Polarization and the Politics of Personal

Responsibility 1st Edition Mark D. Brewer pdf

download

https://ebookgate.com/product/polarization-and-the-politics-of-
personal-responsibility-1st-edition-mark-d-brewer/

Get the full ebook with Bonus Features for a Better Reading Experience on ebookgate.com
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Ethnography 1st Edition John D. Brewer

https://ebookgate.com/product/ethnography-1st-edition-john-d-brewer/

ebookgate.com

The Politics of Exodus Soren Kierkegaard s Ethics of

Responsibility Perspectives in Continental Philosophy No
20 2nd Edition Mark Dooley
https://ebookgate.com/product/the-politics-of-exodus-soren-
kierkegaard-s-ethics-of-responsibility-perspectives-in-continental-
philosophy-no-20-2nd-edition-mark-dooley/
ebookgate.com

Personal Responsibility Why It Matters Think Now 1st

Edition Alexander Brown

https://ebookgate.com/product/personal-responsibility-why-it-matters-
think-now-1st-edition-alexander-brown/

ebookgate.com

Polarization Holography 1st Edition L. Nikolova

https://ebookgate.com/product/polarization-holography-1st-edition-l-
nikolova/

ebookgate.com
The Muslims of Valencia Mark D. Meyerson

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-muslims-of-valencia-mark-d-meyerson/

ebookgate.com

Teaching personal and social responsibility through

physical activity 3rd ed Edition Donald R Hellison

https://ebookgate.com/product/teaching-personal-and-social-
responsibility-through-physical-activity-3rd-ed-edition-donald-r-
hellison/
ebookgate.com

International Intervention in the Post Cold War World

Moral Responsibility and Power Politics 1st Edition Davis

https://ebookgate.com/product/international-intervention-in-the-post-
cold-war-world-moral-responsibility-and-power-politics-1st-edition-
davis/
ebookgate.com

Performance Politics and the British Voter 1st Edition

Harold D. Clarke

https://ebookgate.com/product/performance-politics-and-the-british-
voter-1st-edition-harold-d-clarke/

ebookgate.com

Food Fortification The evidence ethics and politics of

adding nutrients to food 1st Edition Mark Lawrence

https://ebookgate.com/product/food-fortification-the-evidence-ethics-
and-politics-of-adding-nutrients-to-food-1st-edition-mark-lawrence/

ebookgate.com
Polarization and the Politics of
Personal Responsibility
Polarization and
the Politics of
Personal
Responsibility
z
MARK D. BREWER
AND
JEFFREY M. STONECASH

1
 1
Oxford University Press is a department of the
University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective
of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide.
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by
Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016

© Oxford University Press 2015

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with
the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning
reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the
Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Brewer, Mark D.
Polarization and the politics of personal responsibility / Mark D. Brewer and Jeffrey M. Stonecash.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-0-19-023981-7 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-19-023982-4 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Liberty—United States. 2. Responsibility. 3. Divided government—United States.
4. Polarization (Social sciences)—United States. 5. Political parties—United States.
6. Right and left (Political science)—United States. 7. Political planning—United States.
8. United States—Social policy. 9. United States—Social conditions.
10. United States—Politics and government. I. Stonecash, Jeffrey M. II. Title.
JC599.U5B688 2015
170—dc23 2015000071

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
 Contents

Preface xi

PART ONE: The Sources of Conflict in American Politics

1. Political Conflict in America: Over What? 3

PART T WO : The Evolution of Liberal Thought

2. America’s Commitment to Individualism 23

3. Social Conditions and a Role for Government 31
4. Expanding the Concept of Societal Effects 43
5. Inequality and Social Justice 52

PART THREE: The Conservative Response

6. Limited Government, Fiscal Restraint, and Free Markets 87

7. The Threats of Communism, Socialism, and Redistribution 101
8. Tradition, Religion, and Rejection of Moral Relativism 110
vi Contents

PART FOUR : Politics, Policy, and the Personal Responsibility Debate

9. Focusing the Debate: Growing Partisan Differences 119

10. Policy Battles Over Responsibility 128
11. What Is and What Should Be 139

Appendix: ANES Questions About Jobs and Health Insurance 143

Notes 147
Bibliography 179
Index 201
What rules the world is ideas, because ideas define the way reality
is perceived.1

The impersonal forces that limit personal advancement . . . include

discrimination of various kinds (based on race, gender, ethnicity, reli-
gion, sexuality, or other differences), poverty, imperialism, class sys-
tems, or any other institution or belief system that denies individuals
their free and equal place in society. The social forces that hold them
down can be changed because humans and society are improvable.2
[The belief about people] that has become an intellectual underpin-
ning of the welfare state is that, at bottom, human beings are not re-
ally responsible for the things they do. People who do well do not
deserve what they have gotten—they got it because they were born
into the right social stratum. People who do badly do not deserve it
either. They were born into the wrong social stratum.3

The healthcare law vastly expands an already unwieldy administra-

tive state, creating 159 new boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and
government programs. The law is built around the assumption that
bureaucrats, if given enough power over the healthcare marketplace,
can curb rising healthcare costs by expertly determining prices and
dictating treatment options to doctors and patients. This “fatal con-
ceit” stands in stark contrast to America’s historic commitment to in-
dividual liberty and personal responsibility.4
 Mark D. Brewer:
To Tammy, Megan, Jack,
David, and Gabriel, who make everything worthwhile.

Jeffrey M. Stonecash:
To Jill, for whom I am very grateful.
 Preface

congress is polarized. Democrats and Republicans are arguing about

tax rates, deficits and debt levels, what social programs to fund and at what
levels, and what social norms should be supported by legislation. The concern
of this book is why members of the two parties are so polarized. There are
many plausible explanations, ranging from voters realigning over time, gerry-
mandering, growing inequality, and institutional changes.5
The one matter that has been neglected is the role of ideas about how a
well-functioning society should work. The premise of this book is that ideas
matter a great deal, and that these ideas about how to properly organize soci-
ety are the fundamental basis for the deep political divisions we currently see
in American society. Citizens formulate ideas about what norms should pre-
vail to encourage people to be productive and independent. They form ideas
about how much individuals are capable of being independent. The form
ideas about how widespread opportunity is in society. These ideas in turn af-
fect support for government programs.
Conservatives and liberals—which today also translates to Republicans
and Democrats—now have very different ideas about these matters. There
has always been some degree of political conflict regarding these matters, but
the differences in the two major parties’ ideas relating to responsibility and
opportunity have grown exponentially in recent decades. There are now pro-
found, deep, and emotional differences of opinion about how much individu-
als are responsible for their situation and how much government has an
obligation to help people. How we got here is an intriguing story of how ideas
develop, and how they play a major role as the foundation for many conflicts
about what policies should prevail. We seek to trace this history of these ideas
and interpretations of society, demonstrate how they have shaped the current
partisan alignment, and thereby contribute to our understanding of the cur-
rent polarization in Congress and in American society as a whole.
xii Preface

As with any project, over the course of this study we have accumulated
some debts that must be acknowledged. Brewer would like to thank his col-
leagues in the Department of Political Science at the University of Maine for
the highly collegial and intellectually stimulating environment they create on
a daily basis. Many University of Maine students—mostly in political science
but also in the Honors College—also merit thanks for listening to many of
the ideas that made their way into this project. The Office of the Vice President
for Research provided a summer faculty research award that assisted Brewer
in the early stages of this project. Finally, Brewer thanks his wife Tammy and
children Megan, Jack, David, and Gabriel for their love and patience
throughout this process.
 PART ONE

The Sources of Conflict

in American Politics
 1

Political Conflict in America

Over What?

partisan conflict in Washington appears to increase each year.

