REPUBLICAN FISCAL POLICY


A treatise on the history of the Republican party is available on Amazon, showing their path from the progressive party to the tight fisted party of today. It is called ‘To Make Men Free,’ by Heather Cox Richardson. See the website here for a review by Jonathan Rauch. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/books/review/to-make-men-free-by-heather-cox-richardson.html?_r=0. Rauch states that her book is “long on history and short on insights.” Well, I might disagree with him on that judging from her Post article, which is fascinating. It shows how the GOP became who they are today. It dovetails with things that my parents told us about life in the 1920s and then the sudden shock of the 1930s, both of which were part of the business practices of the modern-day Supply Side Republicans. My father always said that Republican policies bring on depressions, and I agree with him. Personally, I think history is worth more than opinions and theories, in most cases, and the history in this Post article is very informative. It explains how we as a society came to value money and power over human interests. Of course, that issue really goes back to Genesis with the story of Cain and Abel and original sin.

Richardson writes: “By 1854, Southern slaveholders, who made up about 1 percent of the population, had come to control the White House, Senate and Supreme Court. They insisted that America’s central principle was the protection of property and that this principle established their right to spread slavery, effectively limiting access to land for poorer men. They contended that their leadership was God’s will. Society functioned best when a workforce with little intelligence and no aspirations produced food, clothing, housing and other basic requirements, overseen by wealthy, educated white men who could focus on advancing human progress. This system depended on the concentration of wealth and political power. If those at the bottom were allowed to vote, they would demand a larger share of the wealth they were producing and launch a revolution by 'the quiet process of the ballot box,' one Southern leader warned.”

Does this sound familiar? I regret the need to use such a word, but I think this philosophy is evil. I don't believe for a minute that it is “God's will.” Richardson's article is below these two on Kansas and its woes, and serves as an explanation for the failure of radical Tea Party beliefs. The situation in Kansas illustrates the innate lack of wisdom of unadulterated preference for the wealthy class in our legal and governmental system. If the government doesn't intervene in economics the balance which brings about prosperity will not remain in place. I just passed on one of those cute emails which so often are about religion and patriotism. This is about the 1950s, and about how wonderful that time period was. Well, in the first place, I remember a great deal of classism and racism from that time period, so it wasn't all that great for everybody, but the fact that it was a Republican period doesn't explain the economic prosperity among the Middle Class. What explains that is the simple fact that it was an Eisenhower administration, who was a moderate to liberal Republican, and followed the classical Republican philosophy of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. If you read the whole Washington Post article below you will see what I mean.

The two Kansas articles are about the results of too many very right wing people taking power in an area. Brownback and others have cut taxes without providing any other income, and now they are waiting in faith for the famous “Laffer Curve” to do it's job. Unfortunately what is occurring is a fiscal disaster. Being radical righters, they have chosen the school system, roads and welfare for extreme budget cuts to the degree that eight school systems have closed early to save money. Many people are suing the state for not providing enough revenue to fund the school system.

The two articles below on the responsibility of states to deal with education shows the nature of that education – or even the existence of it at all – to be under state control, so it is quite possible for Kansas or any other state to decide to stop giving a free public education at all. In such a case, things would go back to the 1920's during which my mother in a rural part of North Carolina was forced to stop attending her religious school – there was no free public school in the area – because the family couldn't afford the tuition, so as a result she didn't get to attend school past the 6th grade. She was a good student, so she could read and do basic arithmetic by that time, but it was a great loss to her.

It is my opinion that if any US state in modern times does decide to stop running free schools at all, there will be a loud outcry across the nation, and especially among the citizens of that state. I expect Republicans may be voted out of office at that point, and there may even be noisy and alarming protest marches or worse. In the Washington Post article on Brownback and Kansas the writer states, “As it happens, spending reductions have been sufficiently draconian and divisive that large numbers of Kansans, including more than 100 current and former GOP elected officials, have expressed alarm and are supporting the man trying to unseat Mr. Brownback, Paul Davis, the Democratic minority leader in the state’s House of Representatives.” What goes around comes around!




