Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Contarini's avatar

Excellent post.

A further feature of the Washington Treaty with Britain, it took off the table forever any real prospect of war between the USA and the British Empire. In effect, Britain recognized US hegemony in the hemisphere. This created a hidden but real peace dividend.

Mike Moschos's avatar

it’s important to clarify a structural point here that’s easy to miss, the whole scope of national initiatives, not only mentioned in this essay but even all that existed, existed within a far more decentralized system than the piece implies. Until after WW2 most economic, infrastructural, educational, commercial, fiscal, and scientific decision-making occurred at the local and state levels, the private sector was deliberately and pluralized, and all forms of systemic decision making were tied into federated, bottom-up civic and party structures that were publicly accessible and internally contestable.

The essay moves from “some projects required federal coordination” to a broader suggestion that continental development depended on centralized direction, but that’s not quite accurate, the USA (and even cases like Meiji Japan, which it references) developed through a mix of minority-of-the-action national support layered on top of highly plural, locally driven systems. Missing that distinction can make the past look like our current deeply centralized, standardized, and de-democratized central planning policy regimes, when they were categorically not

2 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?