Divisions between the parties in Congress are greater, with Democrats and
Republicans in both houses increasingly voting in united blocs against the
other.1 Partisanship is also increasing among voters. The percentage of voters
choosing to identify with a party has gradually increased.2 More of those who
identify with a party are voting for the candidates of their party.3 Those who
identify as Democrat or Republican are steadily diverging in their approval of
presidential job performance.4 Democrats are increasingly negative in how
they view Republicans, and Republicans are just as negative about Democrats.5
Something is creating intense partisan polarization. What are people
arguing about, and why are the arguments so intense and emotional? There
are numerous candidates offered as explanations of what is driving partisan
polarization.6 They include divisions over race,7 ideology,8 class,9 religious
attachment,10 and authoritarianism.11 Survey evidence indicates that varia-
tions on each of these traits are a source of strong partisan divisions. Blacks,
Hispanics, and whites differ significantly in which party they support, as do
self-identified conservatives and liberals. The less and more affluent differ.
Those with strong attachments to religion and seculars differ. Those classified
as authoritarian disagree with the nurturing. Variations in demographics and
opinions strongly affect individuals’ partisan preferences and voting choices.12
Yet something significant is missing from these explanatory variables.
Ideology—a consistent set of policy views—matters, but the basis of these
connections has received limited attention. A focus on demographic attri-
butes is clearly valuable, but it neglects the underlying ideas involved. The
more important and ultimately fundamental matter involves the ideas being
debated and the subsequent policy disputes that arise from these ideas. People
are debating how individuals should and do act, and how society should and
does work. At the end of the day political conflict involves fights over and
4 T he Sources of Con flict in A merican Polit ics

with ideas,13 and we believe these ideas demand more attention. It is ideas
about the workings of society that we think are central and stir so much emo-
tion and passion.
Two matters are crucial to understanding the current division. First, there
is a fundamental debate occurring about how much we should rely on the
norm of personal responsibility as an organizing principle for society. The
debate involves issues of whether widespread opportunity still exists, and
whether it is appropriate to presume individuals can control their fate such
that we can attribute responsibility for individual situations. America has
been seen as exceptional by many because they presume that opportunity has
been and is widespread.14 Everyone has a chance to succeed if you work hard
and play by the rules.15 The underlying presumption is that “people do have a
capacity to control their own destinies.”16 If so, we can hold individuals re-
sponsible for their situation. Whether these ideas are fiction or fact is at the
center of the current debate. If individuals are capable, then individuals can be
held responsible for their situation. If individual efficacy is limited, then it is
unreasonable and very likely unjust to leave the individual at the mercy of
forces that he or she cannot possibly control. Which view prevails has enor-
mous consequences for government policy.
Second, this debate is now more intense because liberalism has gradually
evolved and changed in recent decades, and conservatives have responded by
digging in their heels in resistance. Liberals have steadily become more doubtful
about whether many individuals are sufficiently in control of their lives to hold
them accountable and responsible. This doubt is now essentially a given, an un-
articulated presumption, among many liberals. The historical development of
this position within liberal thought is now largely forgotten. What has changed
and is now creating intense partisan disagreements is the gradual emergence of
the idea, supported by much of the social science community, that many people
are not in control of their fate.17 Liberals increasingly see individuals as shaped
by their background and buffeted by forces they cannot control. Those strug-
gling are not responsible for their situation. These people lack the opportunity
to achieve. They have needs that should be responded to. Government is in turn
seen as the primary vehicle to establish programs to help those who cannot suc-
ceed in our society. Food stamps are a necessity because people cannot find jobs
that provide adequate incomes. Government should establish health insurance
programs to help those who cannot get insurance.
Conservatives, in sharp contrast, continue to believe that individuals have
efficacy in American society. They have ample opportunity to achieve and
thrive, and it is therefore appropriate to hold them responsible for their own
 Political Conflict in America 5

situations in life.18 Further, regardless of how much that is the case, society has
to adhere to and present individuals with that norm, or people will become
dependent and cease to think about how to manage their lives independent of
government. Prolonged welfare provision and unemployment insurance un-
dermine the incentive to work.19 Government intrusion into these matters is
ultimately not helpful because welfare programs undermine the individual
initiative that made America great. The resulting disagreements between lib-
erals and conservatives about the capabilities of individuals, the presence of
opportunity, and the role of government are fundamental and intense.
Ideas about how society does and should work are of fundamental impor-
tance for understanding what Americans are arguing about. Many will regard
all this as ideology, which is clearly of growing importance in how Americans
react to politics.20 What we are concerned about, however, does not involve a
broad, systematic, and articulate worldview about multiple public policies. It
involves a much simpler set of observations and conclusions by voters about
the norms that should prevail in society to make it work reasonably well and
be fair.21 Such beliefs long precede ideology.
This debate about ideas inevitably becomes entangled with issues of class
and race. It can become moral and emotional, because it involves views of fair-
ness and deservedness.22 Is a society fair if some do not have an opportunity to
succeed? Is it fair to heavily tax achievers to provide benefits for those not
achieving?
When race is involved emotions become much stronger, because of the
lengthy heritage of slavery and racial segregation and discrimination. Blacks
and Hispanics make less than average. Liberals argue that these differences are
because minorities begin with fewer opportunities and face continuing dis-
crimination regarding housing and jobs from whites. They see it as funda-
mentally unfair to not recognize and respond to this heritage and the unjust
disadvantages created.23 Failing to respond is to deny that past and betray the
American ideal of equal opportunity. This argument in turn angers many
conservatives, who feel that liberals are perpetually apologizing for the situa-
tion and behavior of poor minorities. They see liberals as endlessly offering
benefits that make whites feel good, but ultimately cripple minorities under
the yoke of dependency on government.24 Conservatives argue that minori-
ties will succeed only if they take more responsibility for their situations. They
argue that individual initiative and responsibility are how anyone succeeds in
America, and resent being called racist when they make that argument.
These different interpretations of what should be done to help minorities
create sensitivities that make policy discussions difficult. Conservatives argue
6 T he Sources of Con flict in A merican Polit ics

that adopting certain behavioral patterns is the way out of poverty.25 Liberals
often see these remarks as insensitive to racial history and current conditions.
In 2014 Representative Paul Ryan gave a speech in which he said:

We have got this tailspin of culture in our inner cities, in particular, of

men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about
working or learning the value and the culture of work; and so there’s a
real culture problem here that has to be dealt with. . . . achievement and
accomplishment are so self-rewarding, it’s earned success, and that’s
how people flourish when they feel the pride of succeeding and achiev-
ing a goal. . . . And that is really what helps revitalize society and helps
human flourishing, it helps people reach their potential. That’s the
American idea.26

Representative Barbara Lee (D-California) responded by calling his com-

ments a “thinly veiled racial attack.”27 There was an outpouring of columns
about whether his comments were racist (and to be dismissed) or were about a
legitimate matter involving the role of personal behavior.28 The back-and-forth
of columns indicated how differently the issue of personal responsibility is seen
by conservatives and liberals, and how much the issue of race complicates the
issue and creates emotional debates about this. At the center of this is a dispute
about what explains the difference between a lack of success and success.
There are serious divisions about the importance of personal responsi-
bility within the American public. Americans are also deeply divided over
how many and which groups really have the opportunity to succeed. How did
we arrive at such a divide? In subsequent pages we will first focus on how the
liberal interpretation evolved over decades, and then how conservatives
reacted. We make no effort to arbitrate the validity of either view of society.
In a democracy it is what people believe that is important. Either side could
be wrong in part or wholly. What matters is how people see the world and the
conflicts that exist between views. In this chapter we outline the current dif-
ferences and briefly summarize what has changed in recent decades. We then
provide an example involving changes over time in partisan divisions over
access to health care.

