Discussion about this post

User's avatar
John Schultz's avatar

Another great essay today. I have a hard time finding points with which to disagree and you managed to work in a nice Beatles reference to boot. It's a good day!

Expand full comment
Mark B's avatar

(and never forget America was founded by a bunch of rich guys who didn’t want to pay theirs)

That's actually a popular myth. They objected to the Parliament in London taxing them. Colonial leaders argued that only their local colonial legislatures could tax them because they had representatives there. (Hence, "No Taxation Without Representation", unless you live in DC of course.) The infamous tea tax which lead to the Boston Tea Party actually lowered the existing taxes, but both London and the locals in Boston understood what it really meant, accepting that London could tax the colonies.

That most Americans think the objections of the Founding Fathers was to high taxes is one of those rebranding efforts the right-wing has been so successful at for years now. I wanted to tell the Tea Partiers a few years ago, "No dears, they objected to being taxed by a government in which they had no representatives. You HAVE representation, you just don't like they they sometimes disagree with you."

The Dunning School "Reconstruction failed because Black people..." is another. It shoudl be "Reconstruction was abandoned by Northern whites."

My favorite is the "New Deal failed to end the Depression": which is true, but the implication is that government spending doesn't spur the economy. Actually, the New Deal didn't spend enough. What got the US (and other countries) out of the Depression? The war, i.e. history's biggest government jobs and infrastructure program." (OK, much of the latter was knocking it down, but still...)

"The New Deal didn't end the Depression.

OK, what did?

World War II.

OK. So government spending failed to end the Depression, which was ended instead by government spending???"

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts