was not seeking asylum in the United States but wanted to stay with his family in China as a free person, said the official, who was involved in the three-way negotiations that involved Mr. Chen and officials from the United States and China.

“He expressed his hope to stay in China and he never varied from that,” a second senior official involved in the negotiations, who briefed reporters, said.

On Wednesday afternoon, after Mrs. Clinton’s arrival about six hours earlier, and after the Chinese had made commitments to guarantee his safety, the American Ambassador, Gary Locke, asked Mr. Chen if he was ready to leave the embassy.

Mr. Chen, who speaks broken English, said in Chinese: “Let’s go,” one of the two American officials said.

As he left the embassy for the hospital, Mrs. Clinton phoned Mr. Chen in what the two American officials said was an emotional conversation since both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Chen knew of each other but had never met.

At the end of the talk, according to one of the officials, Mr. Chen told Mrs. Clinton, also in broken English: “I would like to kiss you.”

The officials said that during the negotiations inside the embassy, Mr. Chen at times would sit with the two main negotiators, holding each one of them by the hand. The two negotiators were the State Department’s legal adviser, Harold Koh, and the assistant secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific affairs, Kurt M. Campbell.

After driving a short distance to the Chaoyang Hospital from the embassy compound, Mr. Chen was reunited with his wife, Yuan Weijing, who was wearing a gray shirt decorated with a rainbow across the front, and their two children, whom he had not seen in some time, the officials said. Ms. Yuan had traveled from Shandong Province the previous day.

He was being treated by American and Chinese doctors, the officials said. Mr. Chen had agreed that his medical records be given to the Chinese doctors, they said.

Under the arrangement agreed to by the United States, China and Mr. Chen, he would be relocated to a different part of China from his hometown in Shandong, where he was under house arrest and where he says his family had been physically attacked, the officials said. The officials said he had been given a choice of seven locations agreed upon by the Chinese and Americans and that Mr. Chen had chosen Tianjin, an industrial port city east of Beijing.

Mr. Chen would be allowed to enroll at a university to pursue his law studies, his self-taught profession, the senior official said. “He will have several university options,” one of the officials said.

The American officials said they were satisfied with the pledges from the Chinese authorities that Mr. Chen, 40, would be allowed to live a normal life. The Chinese promised to report any actions against him, they said.

Precisely what the Chinese government offered as a way of protection for Mr. Chen was not immediately clear. The American officials went out of their way to praise the Chinese negotiators. They described them as working “intensely and with humanity.”

According to the American officials, negotiations began on April 26. The American negotiators met with their Chinese counterparts, led by the vice foreign minister, Cui Tiankai, at the Chinese Foreign Ministry, and relayed the issues to Mr. Chen at the American Embassy. Mr. Chen never met directly with the Chinese officials, the American officials said.

There appeared to be no similar case in which a high-profile Chinese dissident had sought protection at the American Embassy and then returned to Chinese custody. American human rights officials and lawyers have often questioned whether the Chinese would provide the protection they promised in such a situation.

“This was not easy for the Chinese government,” one of the senior American officials said.

Only hours earlier, the crisis that has swirled around Mr. Chen seemed far from abating as China accused the United States of interfering in its affairs and demanded an apology from Washington for taking a Chinese citizen into the embassy “via abnormal means.”

“The Chinese side is strongly dissatisfied with the move,” the official Xinhua news agency quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman, Liu Weimin, as saying. “The U.S. Embassy in Beijing has the obligation to observe relevant international laws and Chinese laws and it should not do anything irrelevant to its function.”

The two American officials declined to address the demand that the United States apologize for sheltering Mr. Chen and that the United States investigate the circumstance in which the embassy was used in what the Chinese said was an “abnormal” way.

“Our actions were lawful,” one of the American officials said.

Mrs. Clinton is in China for two days of scheduled talks with senior Chinese officials on economic and security matters.

She landed in Beijing shortly before 9 a.m. Wednesday local time. Whether she took charge of negotiations was not immediately clear but Mr. Chen was admitted to the medical facility some hours after her arrival. Mr. Chen’s case will continue to overshadow the talks, known as the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, which are scheduled to begin Thursday.

But movement toward a resolution may ease some of the pressure. The Obama administration and the Chinese government have been anxious to ensure the case did not dominate the talks, which will cover subjects from North Korea to the global economy.

The last Chinese dissident to take refuge in an American diplomatic compound was Fang Lizhi, an astrophysicist, who walked into the embassy in Beijing with his wife in 1989, the day after the People’s Liberation Army crushed pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square.

The Chinese government regards foreign criticism of its human rights policies and practices as undue interference in its internal affairs, and it will almost certainly use the occasion of the talks to drive that point home, diplomats in Beijing said.