Liberal and Conservative Views of Individuals and Society

Liberals have clear views about why some people do well in society and
others do not. Individual talent, effort, and will matters far less than the
 Political Conflict in America 7

effects of race, sex, class, ethnicity, and neighborhood. The fortunes of

workers are affected by the power of business owners to dictate the terms
of employment. They see economic change unfairly displacing and disad-
vantaging some, while benefiting others. These social inequities are cu-
mulative and significantly diminish the opportunity for many to succeed.
Given that these contextual factors play such a great role in creating varia-
tions in outcomes, it is difficult for liberals to see inequalities as legitimate.
Liberals argue that equality of opportunity does not exist for many. Some
individuals begin with or encounter significant disadvantages beyond their
control, and liberals argue something must be done to create more equality
of opportunity to help those who struggle to achieve within an individual-
istic society. To do so, we must tax those who have fared well and provide
some benefits to those who are not faring well. Others focus on worker
situations, and argue that the power of business to dictate wages and con-
ditions needs to be countered. They see government as the only vehicle to
systematically create rules that give workers some ability to bargain with
businesses.
A study of Chicago provides a clear example of liberal thought about why
some are not doing well. William Julius Wilson, a prominent sociologist,
focused on why some people were falling behind in American society. His
concerns were why some individuals were withdrawing from the workforce,
were involved in crime and drugs, were less likely to marry, and more likely to
have births out of wedlock.29 He argues that the changes creating these behav-
iors are the declining employment in manufacturing in cities, the emergence
of service jobs concentrated in suburbs, discrimination against poor whites
and blacks in housing opportunities in the suburbs (46), and limited trans-
portation to the suburbs to pursue jobs (25–50). Jobs have moved elsewhere,
and the poor are left in cities. There is a spatial mismatch between people
needing jobs and the places where jobs are. The loss of jobs and accompanying
stresses in turn cause behaviors that are detrimental to the poor gaining access
to jobs. When Wilson addresses the issue of how much people are responsible
for their situation, he notes:

This is not to argue that individuals and groups lack the freedom
to make their own choices, engage in certain conduct, and develop
certain styles and orientations, but it is to say that these decisions
and actions occur within a context of constraints and opportuni-
ties that are drastically different from those present in middle-class
society (55).
8 T he Sources of Con flict in A merican Polit ics

He then quotes someone in a poor urban neighborhood:

Well, basically, I feel that if you are raised in a neighborhood and all
you see are negative things, then you are going to be negative because
you don’t see anything positive (55).

People are significantly affected by their context, which diminishes responsi-

bility. The bad life situations that many find themselves in have their roots in
conditions and developments that are simply beyond the individuals’ control.
Liberals cannot fathom how a person can or should be held responsible for
what she or he cannot control.
Liberals also doubt the extent to which accountability and fairness pre-
vail. If those in business engage in practices that harm others, it is often very
difficult for those harmed to recoup those costs. A business might sell con-
taminated drugs or meat to consumers. A factory might pollute water sup-
plies. Wall Street might sell bundles of mortgages to investors that are worth
less than suggested. In each case a loss occurs, and the solution might be for
individuals to seek to recover damages through litigation. Such a course of
action is expensive and complicated, and blame is often difficult to establish.
To liberals the solution to this is to use government to regulate private activi-
ties and establish limits on the practices that might occur before they can
occur. For many liberals the bottom line is that the vagaries of modern
American society effectively prevent the norm of individual responsibility
from being possible.
Conservatives are much more concerned about the importance of the
norm of personal responsibility. Their views are epitomized in a book by
Charles Murray titled Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960–2010.30
The book presents an interpretation of why inequality in America is increas-
ing, and what might help counter this trend. He notes that in recent decades
those with lower incomes are experiencing few gains while those with higher
incomes are experiencing significant gains. He then notes that there have
been increases in divorce (156), the percentage of children not living with
both parents (159), nonmarital births (once labeled illegitimate, 160), people
filing disability claims (171), personal bankruptcies (197), and the withdrawal
of many 30- to 49-year-old men from the labor force (173–178). He notes that
these changes in behavior have been most prominent among those in the
working class.
Murray also argues that these behavioral changes have a clear cause. The
virtues and accompanying behaviors of people affect what happens to them
 Political Conflict in America 9

(128–129). The crucial virtues are industriousness, honesty, marriage, and reli-
gion (131). Over time those in the working class are practicing the desired
virtues less, and that is why they are falling behind economically. Further, gov-
ernment programs are helping to undermine adherence to these virtues by
providing benefits and not encouraging the values and behaviors necessary to
function in society (283). Liberals have played a role in this because they have
consistently argued that what happens to people is not their fault (298).
Murray also says that liberals presume, in error, that people will not exploit
the welfare system (297). His argument is that for a society to function well it
is essential that individuals realize that they are responsible for their situation.
Perhaps most important, he asserts “regardless of whether people have free
will, human flourishing requires that they live in an environment in which
they are treated as if they did” (300).
In Murray’s opinion those in the working class are facing difficulties be-
cause they are not adhering to the personal habits of industriousness that are
the means by which individuals achieve. If the job market is worse and jobs
pay less, then individuals have to adjust and take the jobs that exist (178–179).
Government programs are not the solution, because “When the government
intervenes to help . . . it diminishes our responsibility for the desired outcome”
(282). The problem is exacerbated in that the elites of the nation have grown
uncomfortable about making the case for the behaviors that brought them
success (100). They need to “start preaching what they practice” (305). In
Murray’s view, the solution to working-class economic problems is changing
the values presented to them by society and the government. The larger
problem is cultural decay, most evident in a declining commitment to indi-
viduals taking responsibility for their lives.

Sincerity or Rationalization?
We regard these differing views as largely sincere, as opposed to being ratio-
nalizations for how life is working out. People are continually seeking to form
rules that help them organize their lives and help them achieve their goals.
They may struggle to fully implement these ideas, but these beliefs serve as the
frameworks of what they and others must do if they wish to attain some things.
There are certainly some who rationalize their situations, but for the most
part we think people are sincere. Many of those who wish to achieve believe
that they must be responsible for the choices they make. Those who achieve
for the most part believe their efforts and choices made it possible. They also
believe in the virtues of a society that encourages responsibility. Those who
10 T he Sources of Con flict in A merican Polit ics

face difficult situations—lack of resources, a surrounding context that pro-

vides a sense that possibility of achievement is limited—are likely to sincerely
believe that conditions are overwhelming them. Many who have achieved
may nonetheless still be acutely aware of the difficulties others face in trying
to achieve.
There are, to be sure, some who rationalize their situations. Someone
who was relatively lucky in achieving may see their outcome as entirely due to
their own hard work and responsible actions. Those who have failed due to their
own behaviors and choices may construct a narrative about how they were
dealt a series of misfortunes or mistreatment. In each case an individual may
project his or her own situation to form an interpretation of the larger society.
Under this model the successful individual adopts a Darwinian view that “the
cream rise to the top” and inequality is fair. The frustrated person adopts a
view that society is fundamentally unfair and those who fail are not respon-
sible for their plight.
Fortunately for our argument, the sincerity or lack thereof regarding indi-
viduals’ beliefs on responsibility and opportunity does not matter. If people
are sincere or if they have rationalized their situation, these views still permeate
society and people use them to judge their reactions to social conditions and
public policies. Politicians may believe in these interpretations themselves or
they may feel they have to listen to and understand them, and respond to them
if they are to be elected. The crucial matter for understanding policy debates is
that these differing views—the powerful effect of contextual conditions versus
individual responsibility—are a significant source of political conflict. Whether
people truly believe them (we believe most do) is irrelevant.

Views of Society and Differing Preoccupations

These differing views about responsibility and opportunity are fundamental,
emotional, and intense, because they involve views of how society does and
should work. These in turn create notions of what is a fair and moral society.31
The partisan interpretations and policy differences that result are not just
about how we react to success and failure of individuals, but about the norms
that are presumed to promote and support a well-working society.
Liberals tend to believe that people seek to do their best. Yet some face
enormous inequalities of opportunity that create variations in success that are
not due to effort or talent. The preoccupation becomes addressing inequali-
ties. To liberals, if a society is to be fair and have legitimate outcomes then
there must be more effort to equalize opportunities, and perhaps outcomes.
 Political Conflict in America 11

The state is the primary vehicle to do these things, so there must be numerous
government programs to help people who are unable to help themselves or
who struggle through no fault of their own.
Conservatives have very different views about individuals, how society
does and should work, and what is fair. Conservatives are skeptical that many
are trying, and emphasize the need for a social system of incentives that will
prompt effort. Encouraging individuals to be ambitious and achieve is impor-
tant for them and for the society as a whole. It prompts initiative and accom-
plishment by individuals. Encouraging ambition and achievement also fuels
the kind of innovations that drive society forward. Knowing that there will be
consequences to personal choices acts as a powerful inducement for individu-
als to think seriously about said choices and the outcomes likely to result from
these choices. This awareness of being held responsible for one’s actions
should force individuals to plan their futures better and make better choices.
If they fail, they know they must adjust their behavior. If they succeed, they
have a sense that they earned and deserve the results. They have lived their
lives well and can be satisfied. If this system—with all its rewards and conse-
quences—exists, a mass society does not need to monitor the decision-making
processes of individuals, because each individual will be responding to their
context and doing so independently.
The resulting personal responsibility will have enormous benefits for soci-
ety. Families form, have children, and responsible parents raise and socialize
their children. Parents prepare their children for adulthood, explaining how
society works. These individuals in turn approach life with a sense of respon-
sibility. Some individuals achieve and develop new ideas and products. That
helps the rest of the society. There will be resulting differences in outcomes
based on talent and motivation, but those differences will be legitimate reflec-
tions of the choices and behaviors of individuals. This reliance on families and
individuals to be responsible means that there is less need for government.
Individuals cannot expect to turn to government to alter unequal outcomes,
because they are legitimate and fair. Government may need to preserve order
and ensure that legal behavior continues, but it should not intervene to alter
outcomes. Diminishing inequities would be detrimental. To do so would
create dependency and a decline in the inclination of individuals to be re-
sponsible and achieve. It penalizes the initiative of those more likely to
achieve.
There may be some variations in opportunity and some inequities that are
not fully deserved, but the benefits of emphasizing and relying on individu-
alism for individuals and society are so great that adherence to the norm is
12 T he Sources of Con flict in A merican Polit ics

worth some of the resulting problems.32 Even if individuals do not have complete
control over their lives, it is crucial to maintaining the vitality of American
society that government restrain itself from acting to ameliorate problems so
that individuals are encouraged to be resilient and handle their own prob-
lems. Conservatives do not think that all unfairness can be eliminated in life.
Society is not perfectible.
These differences of opinion about individual responsibility and how
much opportunity exists are the basis for emotional debates about what is a
moral and just society. They involve notions of deservedness. A liberal sees a
poor person and thinks of the unfairness of differences in opportunity in
society and the moral need to respond to inequality. They are deeply troubled
about the conditions they see and the lack of decency of society. A conserva-
tive sees a poor person and thinks of lack of effort and responsibility. They see
government programs as reinforcing that behavior. They see the taxes imposed
to fund many social programs as unfair and taking resources from those who
acted responsibly and appropriately. They are deeply troubled about the
norms underlying these programs.33

Enduring Differences, Just Rearranged?

Haven’t these differences between liberals and conservatives always been with
us? Haven’t conservatives always held individualistic views, and liberals been
more sympathetic to the role of social conditions? There are those who argue
that the major changes of recent years simply reflect the fact that we are going
through a rearrangement or resorting of the bases of political divisions. There
are essentially three variations on this theme. One view is that divisions in the
views of the public have changed little in recent years, and that all that has
happened to create greater political conflict is that voters have gradually
sorted themselves out between the two parties.34 The percentages of voters
who support unlimited access to abortion or accept very few situations in
which abortion should be allowed, for example, have not changed much.
What has changed is how these voters are aligned with parties. Over time the
former have moved to the Democratic Party and the latter to the Republican
Party. Opinion divisions are the same, but just organized differently.
Another variation has more of a geographical focus. In the 1950s and 1960s
the north was largely Republican and moderate and the South was conserva-
tive and heavily Democratic. On an individual level there were some liberals
in the Republican Party in the North and some conservatives in the Democratic
Party in the South. Over time two significant changes have occurred that
 Political Conflict in America 13

involve rearranging who is in which party. There has been a geographical rea-
lignment, with the more conservative South moving heavily Republican and
the Northeast moving heavily Democratic.35 Those with more conservative
views are now in the more conservative party and those with more liberal views
are in the more liberal party. That accentuates and amplifies conflict.
A last variation is that opinions on specific issues have become more or-
ganized and associated. Liberal views on one issue now have become associ-
ated with liberal views on other issues. Elites and politicians are expressing
more coherent and consistently ideological views on issues,36 and those more
informed in the public are mirroring these changes.37 There are disputes about
how much of this greater coherence is due to elites or activists, but the impor-
tant matter is that ideas are now tied together more than in the past, creating
unified blocks opposing each other. The thrust of these various analyses is that
we are largely experiencing a rearranging of voters or ideas into more coherent
groups, which in turn creates greater conflict. There is little emphasis on
changing ideas about personal responsibility and their impact. In the views
just summarized, the world of ideas is essentially constant over time.
There has, to be sure, been a significant realignment involving liberals and
conservatives. Those changes and their role will be reviewed. The current de-
bate, however, is different in two fundamental ways from earlier debates
about individualism. First, there has been a fundamental change in how liber-
als see issues of personal responsibility. It is not just that liberals and conserva-
tives have played musical chairs and landed in different parties. The intellectual
context of the current partisan debate is vastly different from 50 or 100 years
ago.38 There is now a significant body of research that supports the idea that
many individuals do not control their fates. Second, the extent of social pro-
grams that provide benefits has grown tremendously since the 1950s, and the
distribution of tax burdens has also changed. Government does more now
than it did in the 1950s and 1960s. That has made the issue of whether pro-
grams help or hurt and who pays for these programs central to debates. The
interaction of these two has been complicated, but together they eventually
prompted a strong conservative reaction.
Perhaps the most fundamental change is that liberalism has evolved. There
are now more and more people who begin reactions to social policy discus-
sions with the presumption that social conditions have a significant and un-
fair effect on people. These views about how society affects people have
become intertwined with and supported by the social science community.
That community has gradually developed the idea that much of what explains
human variations is not individual talent, will, and effort. Social science focuses
14 T he Sources of Con flict in A merican Polit ics

on analyses that seek to find the causes of human variation. The implications
of this focus are significant for interpretations of society and the accounta-
bility of individuals.

The methodological stress [of modern social science] was put upon the
scale and complexity of modern social and economic relations so that
an individual’s conduct and, at least by implication, an individual’s
condition had to be explained by factors well beyond those attribut-
able directly to the individuals themselves. . . . there is also an innate
ethical dimension: to modern social science as it was emerging in the
organized social science disciplines, individuals could not and should
not be held individually responsible for the bad or the good that may
happen to them.39

The consequence of this development is important. Whereas liberalism once

saw government as a negative and worrisome force, modern liberalism sees a
highly positive and essential role for government in society. Liberalism once
meant support for a restrained government to maximize individual freedom.
That has now changed to seeing variations in social conditions as having sig-
nificant and unfair effects on individuals and seeing government action as
necessary to remedy the resulting problems. For liberals, success or failure says
very little about the individual and far more about society as a whole. In con-
trast, conservatives stress the importance of practices that push individuals to
handle their own problems and succeed or fail based on their own merits and
efforts. To them, government is still a threat to freedom.
As ideas have evolved, the extent of social programs has also changed. The
federal government played a modest role in providing policy benefits to indi-
viduals prior to the 1930s.40 Individualism was still dominant, but ideas were
developing that suggested that the conditions within which one developed
and lived played a significant role in how people fared in life. While those
ideas continued to evolve, the Great Depression and the Republicans’ lack of
a solution to it gave Democrats control of the national government. They
enacted numerous programs that provided direct benefits—social security,
unemployment compensation, welfare, and housing assistance.41
The 1960s resulted in a significant expansion of programs. In the 1964
presidential election Americans were presented with a clear conservative,
Republican Barry Goldwater, and a clear liberal, Democrat Lyndon Johnson.
Johnson won overwhelmingly, and brought with him majority control by
Democrats in both houses of Congress. The presumption of Democrats was
 Political Conflict in America 15

that the election results signified support for their argument that social prob-
lems should be responded to with government programs.42 They enacted
many more direct benefit programs. Public housing and welfare benefits (Aid
to Families with Dependent Children, AFDC and Food Stamps) were ex-
panded, and Medicaid (health care for the poor) and Medicare programs
(health care for those aged 65 and over) were created.43 The government was
providing more support to more people than was the case for much of
American history. Over time many of these programs have expanded in whom
they cover and how much they cost. Who pays what in taxes to support these
programs has also become an issue.
The combination of changes in ideas, programs, and tax burdens has cre-
ated a powerful political dynamic, resulting in greater partisan and ideolog-
ical conflict. It is commonplace now to state that the current conflicts are
because the Republican Party has moved to the right.44 There is considerable
evidence for that. But what is missing from most narratives is an explanation
of why the party has become a vehicle for strong expressions of personal re-
sponsibility. We know that conservative activists mobilized to attract other
conservatives to the Republican Party.45 What has been missing is some expla-
nation of why they have become so organized and adamant about their posi-
tion. We argue that they are reacting to changes in liberalism.
Liberals see troubling social conditions that place individuals in situations
beyond their control, and support government programs to respond. They in-
creasingly have sympathy for those facing problems, and they expand social
programs. These changes in turn provoke conservatives to be even more ada-
mant about individualism. They see an increasing reliance on government and
an increasing reliance on taxation of those who are achieving to provide the
funds for these programs. They see liberals who focus on the conditions people
face and not on the behaviors and choices people make in response to their
conditions. They see a steady expansion of the welfare state with seemingly no
end to its expansion. Expansion furthers dependence, making the dynamic
even more entrenched. Their argument is that America became great because
of its heritage of individual responsibility, and that norm is being undermined
by government programs. By not holding individuals responsible for their own
actions and situations, the state is creating a culture of dependence.

Ideas and Elections

While changing ideas have an impact on policy debates over time, there should
be no presumption that new ideas have any inexorable or steady impact. Ideas,
16 T he Sources of Con flict in A merican Polit ics

arguments, and policy proposals may emerge, but events may not be condu-
cive to their reception for sustained periods of time. As will be reviewed in sub-
sequent pages, there have been periods when new perspectives were presented,
but there was limited receptivity until events changed. During the 1910s and
1920s there were some arguing that individuals were affected by their context,
but faith in individualism dominated. Then the Great Depression and sus-
tained high levels of unemployment cast doubt on the notion that individuals
were struggling due solely to their behaviors. The landslide election support
for Franklin Roosevelt and Democrats in 1932, 1934, and 1936 suggested
increased support for the idea that government could play a greater role in
affecting context. Relative to what we now see in terms of government social
programs the responses were somewhat limited, but the combination of
emerging ideas and election results changed the receptivity to ideas. In the
1960s the argument that social conditions limit people became more promi-
nent, and poverty and segregation received more attention. The 1964 land-
slide supporting Democrats again made acting on these ideas more likely.
Just as events can facilitate a greater impact for some ideas, events and coun-
terarguments can undermine their credibility. Following the 1960s and the en-
actment and expansion of social programs, family incomes stopped growing as
much and welfare rolls grew. Conservatives began to organize to make a strong
case for the importance of personal responsibility and the debilitating effects of
dependency on government programs. Ronald Reagan was elected president in
1980, and the liberal argument that people needed extensive and sustained help
was challenged. Liberals continued to argue that individuals needed help, but
the political context was less favorable to their impact. Ideas matter, but their
impact can wax and wane as social trends, events, and election results combine
to diminish or magnify their relevance for public policy debates.

An Example: The Health Care Debate

The health care debate illustrates the dynamic of ideas that has been unfold-
ing over the last 60 to 70 years. Liberals enacted Medicare in 1965 to pro-
vide health care to the elderly. They enacted Medicaid in that same year to
provide health care for the poor. Programs to increase access to health care
among poor children have been enacted and expanded over time. Yet health
care has steadily become much more expensive and harder to afford for many
people. Fewer companies now provide health insurance, and low-income
people increasingly lack insurance.46 Liberals have concluded for quite a few
years that something needed to be done to expand access to health care.
 Political Conflict in America 17

President Clinton tried to enact legislation in 1993 and 1994, but political
conditions were not favorable. Then in 1994 Republicans took control of the
House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, and the effort to enact
any sort of comprehensive health insurance program was set aside.
In 2008 Democrats won the presidency and control of Congress. After
lengthy negotiations they enacted national legislation that increases enroll-
ment in health insurance programs by requiring people to get insurance, and
provides a subsidy to do so. The legislation, the Affordable Care Act (popu-
larly known as Obamacare), imposed mandates that companies with more
than 50 employees must provide insurance and that individuals must secure
insurance. The program provides subsidies for low-income individuals who
secure insurance. It also provides penalties for those not obtaining insurance.
Changing social conditions are to be responded to, and government is the
best vehicle to do so.
Not a single Republican in Congress voted for the legislation. Conservatives
see these trends very differently. They see people who do not have the initia-
tive and discipline to secure jobs that provide insurance. They see people who
do not take care of themselves. They see greater government intrusion into
the private sector with more and more regulations that limit individuals and
business. They see a new redistributive entitlement program that will be
funded by taxes on those who achieve. The program is likely to expand and
expand, create greater dependency on government, and reduce individual re-
sponsibility for their situation. As summarized in late 2013 by Senator Ted
Cruz (Texas): “His strategy is to get as many Americans as possible hooked
on the subsidies, addicted to the sugar”; “If we get to January 1 [2014], this
thing is here forever.”47 To many conservative Republicans this legislation is
one of the most dangerous steps ever taken in eroding individual liberty and
responsibility, and further expands the reach of the federal government.
This division about individual responsibility has gradually developed and
created a growing gulf between Democrats and Republicans. Figure 1.1 indi-
cates how this division has developed. It presents responses in national sur-
veys from 1956 to 2012 to the question of whether government or individuals
should be responsible for securing health care.48 The overall national distribu-
tion of responses has been evenly divided and largely stable. Over time few
Democrats have responded that this is an individual responsibility.
What has changed is how those strongly attached to the Republican Party
have reacted. As Figure 1.2 indicates, since the 1950s strong party identifiers
have steadily moved to seeing this as an individual responsibility. Strong iden-
tifiers in each party are the most active and concerned among party supporters.
18 T he Sources of Con flict in A merican Polit ics

60

50

40
Percentage

30

20
Government
10 Individual

0
1956 1962 1968 1974 1980 1986 1992 1998 2004 2012
Year
Figure 1.1 Percentage Choosing Individual or Government Responsibility for Health
Insurance, 1956–2012

90 Republican
80 Democrat
Difference
70
60
Percentage

50
40
30
20
10
0
1956 1962 1968 1974 1980 1986 1992 1998 2004 2012
Year
Figure 1.2 Percentage Choosing Individual Responsibility for Health Insurance by
Strong Party ID, 1956–2012

The difference of strong Republicans from strong Democrats has increased

from about 20 percentage points in 1956 to 65 points in 2012.49 Those strongly
attached to their party are very divided about whether government or indi-
viduals are responsible for securing health care coverage.

