Walter Russell Mead on the Future of the New England Tradition Everywhere
At his blog on the American Interest website, Walter Russell Mead describes a “New England” social tradition…
The New England tradition, rooted in Puritan experience and theology, wants a strong state run by the great and the good to serve as the moral agent of the conscience of the community. It is the duty of the state to make the people better, and without a strong and moral state to guide development and regulate behavior, the rich will become greedy and the poor will get lazy and fat….Professor Mead also mentions some other American regional traditions in his essay, but hints that the future of America will pivot on the New England one…
Ultimately even the doughtiest New Englanders are going to accept the need for deep governmental reform. The American public is much better educated than it used to be and knowledge is much more widely available. It is simply no longer possible for an elite of technocrats in appointive offices and regulatory bureaus to issue decrees and have them obeyed. Prussian bureaucratic civil service models from the 19th century are too cumbersome, too slow and too expensive to handle much of the business of a 21st century information society. It is not possible to reconcile the desire of individuals to control their own fate if authority is centralized at the federal level; we will have to find ways to decentralize authority so that states and local jurisdictions can make more of the decisions that directly affect peoples’ lives.
At the moment, the deep emotional commitment of the New England school to blue model governance and social ideas — and the visceral hopes among some anti-New England types that the death of blue is the death of New England — gives a strange and ultimately not very useful cast to many of our national debates. We are trapped into debates between the advocates of spendthrift compassion (maintain Medicare and add new entitlements whether or not we can pay for them because they are needed) or cut budgets even though some of the services lost are, in fact, necessary for millions of people.
“rooted in Puritan experience and theology”
I always wonder what Puritans/Pilgirms they are talking about. They were originally bound by the “Mayflower Compact”. This was a purely socialist document. It was adhered to, nobody worked and they almost starved to death. We need a resurgance of this to save us?
Alright, I’ll bite even though it’s a bit off topic. Where is it that you read strong socialism in this? (bit.ly/256zBA)
Andrew, perhaps it was all in the interpretations. Read the diaries of the participants, notably Gov. Bradford. I may have erred in referring to the Mayflower Compact, it appears the document I meant was the contract with the “Virginia Company” which financed the expedition. The contract between the Adventurers and the Pilgrims consisted of ten points. The most critical of which stated, “That all such persons as are of this colony are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock and goods of the said colony.” Further, it was agreed that during the first seven years. “all profits and benefits that are got by trade, traffic, trucking, working, fishing, or any other means of any persons, remain still in the common stock until the division.”
Basically, a large portion of the Pilgrims refused to work. No food was produced and they almost starved. In the simplified history I recall from grade school, this was presented as an inability to farm the new area. I recall the stories of the Indians teaching them to fertilize with cod. The diaries indicate rather strongly that many simply refused to work, preferring to be supported by others as per the terms of their contract.
Gov. Bradford led the change to “capitalism”.