Highlights

 
Quotable
...to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.
Theodore Roosevelt
Original Letters Blog US Casualties Contact Donate

 
September 14, 2001

The Jingoes and the Social Reformers


by Joseph Stromberg

It has not gone un-remarked in these pages that there seems to be a logical, institutional relationship between those who wish to aggrandize the state at home and those who wish do so abroad. These worthies make up the social reformers, on the one hand, and the Jingoes, or militarists, on the other. Others have made the same observation. Near the beginning of the 20th century, political scientist John Burgess wrote, with reference to Theodore Roosevelt and his movement: "The Jingo and the Social Reformer have gotten together and have formed a political party, which threatened to capture the Government and use it for the realization of their program of Caesaristic paternalism, a danger which appears now to have been averted only by the other parties having themselves adopted this program in a somewhat milder degree and form."1

More recently, Robert Zevin has argued that the Jingoes (warmongers) and the Social Reformers had always been "together."2 Their shared commitment to an ever-growing state apparatus made them natural allies. If a militarist dreamed of mass conscription for overseas adventures, a reformer could equally well imagine that conscripts could be uplifted by three meals and day and state indoctrination. Harry Hopkins – Franklin Roosevelt's general factotum – thought of World War II as a war for "the universal New Deal." You get the picture.

THE CUBAN LABORATORY

There wasn't as much for the reformers to do as they might have wanted, until the military gathered up some new insular possessions for the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War (1898). At home, the reformers were sometimes blocked by the existence of local self-government, elections, and other mechanisms available to opponents of reform. This irked the reformers greatly, and there is no mystery in why so many of them threw themselves into administering the United States' newfound colonial and semi-colonial possessions, as soon as those were in hand.

Howard Gillette, Jr., notes that the war of 1898 inspired many Americans with "a national sense of mission."3 (We might have been better off, had we only acquired a taste for rum and coke.) The first US military Governor of Cuba, John Brooke, "lapsed into a narrow strain of reform directed at purifying Cuba's social system."4 Thus he cracked down on gambling and closed down businesses and entertainment establishments on Sunday, in true American blue-law fashion. He also attempted "confiscation all machetes on the island," having perhaps not noticed that Cubans needed them for cutting sugar – the main product of the island.

Leonard Wood, former Rough Rider and crony of TR, began a campaign of criticism against Brooke. By December 1899, the campaign had its effect, and Wood succeeded Brooke as Governor. Throwing aside the puritanical agenda of his predecessor, Wood emerged as the model military Progressive.

Brooke had begun setting up public schools, but Wood showed his mettle by instituting an entirely new system based on the school system of Ohio. (I can't explain it, but there is something very amusing, to those of us in the South, about Ohio being a model for anything.) Next, Wood turned to the reform of Cuban law, followed by a Department of Public Works. Progressive urban reform, stalled in its homeland, took on new life in this tropical setting, where no one could oppose it.

To make the public happiness of the Cuban people utterly complete, Wood brought them chartered city government. Municipalities acquired broad powers of regulation over business. Not stopping there, Wood presented Cubans with a railroad law based on the US Interstate Commerce Act.

Gillette suggests that Wood's restriction of voting rights helped promote "political capitalism" in Cuba.5 Cubans were critical of Wood's urban charters. The ayuntamiento (city council) of Havana rejected the plan. The sham-decentralization of Wood's reforms also rankled with Cubans who had hoped for a continuation of the decentralization promised under the last Spanish constitution.

SPILLOVER EFFECTS

Soon, the task of governing Cuba was handed over to Cubans, and we may drop them from our story now. What is interesting, for our purposes, is the complex relationship between US imperial administration and US domestic politics. Gillette says: "Leo Rowe of the University of Pennsylvania found the study of the Spanish possessions irresistible.... He predicted in March 1899, that the workshop provided by the Spanish possessions would turn America's political philosophy away from limited protection of individual liberties to one of activist intervention for national development."6

Government would grow, at home and abroad, with each sphere reacting upon and influencing the other. Empire and reform could go hand in hand. The incompatibility of empire with our inherited freedoms at home is nicely illustrated by the Cuban workshop. I leave the larger drawbacks of empire to one side, as it may be illegal to mention them a few days from now.

Notes:

  1. John W. Burgess, The Reconciliation of Government With Liberty (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1915), p. 380.
  2. Robert Zevin, "An Interpretation of American Imperialism," Journal of Economic History, 32 (1972), pp. 358-360. See also Robert J. Bresler, "The Ideology of the Executive State: Legacy of Liberal Internationalism," in Leonard P. Liggio and James J. Martin, eds., Watershed of Empire: Essays on New Deal Foreign Policy (Colorado Springs: Ralph Myles, 1976), pp. 1-18.
  3. Howard Gillette, Jr., "The Military Occupation of Cuba, 1899-1902: Workshop of Progressivism," American Quarterly, 225 (October 1973), p. 410.
  4. Gillette, p. 413.
  5. Gillette, p. 421.
  6. Gillette, p. 424.
comments on this article?
 
 
Most Recent Joseph Stromberg Column
Archives

  • An Anti-Imperialist's Reading List: Part Two
    2/7/2005

  • An Anti-Imperialist's Reading List: Part One
    1/24/2005

  • Murray N. Rothbard on States, War, and Peace: Part II
    1/17/2005

  • Murray N. Rothbard on States, War, and Peace: Part I
    1/10/2005

  • Inventing Iraq – Yet Again?
    5/12/2004

  • Kantians With Cruise Missiles: The Highest Stage of 'Liberal' Imperialism
    12/23/2003

  • The 'Necessary' Hegemon Revisited
    7/15/2003

  • A Homeland So Secure We Wouldn't Want To Live There
    6/7/2003

  • Asymmetric Politics
    5/10/2003

  • Truman, Treaties, and the Bricker Amendment
    4/19/2003

  • Don't Mention the W**
    3/30/2003

  • Awe Shocks
    3/8/2003

  • The Crazies Who Preceded the Loonies
    2/8/2003

  • On Some Rhetorical Devices of the War Party
    1/27/2003

  • War and Its Discontents
    1/11/2003

  • The Unresolved Problem of the United Nations
    12/28/2002

  • Masters of All They Survey
    12/7/2002

  • 'Crackpot Realism' Again?
    11/18/2002

  • The Once Controversial Question of War Finance
    11/2/2002

  • What Is 'New' In the New Bush Doctrine?
    10/12/2002

  • The Ghost of Henry Cabot Lodge
    9/14/2002

  • The Claims for Total War Revisited
    9/2/2002

  • Liberventionism III: The Flight from History
    8/10/2002

  • Liberventionism II: The Flight from Theory
    7/20/2002

  • Show Us the 'War Power'!
    7/6/2002

  • Cracks in the Façade of the Civic Religion
    6/15/2002

  • John Stuart Mill and Liberal Imperialism
    5/18/2002

  • Cold War Liberalism:
    4/27/2002

  • Liberventionism Rides Again
    4/13/2002

  • ONE LESSON IS BETTER THAN NONE
    3/23/2002

  • Third World Kaplan and the Empire of Gloom
    3/2/2002

  • The Debate We Never Have
    2/16/2002

  • Fast Times at National Review
    1/26/2002

  • Conserving Nothing
    1/5/2002

  • Who Let the Dogs Out?
    12/14/2001

  • Is There a Constitution?
    11/24/2001

  • Chimes of Wilson Flashing
    11/10/2001

  • Not Exactly World War II,
    10/19/2001

  • Big Government, Having Never Gone Away, Is Now Said To Be 'Back'
    9/28/2001

  • The Jingoes and the Social Reformers
    9/14/2001

  • Irrepressible Conflicts Everywhere
    8/24/2001

  • Eugen Richter on War and Empire
    8/3/2001

  • Hegel, Well-Regulated Police States, and Empire
    7/20/2001

  • Quis Americanos Constituit Judices Nationum?
    7/6/2001

  • The Peculiar U.S. Theory of Self-Defense
    6/12/2001

  • A Short History of Warmongering at the National Review
    5/15/2001

  • Howard Homan Buffett:
    4/24/2001

  • China Syndrome
    4/10/2001

  • Same Old Story: Film at Eleven
    3/27/2001

  • Empire and Reaction
    3/13/2001

  • Richard M. Weaver on Civilization, Ontology, and War
    2/27/2001

  • An Anti-Imperialist's Reading List:: Part Two
    2/20/2001

  • An Anti-Imperialist's Reading List: Part One
    1/30/2001

  • Janus-Faced Universalism and Rosy-Fingered Dawn
    1/16/2001

  • Western Civilization: Love It Or Leave It
    12/26/2000

  • Competing Producers of Security: Round One
    12/12/2000

  • Chalmers Johnson on an ‘Ersatz Roman Empire’
    11/21/2000

  • Random Thoughts on Nationalism
    11/7/2000

  • Was There ‘Revolution’ in the American Revolution?
    10/24/2000

  • Rebels Against State-Building: The General Crisis of the 17th Century
    10/10/2000

  • Is the Union Older Than the States?
    9/26/2000

  • Some Unsaxon Chronicles
    9/19/2000

  • War Is Dead, Hooray, Hooray
    9/12/2000

  • The Under-Appreciated Robert Nisbet
    9/5/2000

  • Bureaucracy, State, and Empire
    8/29/2000
  • More Archives
    Joseph R. Stromberg has been writing for libertarian publications since 1973, including The Individualist, Reason, the Journal of Libertarian Studies, Libertarian Review, and the Agorist Quarterly, and is completing a set of essays on America's wars. He was recently named the JoAnn B. Rothbard Historian in Residence at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. His column, "The Old Cause," appears alternating Fridays on Antiwar.com.

    Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
    without written permission is strictly prohibited.
    Copyright 2003 Antiwar.com