Conservatives rewriting NC history

Published September 24, 2014

by Rob Christensen, News and Observer, September 24, 2014.

Conservatives have been trying to roll back decades of Democratic programs, since they took control of state government. Now they are trying to rewrite Tar Heel political history.

North Carolina as Dixie Dynamo? Not so much, they say. Progress under Govs. Terry Sanford, Jim Hunt & Company? Not really.

The opening salvo was a column recently penned in The News & Observer by John Hood, president of the John Locke Foundation, the conservative think tank started by Raleigh businessman Art Pope.

Hood’s argument is that North Carolina’s reputation as a leader in the South is overblown, or as he puts it, the idea of North Carolina Exceptionalism is “a fairy tale.”

Hood bases his assertion on statistics showing that North Carolina’s GDP between 1963 and 2010 grew only at the average of the rest of the South, and behind the national average. When adjusted for population, Hood says, North Carolina looks worse.

So Hood’s implicit argument – although he didn’t quite belly up to the bar to say it – is that North Carolina was wasting its money in building one of the nation’s great university systems, one of the best community college systems and one of the most extensive road systems, and in trying to be a leader in the arts.

If you are arguing for fundamental change, you are obligated to make the case that what has gone before is not working.

Triple whammy decline

The “conservative revolution,” as House Speaker Thom Tillis called it, has been built around the holy trinity of lowering taxes, shrinking government and reducing regulation.

To govern is to choose. Hood notes that conservative leaders believe in both competitive tax rates and public investments, as I might add, do many moderates and liberals. But the belief that North Carolina can have both the lowest tax rates and the best public educational institutions is a pipe dream – unless you’re willing to raise tuition to the private college level.

What Hood leaves out of his analysis – a relevant point, one would think – is that North Carolina was hit with a triple whammy: the collapse of its three traditional industries of textiles, furniture and tobacco during that period.

Do you think North Carolina would have been better able or less able to negotiate the collapse of its three economic mainstays without the top notch university and community college systems?

There are other problems with Hood’s argument.

Hood sets up a straw man for the purposes of blowing it down. He writes that “the Left” provides “a fictional account of state history,” in which the state was governed by “skin flint conservatives” in the first half of the 20th century, and then in the 1950s came Govs. Kerr Scott and Luther Hodges, who brought about an economic revival.

Expansion began in early 1900s

I know of no serious historian who makes this argument. North Carolina’s great push forward arguably began with Gov. Cameron Morrison (1921-25), although some historians say you should start at Gov. Thomas Bickett (1917-1921) or even Charles B. Aycock (1901-1905).

Between 1915 and 1925, state expenditures grew by 847 percent, the largest rate of increase in the country and triple the national average. The state began borrowing so heavily to build roads that by the end the 1920s, only New York had a higher bonded indebtedness than North Carolina. The state appropriation to the University of North Carolina quintupled between 1918 and 1929.

Hood chooses to call Morrison “a right of center leader,” who was a “constructive conservative.” Really?

If a governor tried Morrison’s governmental expansionary policies today, the Locke Foundation, the Civitas Institute, Americans for Prosperity and the entire conservative apparatus would have declared a holy war on that administration.

Hood seeks to frame the debate as between “constructive conservatives” and “the left,” as if we were living in California and not North Carolina.

North Carolina ranked 45th in the country in state government per capita spending growth in the years between 2001-2011, according to a study released last year by the conservative Tax Foundation. Some left.

North Carolina has been governed by moderates, both Democrats and Republicans, until the current experiment to make the Tar Heel State a national laboratory for libertarian conservatism.

Hood finishes his column by saying, “When it comes to economic history, let’s stick to nonfiction.”

Hear, hear.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/09/23/4176288/christensen-conservatives-rewriting.html?sp=/99/102/

September 24, 2014 at 8:28 am
Richard Bunce says:

Funny how the modern Democratic Party supporters selectively embrace the Democratic Party of the last century. If they think their predecessors did something right then they embrace them as legacy Democrats, if they think their predecessors did something wrong, civil rights for instance, then they dismiss them as Dixiecrats who are now represented by the Republican Party.

September 24, 2014 at 8:39 pm
Greg Dail says:

Caused the great recession? Are you nuts? I guess in Jimmy Gay-World government meddling in the mortgage business played no part at all.

September 24, 2014 at 8:30 am
Jimmy Gay says:

John Hood is an admirer of Ayn Rand and her policies. I have an personal e-mail from him confirming that. So is Alan Greenspan. We all know how he applied those policies of deregulation of Wall Street, which caused the Great Recession. Hood thinks those policies should be applied here in NC. Unfortunately, so does our Republican-led state government. Those policies are based on her sociopathic hero worship of William Edward Hickman, a serial killer who dismembered a 12 year old girl, Marion Parker. Like Ms. Parker, the people of North Carolina will be hurt, and worse, by the application of Ayn Rand and Hickman's madness to the state government.

September 24, 2014 at 5:45 pm
Richard Bunce says:

Mr. Greenspan as the head of the Federal Reserve did not deregulate anything... Congress regulates/deregulates through its Constitutional powers at the Federal level. The rest does not deserve a reply.

September 24, 2014 at 7:47 pm
Kirt Landry says:

Hood must have hit a nerve for Christensen to come out swinging so. Hood is up front about what he believes. I hope Mr. Christensen is not trying to pass himself off as unbiased.

September 24, 2014 at 10:52 pm
Jimmy Gay says:

As far as Greenspan's association with Ayn Rand. he writes about it in his book "The Age of Turbulence" along with photos. This is a summary from WIKI."In the early 1950s, Greenspan began an association with novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand.[43] Greenspan was introduced to Rand by his first wife, Joan Mitchell. Rand nicknamed Greenspan "the undertaker" because of his penchant for dark clothing and reserved demeanor. Although Greenspan was initially a logical positivist,[51] he was converted to Rand's philosophy of Objectivism by her associate Nathaniel Branden. He became one of the members of Rand's inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective, who read Atlas Shrugged while it was being written. During the 1950s and 1960s Greenspan was a proponent of Objectivism, writing articles for Objectivist newsletters and contributing several essays for Rand's 1966 book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal including an essay supporting the gold standard.[52][53] Rand stood beside him at his 1974 swearing-in as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Greenspan and Rand remained friends until her death in 1982.[43]"

September 26, 2014 at 11:02 am
Richard Bunce says:

... and?

September 24, 2014 at 11:12 pm
Jimmy Gay says:

September 25, 2014 at 11:37 am
Richard Bunce says:

Passed by the Congress, signed by the President... not Mr. Greenspan...

"The "compromise language" was introduced in the House on December 14, 2000, as H.R. 5660.[70] The same language was introduced in the Senate on December 15, 2000 as S. 3283.[71] The Senate and House conference that was called to reconcile differences in H.R. 4577 appropriations adopted the "compromise language" by incorporating H.R. 5660 (the "CFMA") into H.R. 4577, which was titled "Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2001".[72] The House passed the Conference Report and, therefore, H.R. 4577 in a vote of 292-60.[73] Over "objection" by Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN), the Senate passed the Conference Report, and therefore H.R. 4577, by "unanimous consent."[74] The Chairs and Ranking members of each of the five Congressional Committees that considered H.R. 4541 or S. 2697 supported, or entered into the Congressional Record statements in support of, the CFMA. The PWG issued letters expressing the unanimous support of each of its four members for the CFMA.[75] H.R. 4577, including H.R. 5660, was signed into law, as CFMA, on December 21, 2000.[76]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000#Legislative_history_of_the_CFMA

Next.