The Argument
The evolution of health care and the battle over its provision reflect the thesis
to be pursued here. Over the last roughly 60 years the social science com-
munity and liberalism have gradually embraced the notion that the situation
of many individuals—the lack of health care—is a product of forces largely
 Political Conflict in America 19

beyond their control. People are in need, and something should be done be-
cause they are not responsible for creating their plight. Only the state can
adequately respond. The result has been the development of many programs
to assist individuals in situations of need. First the government got involved
in providing health care to the elderly (Medicare) and the poor (Medicaid).
Then programs were developed for children who lacked coverage (CHIP,
Children’s Health Insurance Program). All these programs have grown in cost
over time. Then the Affordable Care Act was passed. It is not the only issue
involving the role that personal responsibility norms play in polarization, but
it is the latest and a particularly intense one.
As these government programs providing health care have expanded,
Republicans have steadily moved to stronger opposition to government
playing this role. They have expressed more and more concern about the
steady growth of programs and greater dependency on government. They see
liberals as too willing to expand the role of government and tax achievers to
pay for the programs. The party’s response has created an intense partisan de-
bate in Washington over welfare and disability benefits, the availability of
food stamps, and taxes, to name just a few issues.50
The changes shown in Figure 1.2 capture the matters to be explored. Oppo-
sition to government provision of programs has increased, creating greater
partisan differences. Is this because Republicans are becoming more conser-
vative,51 or are they just reacting to trends in ideas and programs being pushed
by liberals and Democrats?52 Our argument is that it is the dynamic of ideas
and programs that is creating the intense conflict between liberals and conser-
vatives. Liberals have steadily embraced the ideas that needs exist, that indi-
viduals often did not create their problems, and that government should
respond with programs. Conservatives have become more adamant about the
need for individuals to be responsible for their situations, to adopt behavioral
patterns that will help avoid need, and the virtues of limiting the role of gov-
ernment in society.
All these changes have not proceeded uniformly and with unanimity
among liberals and conservatives. The implications of ideas often take some
time for supporters and opponents to recognize. As ideas evolve there is con-
siderable disagreement among conservatives and liberals about just what
bundle of ideas should constitute being a liberal or conservative. Despite
these qualifications, however, there are clear general trends. In what follows,
we will by necessity engage in considerable simplification, but we think these
simplifications capture the changes that have occurred and the conflicts that
have resulted from these changes.
20 T he Sources of Con flict in A merican Polit ics

These are complex matters and deserve careful explication. We proceed as

follows. The first matter is to review the ideas about individualism that have
dominated much of the nation’s history. They establish the political culture
that has endured, and provided the contrast with developments in liberalism.
Then the evolution of liberalism will be reviewed, with an emphasis upon the
development of ideas within the social sciences regarding personal responsi-
bility. While social science is not the sole source of changing notions of liber-
alism, it has played a major role in changing notions of the appropriateness of
individualism as a way to understand society. Changes in liberalism will re-
ceive more attention than conservatives’ thought, because the major changes
in American politics involve evolution in liberal thought. Conservatives have
largely remained with the same views over time. We then turn to the reaction
of conservatives to changes in liberalism and the main thrust of social science
findings. Finally, we review several policy decisions to indicate how these dif-
ferences are reflected in policy conflicts within Congress.
 PART TWO

The Evolution of Liberal Thought

 2

America’s Commitment
to Individualism

Democracy and the Value of Individuals

America began as a nation dedicated to individual liberty and freedom. The
nation has a long history of adhering to principles that we now see as conser-
vative. For most of the nation’s first century these principles dominated
American culture and practices. There have been changes, which we will
pursue, but we begin our tracking of change with the ideas that have and con-
tinue to play a significant role in American politics.
If there is one initial and profound idea essential to democracy, it is the
political ideal that each individual has worth and has the right to express and
have his views considered as decisions are made.1 Those ideas presented a sig-
nificant challenge to the views that had dominated thinking about the nature
of society. In the 1700s the predominant view of society was that there was an
organic, natural hierarchy of individuals, with status derived from religious or
royalty bases. Some were simply more qualified and should naturally hold
positions of political power.2 The essence of this hierarchical view was that
individuals were naturally sorted into different levels of capability. There was
little reason to rely on the judgment of those with less capability. There was little
reason to worry about developing a significant role for the masses, because
most individuals simply did not have levels of talent and capability that
equipped them for participation in decisions regarding the proper ordering of
public life. Some people were simply of lesser worth in society and their fate
was of limited concern because it was already determined.
The Enlightenment and the development of democracy challenged these
views. The Enlightenment—especially its more radical elements—was a move-
ment to establish man and his ability to reason as the base of all authority. To
some within the movement, religion was to be removed as a basis of authority.
Markets should be allowed to operate without restrictions so that individuals
24 T he Evolu t ion of Liber al T hought

could pursue their interests.3 These ideas accorded with the premises of de-
mocracy that all individuals have worth, capabilities, and the fundamental
right to be included in decision-making. Sovereignty should be based in the
people.4 The accompanying presumption was that the society and govern-
ment exist to serve the needs and aspirations of individuals. As stated in the
Declaration of Independence:

Men are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these
Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

These sentiments became the basis for several tenets of liberalism that per-
sisted for some time. There was a strong emphasis on political egalitarianism
in the developing American culture, a point emphasized most strongly by
anti-Federalists thinkers but also one on which Federalists were in agree-
ment.5 All individuals had value regardless of their social status. Individuals
did not need to simply accept their status and defer to elites, but each could
play some minimal role in a democracy. The concern therefore should be to
create a context in which individuals could flourish. Government was to be a
creation and instrument of the people. Given the profound sense that strong
governments were prone to abuse power, the design of governmental arrange-
ments should focus on how to restrain government. The consequence was
that for well over 100 years of the nation’s history the primary definition of a
liberal was one who wanted to restrain government and maximize the free-
dom of individuals. A liberal government was a restrained government, because
liberty for individuals was of fundamental importance.6 More than anything
else, the fundamental gestalt, the principle at the core of the founding DNA
of the American experiment, is individual liberty; the freedom of the indi-
vidual to think and act as he (and ultimately she as well) sees fit so long as
there is no infringement on the liberty of others.
The early American fixation on liberty had two equally important compo-
nents: individualism and an almost rabid fear of government. Indeed, in his
examination of the intellectual origins of the American Revolution, Bailyn
argues that much of the political thought of the American founders was
rooted in ideas “based on extreme solicitude for the individual and an equal
hostility to government.”7 The Founders envisioned the United States as a
society where the individual was free to pursue his goals as he saw fit, so long
as he did not interfere with the ability of others to do the same. The state was
 America’s Commitment to Individualism 25

viewed as one of the primary threats to individual freedom. History had dem-
onstrated to the Founders that government routinely infringed upon and in
some cases entirely destroyed individual liberty. Thus one of the primary goals
in the design of the American system of governance was to come up with a
plan to control and limit the state’s ability to threaten individual freedom.8
There were, to be sure, doubts about whether this experiment might work.
Some doubted the capabilities of all to participate, and others worried about
the corrosive effects of individualism. The ideal that all should play a role was
powerful, but much of America’s history has involved the struggle to fully ac-
cept and act on the implications of this general notion.9 The ideal has per-
sisted, however, and its clash with reality has created a tension about whether
America will fulfill the ideal. The nation struggled for decades over the issue
of abolishing slavery. While the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclama-
tion appeared to end the subordinate status of blacks, the following decades
resulted in their systematic exclusion from voting in the South.10 Outside the
South the situation of blacks was better, but they still were denied much of a
role in American society for decades.11 Immigrants were regularly limited in
their right to vote. Women faced a long struggle to gain the right to vote, and
then other rights.12 Although fulfilling the ideal that all individuals should
have a say has been contentious, slow, and by no means can be considered
over, the ideal has persisted. The contrast between the ideal and reality has
provided a tension that has periodically prompted Americans to reduce the
discrepancy.
There was also concern about creating a society dominated by rampant
individualism. In order for the democratic experiment to succeed, the citi-
zenry would have to possess a certain degree of virtue.13 It was important that
citizens exhibit a high level of personal initiative and a great willingness to
work hard. The individual would have to strive to achieve in order to care for
himself and his family; only he was responsible for how his life and that of his
family turned out. Of course it would be possible—even desirable—for indi-
viduals to freely choose to help their fellow citizens who were less successful,
but there was no compulsion for them to do so. And there certainly was no
expectation that the state would step in to assist those who found themselves
in unpleasant circumstances. These early years of the nation, seemingly dis-
tant, set the stage for issues that we have grappled with ever since.14 The com-
mitment established to individualism is still very much with us.15
The consequences of these values played out in powerful ways over the
next century. Trying to sum up a century involves dangerous simplifications,
but there do appear to be some clear patterns. The years from the founding
26 T he Evolu t ion of Liber al T hought

