Two of the federal government's most futile and costly social experiments were Reconstruction and Prohibition. Although both failed, both still have supporters. It is unlikely that Prohibition could be resurrected , but there was a so-called Second Reconstruction a little over fifty years ago, and now we are hearing rumblings about the need for a Third Reconstruction. Basically, those who advocate this latest reconstruction want the government to redistribute income and wealth more “evenly.”
The first Reconstruction took place in the defeated Southern states immediately following the War Between the States. Even with it's widespread corruption, it somehow managed to last a dozen years, from 1865 to 1877. There has never been any consensus regarding historical interpretations of Reconstruction. Whether it was beneficial or detrimental depended on the political persuasion of the historian who reported it. In the years immediately following its collapse, negative aspects were generally emphasized, but, as the nation moved further away from the actual events, and into the twentieth century, some historians began magnifying its positive aspects while minimizing the harmful side effects.
Reconstruction was ill-fated from the beginning because the Radical Republicans who fashioned it felt that the South should be punished for its war efforts. This vengeful feeling influenced the methodology used to emancipate slaves. In accordance with the ladder analogy that was expressed at the time, the military commanders who occupied the South tried to put the “ bottom rung on top.” But, to have any chance of succeeding, emancipation should have been “gradual and conditional” rather than “immediate and unconditional.” So, not only did Reconstruction fail, but it demoralized the freed slaves and alienated the white population. Oddly, some historians agree with black activists that the primary problem with Reconstruction was that it didn't last long enough.
Second Reconstruction is how the events from 1954 to 1968 are described: a 14 year period from the Brown vs Board of Education decision to the election of President Nixon. Like the Brown decision, the 1960s civil rights legislation was also based on deceptive and hyperbolic sociology. The public was told that the excessive provisions of the civil rights laws were necessary to guarantee equal rights for minorities, thus assuring that minorities had the same opportunities as other citizens. But somewhere along the way, the goal was changed from equal opportunities to equal outcomes, and this became the sub rosa intention of the undertaking.
To conciliate concerns of the public, the government offered various assurances, primarily that enforcing the legislation would not involve quotas, and that affirmative action was only “a temporary remedy.” The public quickly learned that quotas were the cornerstone for the implementation of the legislation. And far from being temporary, affirmative action practices haven't diminished in over a half century. Leftist historians and black activists cannot maintain that this version of Reconstruction didn't last long enough, as it still in effect. What they do claim is that it didn't alter society enough, and for that reason we need a Third Reconstruction.
The rationale for a Third Reconstruction is that there are still major differences in economic and social classes which the government must eliminate in order to achieve equality. The concept that rulers or the state could somehow make everyone equal would have been scoffed at in previous centuries. And many of us today seriously question the feasibility of such an idea. But we live in a time when many believe that the state should actually coerce the leveling of society.
Equality is a slippery word, and it has numerous meanings, but the two most relevant ones for this discussion are ; (1) civil equality, and (2) social equality. Basically, civil equality encompasses such things as due process, voting rights; freedom of speech, equal protection under the law, access to public facilities, and similar rights. These are the kinds of rights that can be legislated or protected by legislation.
But those who are advocating a Third Reconstruction, seek social equality, which they define as everyone having roughly similar economic and social status. Eliminating economic and social classes has been tried various times in various countries, but it has never succeeded. And we can be sure that no matter how much artificial leveling the government compels, it will never satisfy the more radical activists.
Third Reconstruction advocates are encouraged by President Obama's frequent references to wealth redistribution. “You're-on-your-own economics” is how Mr. Obama disparages capitalism, which he views as a cold-hearted system that has failed to bring about equality. Obama wants the Constitution updated to include “economic rights” which will allow the government more leniency in parceling out wealth more “fairly”. Indeed, many are worried that President Obama might issue an executive order to effect some kind of wealth redistribution.
As strange as it sounds, there are Americans who firmly believe that the government has a duty to alter the social structure in order to put the “bottom rung on top.” And these types realize that now is the most auspicious time to make their radical demands, with the Obama administration in Washington and a news media that leans to the Left. But, as a large segment of the population seems to be finally emerging from its docility, it is doubtful that the public can be tricked into accepting a Third Reconstruction.
Gail Jarvis is a Coastal Georgia based freelance writer. Following a career as a CPA/business consultant, Mr. Jarvis now critiques the establishment’s selective and misleading reporting of current events and history. Gail can be reached at: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