KANSAS IN TROUBLE – TWO ARTICLES


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kansas-schools-have-to-do-less-with-less/2015/04/30/6cd6ca70-ef74-11e4-a55f-38924fca94f9_story.html

Kansas shows us what could happen if Republicans win in 2016
By Catherine Rampell Opinion writer 
April 30 2015

Photograph – Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, left, answers a question during a debate with his Democratic challenger, Paul Davis at the Kansas State Fair Saturday, Sept. 6, 2014, in Hutchinson, Kan. (Charlie Riedel/AP)

No more pencils, no more books. No more teachers’ dirty looks.

Usually this is an anthem of celebration, of respite from the angst-inducing strictures of K-12 schooling. But this year, across Kansas, the jingle is coming a little sooner than expected, and with mournful undertones.

At least eight Kansas school districts recently announced that they’re starting summer break early this year, and not because kids have already learned so much that they deserve a few extra days off. It’s because these schools ran out of money, thanks to state leaders’ decision to ax education spending midyear to plug an ever-widening hole in their budget.

In at least one district, Twin Valley, children are being kicked out two weeks earlier than planned. Haven School District is closing five days early to save an expected $4,000 per day, said Superintendent Rick White, but next year the district will likely shave off 10 days. White told me that members of the school board are also looking for other creative ways to absorb the $750,000 in cuts handed down by the legislature for this year and next. They, and their educators, must continue to find new and innovative ways to do less with less.

In balancing the budget on the backs of children, Kansas politicians are behaving shamefully. But they may also be doing the rest of the country a favor, by giving us a preview of what might happen if Republicans control the White House and Congress after the 2016 ­election.

The consequences in Kansas, after all, are a result of fulfilling the great Laffer Curve dream that has Republican presidential hopefuls such as Marco Rubio, Scott Walker and Chris Christie all salivating: dramatic tax cuts, concentrated among those at the top, coupled with the promise that such action will, through trickle-down voodoo, increase tax revenue and boost economic growth.

In the real world, politicians rarely get to carry out that budget plan in a big way. Then Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) came along and, with a Republican legislature on his side, passed sweeping tax cuts in 2012. Despite faith-based forecasts promising bountiful revenue, tax receipts have come in, again and again, hundreds of million dollars below projections. The latest estimates leave the state with a $422 million shortfall for the fiscal year beginning July 1.

But rather than acknowledging that this tax “experiment,” as it’s been white-washed, has failed and needs to be reversed, Brownback and Republican legislators have mostly doubled down. To make up for the shortfalls, the state has hacked away at core services, from roads to welfare.

Education turned out to be a particularly plum target. Kansas’s elected officials have a decades-long history of shortchanging students, and the state has been subjected to multiple lawsuits over whether its funding levels violated the state constitution’s requirements for adequate and equitable public education spending. The most recent major case was filed in 2010 — that is, before Brownback took office. And although last year the state’s Supreme Court found school funding levels indeed to be unconstitutional, the state appealed the decision and has since cut funding further.

The most recent reductions, announced in March, required districts to absorb an additional $51 million in cuts by the time this fiscal year ends June 30. This time, the cuts were cloaked in a new funding formula called “block grants,” which, as I have explained , are just a cowardly tactic for forcing painful funding decisions down the totem pole under the guise of “flexibility.” That way school boards, rather than legislators, have to take the heat for making unpopular cuts.

For districts, that has meant permanently closing a school here, expanding class sizes there, eliminating a math and science teacher here, maybe instituting pay-to-play athletics there. Teachers in the schools that are closing early are hustling to revamp their curricula so they can still cover all the material the state requires. Students are feeling the heat, too.

“There’s a level of frustration about all the material we have to cram in now,” Haeli Maas, a 17-year-old junior at Smoky Valley High School in Lindsborg, told me. Maas recently penned an open letter to Brownback pleading with him not to “write off” her generation. She didn’t mention tax hikes specifically — almost none of the students, parents and educators I spoke with volunteered this as a solution without my probing them — but she said their necessity is clear.

So far, she said, Brownback has not responded.





http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sam-brownbacks-failed-experiment-puts-state-on-path-to-penury/2014/09/21/ded58846-3eb2-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html

Sam Brownback’s failed ‘experiment’ puts state on path to penury
By Editorial Board 
September 21, 2014

GOV. SAM BROWNBACK of Kansas says he has come to regret characterizing his policy agenda as a “real live experiment” that would test the efficacy of deep tax cuts to spur jobs and economic growth. In fact, Mr.Brownback’s choice of words was apt. Few if any governors have undertaken such an extreme trial-by-revenue-deprivation in a state so clearly lacking the economic means to withstand it.

Now, as the damaging social and budgetary impacts of his slash-and-burn fiscal measures have become apparent, Mr. Brownback, a conservative Republican seeking reelection this fall in a state where every statewide elected official is also a Republican, is in the disorienting position of trailing his Democratic challenger in the polls.

Mr. Brownback’s Kansas trial is rapidly becoming a cautionary tale for conservative governors elsewhere who have blithely peddled the theology of tax cuts as a painless panacea for sluggish growth. Most key indicators suggest that job creation and economic growth in Kansas are lagging those of its neighbors.

Mr. Brownback has cherry-picked the statistics to suggest that things aren’t as bad as they seem, while arguing that it’s still too early — more than a year and a half after his cuts were enacted — to gauge their full impact. Meanwhile, Wall Street’s bond rating agencies, taking note of plummeting tax revenue and a siphoning off of the state’s reserves to cover current and projected deficits, have weighed in with their own verdict: Moody’s cutKansas’s credit rating last spring, and Standard & Poor’s followed suit last month.

“In our opinion,” S&P’s analysts wrote with lethal understatement, “there is reason to believe the budget is not structurally aligned.”

Yes, well, that is bound to happen when a state hacks personal income taxes, corporate taxes and sales taxes all at once without tapping an alternate source of revenue, or making commensurate cuts in spending.

As it happens, spending reductions have been sufficiently draconian and divisive that large numbers of Kansans, including more than 100 current and former GOP elected officials, have expressed alarm and are supporting the man trying to unseat Mr. Brownback, Paul Davis, the Democratic minority leader in the state’s House of Representatives. There have been particular expressions of anxiety about cuts to per-pupil expenditures in public schools, which have dropped more than 10 percent since 2008.

Other Republican-led states have embarked on tax-cutting programs. But few if any have done so without a fail-safe designed to protect essential state services, such as mechanisms that would abort tax cuts if revenue drops, or allow them only after revenue rises. In the special case of Texas, a combination of rising immigration rates and a robust oil and gas sector buffered the economy from the effects of tax cuts.

Kansas has no such innate advantages. To the contrary, non-partisan budget analysts for the state legislature project that without new sources of revenue or even deeper spending cuts, the state faces some $1.3 billion in deficits in the coming five years. That’s a big hill to climb in a state whose budget for general expenses is $6.3 billion.

Kansas is a politically conservative state, not a radical one; historically it has favored pragmatists like former senator Bob Dole, a Republican, and former governor Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat. Mr. Brownback and his policies are a departure from that tradition. It’s possible he may recover from the predicament caused by his radical policy prescription. It’s unclear when Kansas will.

Read more about this topic:

Ruth Marcus: A two-year gridlock?
Heather Cox Richardson: How the GOP stopped caring about you





ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES TO PROVIDE FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION OF EQUAL QUALITY



http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

U.S. Department of Education
The Federal Role in Education

Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1.15 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2011-2012, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where about 87.7 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources.

That means the Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is about 10.8 percent, which includes funds not only from the Department of Education (ED) but also from other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services' Head Start program and the Department of Agriculture's School Lunch program.

Although ED's share of total education funding in the U.S. is relatively small, ED works hard to get a big bang for its taxpayer-provided bucks by targeting its funds where they can do the most good. This targeting reflects the historical development of the Federal role in education as a kind of "emergency response system," a means of filling gaps in State and local support for education when critical national needs arise.



http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1882/Constitutional-Requirements-Governing-American-Education.html

Constitutional Requirements Governing American Education - Federal Constitutional Requirements, State Constitutional Issues, Conclusion

The right to a free public education is found in the various state constitutions and not in the federal constitution. Every state has a provision in its constitution, commonly called the "education article," that guarantees some form of free public education, usually through the twelfth grade. The federal constitution, on the other hand, contains no such guarantee. In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 held that education is not a "fundamental right" under the U.S. Constitution. Thus, as a matter of constitutional law, the founding fathers left it to the states to decide whether to provide an education or not and, if deciding to provide one, determine at what level of quality.

Not only does the federal constitution confer no right to education, it does not even explicitly empower the U.S. Congress to legislate on the subject. Most federal education legislation is therefore enacted under the "spending clause" of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to tax and spend for the general welfare. Since federal grants to the states may be conditioned upon the state's adoption of certain legal and regulatory structures, the federal government has been able to exercise substantial authority over K–12 education policy.

This kind of carrot-and-stick approach underlies much federal education law, from the setting of nationwide achievement standards to the education of students with disabilities to Title I and other federal grants relating to education. That other great source of federal regulatory authority, the Constitution's "commerce clause," however, has not been used to justify federal legislation in these areas. In United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court in 1995 held that a law making it a crime to possess a firearm within a certain distance of a school was an impermissible overextension of Congress's commerce power. Even the justices dissenting in Lopez agreed that the content of education was a classic area of state, not federal, authority.

Nevertheless, once a state decides to provide an education to its children, as every state has, the provision of such education must be consistent with other federally guaranteed constitutional rights, such as the Fourteenth Amendment's right to equal protection under the law and the First Amendment's right to the free exercise of, and the nonestablishment of, religion. Therefore, even though the U.S. Constitution does not, in the first instance, require that an education be provided, it nevertheless has had a significant effect on American education.

Any treatment of education and constitutional rights must begin with the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees every citizen equal protection under the law. Application of this doctrine has been most profound in the area of school desegregation. In 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state-sponsored racial segregation of schools in the famous case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. This decision and hundreds of later court decisions applying it to individual school districts all over the United States have had major ramifications on virtually every facet of school district operations from the mid-1950s into the twenty-first century. This has been true not only in the South, but throughout the rest of the country, as school districts and courts struggled with how to effectively desegregate the nation's schools. In the decades since Brown, most school districts have eliminated "vestiges" of state-sponsored segregation, have been declared to be a "unitary" school district (as opposed to a former dual-race system), and have been released from federal court supervision.

Since the 1970s plaintiffs have brought "adequacy" suits in more than twenty states, alleging that the state has failed to provide an "adequate" education, a right guaranteed by many state constitutions. Generally, such suits allege that educational "inputs," such as facilities, curriculum, textbooks and other instructional materials and equipment, and number and quality of teachers, are insufficient to enable schools and school districts to provide an "adequate" education for their students. Plaintiffs also rely on substandard "outcomes," as evidenced by low scores on standardized tests, low graduation rates, and high dropout rates as proof that the state has failed to provide an adequate education for substantial numbers of its children.

Such suits are normally based on the "education article" contained in most state constitutions that requires the state legislature to provide for some type of a "system" of free public schools. Generally, the education articles are couched in fairly vague terms, such as requiring "a thorough and efficient system of education" or a "system of free common schools." Although the constitutional language rarely gets any more specific than the foregoing examples, the highest courts of many states have interpreted such language to require an "adequate" or "sound, basic" education.

In several states, adequacy suits have been dismissed on the grounds that they involve political questions reserved by the state constitution to the legislature, and therefore that they violate the separation of powers doctrine. In essence, because the terms used both by the courts (e.g., "adequate") and the constitution (e.g., "thorough," "efficient") are ambiguous and capable of many meanings, these courts have held that if the courts decided such cases, they would in effect be substituting themselves for the legislature in determining important policy questions normally reserved by the state constitution to the legislative branch (e.g., what level of education to provide and how much of the state's resources to devote to education).







A SHORT HISTORY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-gop-stopped-caring-about-you-how-the-republicans-became-selfish/2014/09/17/7fe87a70-3dc5-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html

How the GOP stopped caring about you
By Heather Cox Richardson 
September 19, 2014

In 1862 , in the midst of the Civil War, Republican Justin Smith Morrill stood in Congress to defend his party’s invention: an income tax . The government had the right to demand 99 percent of a man’s property, the Vermont representative thundered. If the nation needs it, “the property of the people . . . belongs to the government .” The Republican Congress passed the income tax — as well as a spate of other taxes — and went on to create a strong national government. By the time the war ended, the GOP had invented national banking , currency and taxation ; had provided schools and homes for poor Americans; and had freed the country’s 4 million slaves.

A half-century later, when corporations dominated the economy and their owners threw their weight into political contests, Theodore Roosevelt fulminated against that “small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power.” Insisting that America must return to “an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him,” the Republican president called for government to regulate business, prohibit corporate funding of political campaigns, and impose income and inheritance taxes.

In the mid-20th century, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower recoiled from using American resources to build weapons alone, warning, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” He called for government funding for schools, power plants, roads and hospitals.

At these crucial moments, Republican leaders argued that economic opportunity is central to the American ideal and that government must enable all to rise. But each time the party has taken this stand, it has sparked a backlash from within, prompting the GOP to throw its support behind America’s wealthiest people and to blame those who fall behind for their own poverty.

How did the progressive Republican Party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower become the reactionary party of Ronald Reagan, the tea party and Paul Ryan?

There is nothing random about these ideological shifts. They reflect the party’s — and the nation’s — central unresolved problem: the tension between equality of opportunity and protection of private property.

This tension has driven American politics since the nation’s earliest days. The Declaration of Independence promised citizens equal access to economic opportunity. This was the powerful principle for which men were willing to fight the American Revolution, but it was never codified in law. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they assumed that the country’s vast resources would ensure equality of opportunity. Worried instead about stability, they enshrined in the Constitution another principle: that property rights must be protected.

Soon after the Constitution was ratified, American settlers poured across the Appalachians and into the new lands to the west, hoping to work their way to economic security. There, some men settled on better land than others; some had family money; some were rich enough already to own slaves to work their lands — and quickly, those men accumulated more than others. This stratification of wealth revealed the disparity between the Declaration and the Constitution.

Along with wealth, slave owners gained political power, which they used to secure legislation promoting their interests. Gradually, the laws they put in place circumscribed other Americans’ ability to rise. Wealth moved upward; equality of opportunity faltered.

By 1854, Southern slaveholders, who made up about 1 percent of the population, had come to control the White House, Senate and Supreme Court. They insisted that America’s central principle was the protection of property and that this principle established their right to spread slavery, effectively limiting access to land for poorer men. They contended that their leadership was God’s will. Society functioned best when a workforce with little intelligence and no aspirations produced food, clothing, housing and other basic requirements, overseen by wealthy, educated white men who could focus on advancing human progress.

This system depended on the concentration of wealth and political power. If those at the bottom were allowed to vote, they would demand a larger share of the wealth they were producing and launch a revolution by “the quiet process of the ballot box,” one Southern leader warned.

It was this very scenario that inspired the creation of the Republican Party. Northern men who aspired to better themselves rejected the idea that they were part of a permanent underclass; they reiterated the promise of the Declaration of Independence that every man was created equal and argued that the government must guarantee all men equal access to economic opportunity. Only widespread prosperity could maintain a healthy society. They organized the Republican Party in 1854 to push back against the control of the government by wealthy slaveholders. Republicans “are for both the man and the dollar; but in cases of conflict, the man before the dollar,” Abraham Lincoln explained.

In 1860, the Republicans put Lincoln in the White House, and Southerners left the Union. Their absence opened the way for the new party to reshape the national government, from protecting the wealth of propertied men to promoting economic opportunity for everyone. Prodded by the needs of the Union cause, the Republican Party created a strong national government that educated young men and gave them land to farm. Ultimately, the GOP abolished slavery, then gave freedmen the vote so they could protect their own economic interests.

Civil War Republicans rejected the idea that they were enacting welfare legislation. Rather, they argued, it was a legitimate use of the government to promote broad-based economic growth. The Founding Fathers had neglected to guard against the wealthy dominating and subverting the government, but Lincoln’s Republican Party addressed that omission.

Almost as soon as the Civil War ended, the Republicans’ egalitarian vision came under attack. The war had required Americans to pay national taxes for the first time, and when government-funded programs helped former slaves and immigrant workers, opponents saw the very wealth redistribution Southern leaders had feared. Eastern Republicans, whose industries flourished under the party’s economic policies, began to focus on protecting their interests rather than promoting opportunity. Within just a few years, they drove the party to embrace the ideas it had fought a war to expunge. By the 1870s, powerful Republicans were railing against the “socialism” and “communism” that might lead the government to redistribute wealth through public works projects and social welfare laws. The party began to focus on defending the interests of business, and money and power became concentrated at the top of society.

In the 1880s, voters turned to the Democrats, and the Republican Party restricted voting and jiggered the electoral system to stay in power, adding six states to the Union in an attempt to stack the Senate. When their efforts failed and voters elected a Democratic government in 1892, Republican leaders predicted economic disaster, encouraged investors to shun the stock market, prompted a run on treasury gold and precipitated an economic crash.

In three decades, the Republican Party had taken the nation to opposite extremes. Once the driving agents of economic opportunity, Republicans had become the engineers of economic ruin.

As Lincoln had done before him, Theodore Roosevelt recognized the danger of a system that concentrated wealth and power. He came of age during the 1880s, the height of early American industrialization, when wealth was gathered in the hands of business owners who built empires with the labor of unskilled urban workers. Opposing the industrialists’ control over government, Roosevelt turned back to the original Republican vision, adapting it to his time. He called for government regulation of business and promotion of education to guarantee a level playing field, and he forced national leaders again to take measures to protect economic opportunity. They cleaned up the tenements, factories and adulterated food that sickened workers; regulated railroad shipping rates; broke up trusts; protected public lands; and promoted education and women’s health to guarantee that no hard-working American would be locked into poverty.

The backlash against this second expansion of the middle class was quick and dramatic, especially amid the labor and racial unrest following World War I. Republicans accused workers and African Americans of plotting to bring the Bolshevik revolution to America, and demanded support for unbridled capitalism from all Americans. When the party retook power in the 1920s, its leaders slashed taxes and business regulation, insisting that a strong business sector would create wealth for everyone. “The chief business of the American people,” said Republican President Calvin Coolidge, “is business.”

Like 30 years before, wealth became concentrated at the top of the economic scale and declining purchasing power among the majority of Americans destabilized the economy. When the 1929 crash wiped out disposable income, there were not enough consumers to fuel a recovery. Americans clamored for government aid, but Republican President Herbert Hoover echoed his party’s big-business rhetoric of the 1890s. His administration blamed greedy, lazy American workers for the crash and insisted that the only things that would spark a recovery were lower taxes and pay cuts for public employees. “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate,” Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon insisted. “It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.”

The Great Depression settled over the country. The economy would not recover until the New Deal and World War II pumped money into it.