through the late 1800s have some unity of thought. Much of the century was
dominated by political and economic ideals and beliefs that most individuals
could control their fate and had the opportunity to succeed. Those ideals
were reinforced by popular perceptions and developing notions of Social
Darwinism, to be discussed later. For many, the differences in achievement
that occurred were seen as the logical and legitimate result of individuals uti-
lizing their talents. A century later there were more doubts that individuals
were in control of their fate and could be held responsible. But for much of
the 1800s, the belief in individualism was strong.

Achievement and Inequality in the 1800s

If everyone has some worth and the goal of a society is to create a context in
which people can realize their potential, then we move to considering what
people are like, how they differ, and which social context and public policies
will help individuals achieve their goals. Ideas about how society works, why
people differ in success, and what is fair become important. If people have a
right to play a role and they vote on what should be done, then their percep-
tions of what is and their notions of what should be are central to politics.
It is the set of issues involving the capabilities and autonomy of individu-
als, the causes of inequality, the norm of equality of opportunity, the state of
society, and the appropriate role of government that have become central to
liberalism’s conflict with conservatives. The progression of ideas about each of
these matters has been neither linear nor changing steadily in one direction,
but there has been remarkable net change. There continues to be considerable
diversity among liberals in the extent of adherence to the ideas that will be
reviewed here. Nonetheless, there are some clear trends, and it is those trends
that have created the current divisions.
A central issue in American politics has been how we think about the re-
lationship of individuals to society and government. How much can individ-
uals achieve acting on their own? That answer in turn affects how much we
presume they should be expected to achieve, and how much should we expect
variations in that. These answers are tied in with notions of the appropriate
role of government. If individuals can succeed acting independently then we
can expect them to, and we should not expect government to play any role in
altering what happens.
America began as a nation that largely believed that the class stratification
that dominated Europe had been left behind. There was no heritage of royalty
or long-entrenched economic strata. The social status one was born into did
 America’s Commitment to Individualism 27

not fix individual capabilities.16 The nation was beginning without such a con-
fining history, and individuals had numerous opportunities to achieve based
on their performance.17 America was exceptional in not having a legacy of
social stratification.18 The absence of a rigid social order and the economic
context meant that “the things which are really essential for a successful life
are not circumstances, but qualities, not the things which surround a man,
but the things which are in him.”19 The term “individualism” first appeared in
the 1820s.20 Popular discourse was dominated by the idea that individuals
could improve their character.21 The belief that each person had worth, could
achieve, and that society should be organized around that principle was fun-
damental to the movement to abolish slavery.22
The nature of the economy for much of the first half of the 1800s contrib-
uted to the developing narrative that individual initiative could lead to suc-
cess. The economy was dominated by small-scale agricultural and craft activities.
Almost all individuals worked for themselves and not for others. The economy
was dominated by economically autonomous individuals. As P.T. Barnum
expressed it,“in a new country, where we have more land than people, it is not
at all difficult for persons in good health to make money.”23 The belief was
strong that individuals could and would succeed or fail largely through their
own efforts or lack thereof. The popular literature was filled with stories of
rags to riches, meant to inspire individuals to achieve.24
These norms about how individuals could and should function also had
implications for the larger society. They made ambition and accomplishment
and their results essential values. They provided a set of norms to guide indi-
vidual behavior in society. As stated by a prominent clergyman of the time:

The ambition to succeed may be and always ought to be a laudable one.

It is the ambition of every parent for his child. It is emphatically an
American ambition; at once the national vice and the national virtue.
It is the mainspring of activity; the driving wheel of industry; the spur
to intellectual and moral progress. It gives the individual energy; the
nation push. It makes the difference between a people that are a stream
and a people that are a pool; between America and China. It makes us
at once active and restless; industrious and over-worked; generous and
greedy. When it is great, it is a virtue; when it is petty, it is a vice.25

Given the valuable collective benefits to society that result from all this indi-
vidual pursuit of success, poverty was not regarded as detrimental. The argu-
ment was made by successful men like Andrew Carnegie that poverty was
28 T he Evolu t ion of Liber al T hought

a great motivator to individuals. The claim was that most successful men
had started poor, and the continuation of poverty would generate an endless
string of highly motivated individuals contributing to society as they sought
to improve themselves.26
This individualism had enormous normative implications for judging
results in society. If an individual could influence his or her fate then each in-
dividual was responsible for his or her fate. Individuals had many possibilities,
but whatever happened was presumed to be due to the choices they made and
the effort they put forth.27 If someone was a success, the rewards were deserved.
If someone did not do well, that outcome was also deserved. Individuals were
free, but they were also personally responsible for whatever outcomes occurred.
Inequalities in outcomes and income were not only justified, but considered
to be positive features of a healthy society. Inequality among individuals was
simply the result of a fair system that rewarded hard work and ingenuity and
punished sloth and laziness. Inequality had the powerful benefit of providing
motivation for those who were not successful. The model for achieving suc-
cess was there, and all one had to do was work.
The notions that some individuals simply had more talent and willing-
ness to work hard and that inequalities of outcomes were acceptable were
reinforced by the findings of Darwin and their transformation into Social
Darwinism in the latter part of the century.28 The idea that some people were
more capable was not new, but the notion that variations were genetically
based (and that that this was supported by science) provided greater legiti-
macy for inequality. Differences in human capabilities were seen as innate to
some degree, and academics were developing studies that documented that
some people simply had more intelligence.29 As we shall discuss later, the de-
terminism in this logic also undermined the idea that free will and individual
initiative were the source of achievement, and raised questions about the le-
gitimacy of not helping those lacking sufficient capabilities. But those doubts
were largely stifled in the late 1800s, and arguments about evolution among
animals were transformed into the belief that life was competitive and those
successful embodied the survival of the fittest, and should be left alone.30
Inequality was just a reflection of this reality, and was to be respected.
The dominant ideas in the emerging social sciences reinforced the belief
in individual responsibility. The social science disciplines developed slowly
in American universities in the late 1800s.31 Many of those teaching and
writing reflected the popular culture. The tie to the dominant culture was
made stronger by a lack of tenure and the inclination of wealthy university
donors to object to academics that disparaged economic elites or articulated
 America’s Commitment to Individualism 29

