Grade William Henry Harrison's presidency

[Antonio the Sixth]

F for giving the longest inaugural speech in really bad whether. Dude, get some perception.

^^^^

[Antonio the Sixth]

How is William Henry Harrison 'conservative', and Martin Van Buren 'liberal'?  Do you have some sort of definition for these terms for antebellum America? 

I think he meant it in terms of policies that favor the working class (mostly small farmers and urban immigrants at that time) vs policies that favor the elite (industrialists, merchants, large farmers, etc). Of course those are very different cleavages than those of today.

[Antonio the Sixth]

How is William Henry Harrison 'conservative', and Martin Van Buren 'liberal'?  Do you have some sort of definition for these terms for antebellum America? 

I think he meant it in terms of policies that favor the working class (mostly small farmers and urban immigrants at that time) vs policies that favor the elite (industrialists, merchants, large farmers, etc).

tl;dr, but it sounds like someone is just making things up so that they can make the seemingly anti-slavery man a liberal even though he was Jackson's right-hand guy economically. Jackson was a classical liberal, but they don't want credit for him because of the Trail of Tears. (Edit: Did read now - I didn't realize Mechaman was making the post. This isn't the reason, but it still seems like a weird comparison as the beliefs don't line up.)

Meanwhile the Whigs were founded to implement big government. American System, anybody? Tariffs, Centralized government (Except state's rights on slavery for WHH - and from what I have read on here from HST, it seems like he tried to expand it?), and massive improvements and taxes. Subsidizing businesses doesn't make WHH not to the left of Van Buren. Obviously, he's not a leftist in the forum sense, but isn't that in line with what most centrist/centre-left Democrats would do today.

Obviously Van Buren wasn't completely opposed to slavery either, just opposing the spread of it, but being the nominee of the Free Soil Party legacy has helped his legacy a ton, especially on here.

The idea that left=big government and right=small government is a moronic misconception of modern US political discourse that needs to die once and for all. I'm certainly not claiming Jackson was a "leftist" though (I guess he was as far as whites were concerned, but not beyond that).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Mechaman said everything better than I possibly could, but I think his point about taxes is worth emphasizing. Until the early 20th century, taxes tended to be of the most regressive kind (tariffs, sales taxes, flat property taxes, poll taxes, etc) and thus hurt disproportionately the poor. Thus, the burden to raise the revenue necessary for "big government" expenditures was largely felt by the working class. Furthermore, the kind of "big government" initiatives that were enacted in the first half of the 19th century (internal improvements, expansive monetary policy, etc) were most beneficial to the development of industry and commerce.

What has changed in the 20th century is, on the one hand, the invention of the progressive income tax, which has shifted the burden of public expenditure on the wealthiest (or at least on the upper-middle class) and relieved the poor. On the other hand, with the New Deal and on, public expenditures became increasingly focused on social policy and welfare (though not nearly as much as other developed countries, since the US still wastes billions in the military-industrial complex and other forms of corporate welfare), the sort of policies that directly benefits the disadvantaged. In these circumstance, "tax and spend" policies have become a hallmark of progressive politics, but only insofar as they can be tools to bring about greater equality.

What matters, in the end, is not the size of government, but who the government works for. The left wants to use the government to lift up the poor, while the right directs its effort toward sustaining the development of large corporations.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wait, if progressive income taxation was constitutional in the 19th century, what the hell did they need the 16th Amendment for?

Anyway, my point remains that taxation has gradually become significantly more progressive, roughly between 1900 and 1950, in the US like in most developed countries.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, the income tax is now less progressive than it was at that time in the 1950s.

That's my point, 1900-1950 is the time this process happened.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, the income tax is now less progressive than it was at that time in the 1950s.

That's my point, 1900-1950 is the time this process happened.

The big difference here (as I think you alluded to) isn't the progressivity of the tax rates - income tax rates were very progressive in the first part of the century, being paid only by the wealthy except for a short period after Wilson expanded them to pay for WW1. The big difference is how much of the government revenue was being filled by those progressive income taxes - not much until the 1940s. Likewise the main reason tax revenue is less progressive now than in the 1950s isn't because of changes in income tax rates, it's because a larger share of the taxes are paid in the form of non-progressive payroll taxes.

here's a chart for combined federal, state and local revenue:
Income taxes are in blue. Ad-valorum, which includes tariffs as well as sales, excise and property taxes are in red. Payroll taxes are in yellow.

That's a very interesting chart, and a very good point. I entirely agree.