In the past generation Bruce Ackerman, Theodore Lowi and I, in different ways, have used the idea of "republics" to understand American history. Since the French Revolution, France has been governed by five republics (plus two empires, a directory and a fascist dictatorship). Since the American Revolution, we Americans have been governed by several republics as well. But because we, like the British, pay lip service to formal continuity more than do the French, we pretend that we have been living under the same government since the federal Constitution was drafted and ratified in 1787-88. Our successive American republics from the 18th century to the 21st have been informal and unofficial.
As I see it, to date there have been three American republics, each lasting 72 years (give or take a few years). The First Republic of the United States, assembled following the American Revolution, lasted from 1788 to 1860. The Second Republic, assembled following the Civil War and Reconstruction (that is, the Second American Revolution) lasted from 1860 to 1932. And the Third American Republic, assembled during the New Deal and the civil rights eras (the Third American Revolution), lasted from 1932 until 2004.
Lind infuses each republic with two contending forces:
Policy shifts, more than public opinion polls or election results, suggest that a truly transformative moment may be upon us. The first three American republics display a remarkably similar pattern. Their 72-year life span is divided into two 36-year periods (again, give or take a year -- this is not astrology). During the first 36-year period of a republic, ambitious nation-builders in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton strengthen the powers of the federal government and promote economic modernization. During the second 36-year phase of a republic, there is a Jeffersonian backlash, in favor of small government, small business and an older way of life. During the backlash era, Jeffersonians manage to modify, but never undo, the structure created by the Hamiltonians in the previous era.
While it is intriguing to reassess American history through an essentially Continental lens, the parameters of the preceding republics are problematic (admittedly so). For instance, it is arguable whether or not George W. Bush has indeed presided over the end of the Third Republic, which allegedly began with Roosevelt. It seems the case can be made that the end of the so-called Third Republic came with Carter's defeat in 1980. The ascension of Reagan and the initiation of a program of economic de-regulation (that has propelled us to our present economic collapse) seem to make a stronger case for an end-point. More than a mere Jeffersonian backlash, it seems Reaganomics was actually a Hamiltonian attempt to strengthen the military (i.e. the federal government) and a blatant attempt to "promote economic modernization."
Though the sweeping definition of American republics is attractive, and indeed noteworthy, it seems Lind has a vested interest in positioning President Obama in a pivotal historical role above and beyond the one he has been voted into.
Obama and the Dawn of the Fourth Republic
Michael Lind | November 7, 2008 | Salon.com