At the end of World War II, the Republican cycle began once more. Dwight Eisenhower renewed the effort to expand the middle class, adapting that vision to the modern era. Facing the challenge of leading a superpower in a divided nuclear world, he fervently believed that America had to promote economic prosperity across the globe to prevent the political and religious extremism that sparked wars. Like Lincoln and Roosevelt before him, Eisenhower adhered to the classic Republican view of government and set out to use it to guarantee economic opportunity in the postwar world. He cut regulations and price controls for certain businesses, but vetoed laws he thought unfairly favored businessmen and endorsed an upper income-tax bracket of 91 percent. Under his direction, Congress invested in education and infrastructure: The 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act remains one of the largest public-works programs in history. He defended the right to economic opportunity for every hard-working American, putting government muscle behind desegregation. During Eisenhower’s administration, the middle class expanded, and the country thrived.

But business leaders who hated government regulation insisted that Eisenhower’s policies were tantamount to communism. They pointed to desegregation as proof that the government was redistributing tax dollars to undeserving minorities, and their mingling of racism and communist fears won votes. By the 1970s, in an uncanny echo of the 1890s and the 1920s, Republican economists had embraced the old idea that only deregulation and unfettered capitalism would create wealth, which would then trickle down to everyone.

After 1980, the government slashed taxes and social welfare spending, even as it boosted defense spending, and once again, wealth stratified. Between 1979 and 2008, the after-tax income of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans grew 275 percent. By 2007, the top fifth of American earners made more than the other four-fifths combined.

In the early 21st century, the U.S. economy, after years of Republican control, looked much like that of the American South before the Civil War. Business and wealth were entrenched in the nation’s political and judicial system, while most Americans found themselves burdened with debt and stagnating incomes. It appeared likely that Congress and the courts would move in only one direction: to strengthen the tax policies and defense spending that served business, and to loosen restraints on the ability of corporations to influence elections. In 2004, as the country mourned the death of Republican icon Ronald Reagan, it was easy to imagine that Lincoln’s vision was finally, and irreparably, doomed.

But cracks in the economy were starting to show. Easy money had fed an unsustainable real estate boom in the early years of the century. When the market for safe mortgages began to dry up, banks began lending money to borrowers who were likely to have a hard time keeping current on their loans. That risk was hidden as the loans were “bundled” and exchanged widely in financial markets. When the economy softened in 2006 and home values fell precipitously, the resulting mortgage defaults left banks saddled with bad loans and worthless real estate, further weakening a fragile economy. Republican economic policy had no answers, and in September 2008, the financial world began to crumble.

Financiers impressed upon President George W. Bush that it was imperative to bail out the big banks; their collapse, they claimed, would destroy the world economy. Bush, along with most members of Congress, got behind the Troubled Asset Relief Program, but movement conservatives in Congress opposed it as yet another big-government program. They insisted that mitigating the crisis was not the proper role of government, and that the only way to boost the economy was to cut taxes and spending and reduce regulations on business.

As unemployment climbed, housing prices fell and the stock market plummeted, erasing Americans’ retirement savings, the GOP completed its third cycle, witnessing the abandonment by the party of its founding principles, the precipitation of an economic crash and a transfer of power to the Democrats. The victory of Barack Obama in the 2008 election constituted an explicit and overwhelming rejection of an ideology that had engulfed the Republican Party since Reagan won the White House in 1980.

The history of the Republican Party shows why, since the Civil War, the nation has been caught in cycles of progressivism and reaction. Is it possible for the party — and the country — to resolve this tension? Surely the original Republican argument that economic opportunity must be advanced by an active government, the idea conceived by Lincoln and adopted by Roosevelt and Eisenhower, could work in the modern global economy as it did in the era of industrialization and in the nuclear age. But can the party shed the opposing argument, developed in the conflicts of the late 19th century and recycled ever since, that government activism is tantamount to socialism?

Perhaps with the influx of young people, immigrants and minorities into the voting population, the cycle can finally be broken. These voters are too young to remember the Cold War and are more comfortable across ethnic lines, making it harder to rally them with the specters of socialism or racial conflict. Forced to adapt to a changing nation, in this century, perhaps, the Republican Party will find a way to stay committed to the ideals of its founders.