positions critical of conditions in the society.32 Economists were developing

interpretations of how the economic system worked that stressed the value
of free markets and capitalism. Their efforts provided support for lais-
sez-faire thought and a limited role for government.33 The combination of
Social Darwinism and the presumed virtues of free markets provided a firm
basis for emphasizing individualism.
This focus on the potential for individuals to develop had clear impli-
cations for the role of government. The logic was that government should
provide a context that maximized the possibilities for individuals to achieve
while assiduously avoiding any limitations on individual liberty. Liberty was
defined by most as freedom from government.34 It was a widespread argu-
ment that each individual had the freedom to contract with others and that
freedom should be preserved. While labor was organizing and sought to chal-
lenge that as a myth, efforts to act collectively and seek laws to define accept-
able work conditions were regularly struck down by the courts as favoring one
side over another and altering the rules of free contracts.35 The argument of
those opposed to labor laws was that government would be interfering in the
market, and could not take a neutral position.
Government was to stay out of shaping economic exchanges, but let indi-
viduals operate to the best of their abilities. Government was to set the rules
but provide no advantages or disadvantages to any one group. It was seen as
acceptable for government to help create a favorable context by support-
ing endeavors that benefited everyone but were too expensive for private en-
terprise to undertake. This meant providing funding to help the growth of
railroads or supporting the building of roads.36 But once government had es-
tablished this context, it should not intervene to alter outcomes among indi-
viduals. Any inequalities in outcomes were a result of individual talents, and
effort and should be respected. To engage in any redistribution would di-
minish the incentive for individuals to achieve. Diminishing this incentive
would be harmful not only to the individual, but more importantly to society
as a whole. It was best to allow free will and individual initiatives to play out.
In the language of contemporary conservatives, government should not pick
winners and losers.
This commitment to the propriety and necessity of individual initiative
and responsibility dominated among Americans during much of the 1800s.37
During this time the idea of individual responsibility was not identified as
a conservative idea. Indeed, the ideological conflict that we today identify
as liberal versus conservative did not begin to be widely labeled as such until
the 1930s.38 If anything, the primacy of the individual and the need for the
30 T he Evolu t ion of Liber al T hought

individual to be responsible for his own actions was identified as a liberal idea,
in the classical sense of liberalism. This is evident in the great pains that both
Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman (to be discussed in more detail later)
took to place their championing of individual freedom within the classical
liberal tradition.39 The concept of individual responsibility was also accepted
by both major political parties during this period. In his seminal examination
of partisan ideologies in the United States, Gerring makes the following
observations of the Republican and Democratic Parties respectively during
the nineteenth century:

The virtually unanimous opinion of those who have studied the

Republican Party is that, whatever else the party may have stood for, it
also represented the values of individualism . . . For National Republi-
cans, the Protestant ethic was a code of conduct more than a charter of
rights. Citizens were implored to exercise self-restraint, self-control,
self-mastery—to behave in a “civilized” fashion. . . . [The Democrats]
were radical in the sense that the American revolutionaries were rad-
ical, which is to say, they were alert to every encroachment of power
that might threaten cherished liberties.40

Within both political parties and within American society individualism was
a powerful creed for the first 100-plus years of American history. It was only
with the rise of the Progressives, and more fully with the creation of the New
Deal, that the absolute certitude and necessity of individual responsibility
began to be challenged.41
 3

Social Conditions and a Role

for Government
individualism and a belief in limited government were fundamental
to the identity of America during the 1800s. To believe in liberalism was to
focus on limiting government so that individuals could flourish. But by the
1930s liberalism was being redefined as a belief in using government to create
a context within which individuals could flourish. This transition is the first
major change in the redefinition of liberalism. Government was to intervene
to address situations that individuals could not adequately address on their
own, and to help people in need. The simple narrative that society was best
served by emphasizing individualism and holding individuals responsible for
their decisions and situations was being challenged by a very different inter-
pretation. Individualism and unease about a role for government did not dis-
appear, but the sense of how the world worked and what role government
could play were considerably more complex by the late 1930s.
This change in liberalism emerged from two major developments that
challenged the power of the individualistic interpretation of how society does
and should work. One involved increasing doubts that relying on free markets
and limited government always worked well for society. The other involved
developing ideas about the sources of variations in individual achievement.
These two intellectual streams came together to suggest that relying on indi-
vidualism might not be enough to make society work well, and that govern-
ment could (and eventually should) play a role. They also challenged
dominant cultural norms that individuals were entirely responsible for their
situations. How people thought about society was changing, and as it did so
too did their views on the proper role of the state.

Industrialization, Wage Earning, and Conflict

The first source of ideas that altered liberalism involved reactions to a chang-
ing economy. The late 1800s saw a steady growth of large corporations and
32 T he Evolu t ion of Liber al T hought

growing concentrations of wealth. These trends conflicted with the his-

toric notion that individuals had the ability to influence their lives acting
alone. As the nature of the economy changed, was it appropriate to as-
sume that individuals were operating with autonomy? The steady demise
of isolated communities and the growing economic and social interde-
pendence in cities created situations in which some argued that govern-
ment needed to step in to protect individuals from economic forces they
could not affect. There were also some arguing that the overall state of the
economy and unemployment could be managed by government spending
and taxing. This was a challenge to notions of the virtues of limited gov-
ernment. The Great Depression was seen by many as confirmation of the
problems with a constrained government.
The fundamental conviction of nineteenth-century liberalism was that
limiting government and allowing free markets provided a context in which
individuals could flourish and freely determine their own fates. European
governments had heavily regulated markets and limited the freedom of indi-
viduals to pursue their own fortunes. America had developed with a faith in
markets. Each individual was presumed to be capable of affecting his or her
fortune and was operating in a context where this was possible. In the early
1800s there were not large companies. Most adult white men were farmers,
working autonomously, while others were small-scale craftsmen. During the
latter half of the 1800s and the early 1900s a fundamental challenge to indi-
vidualism emerged as the nature of the economy changed. By the end of the
century only 45 percent of the workforce was employed in agriculture.1 More
and more individuals worked in factories and earned hourly wages, and their
employment and working conditions were being determined by corporations
and industrialists. Their livelihood was dependent on conforming to the rules
of others. To remain employed they were often expected to work long hours
in less than safe conditions in factories and mines. The consequence was that
it was harder for some to see individuals as autonomous and capable of suc-
ceeding by acting alone. The notion of independent actors carving out their
fate seemed less and less accurate as a description of how society worked.2 To
work meant to accept the conditions others offered. A market economy
meant freedom for some, but it limited that of others.3
The concern was that the control of economic activity was becoming con-
centrated in fewer and fewer hands, resulting in greater inequalities in the
distributions of income and wealth.4 Some industries were dominated by
single individuals. Oil was dominated by Rockefeller, railroads by Vanderbilt
and Pullman, and finance by J.P. Morgan.5 These men had a significant ability
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Pathfinding on Plain
and Prairie
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Pathfinding on Plain and Prairie

Author: John McDougall

Illustrator: J. E. Laughlin

Release date: March 23, 2020 [eBook #61657]

Most recently updated: October 17, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Al Haines

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PATHFINDING ON

PLAIN AND PRAIRIE ***
"Here one of the bravest of our men was slain." (Page 152.)
PATHFINDING ON PLAIN
AND PRAIRIE:
STIRRING SCENES OF LIFE IN THE
CANADIAN NORTH-WEST.

BY

JOHN McDOUGALL,
Author of "Forest, Lake and Prairie," "Saddle, Sled and
Snowshoe," etc.

WITH ILLUSTRATIONS BY J. E. LAUGHLIN.

TORONTO:
WILLIAM BRIGGS,
WESLEY BUILDINGS.
MONTREAL: C. W. COATES. HALIFAX: S. F. HUESTIS.
1898.
 Entered according to Act of the Parliament of Canada, in the year one thousand eight
hundred and ninety-eight, by WILLIAM BRIGGS, at the Department of Agriculture.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
"Thin leather homes"—Drudgery of the Indian women—Occupations of the men—Hunting
parties and scalping forays—Triumphs of endurance

CHAPTER II.

Camping in the snow—Our costume—Brilliant sunrise effects—Maple and her pups found
at last—Striking example of "dog sense"—The Fort Garry packet

CHAPTER III.
We visit Edmonton—Nature's grand cathedral—Adventure with a buffalo bull—A trip to
Pigeon Lake—Racing with dog-teams—An infidel blacksmith—Old Joseph proves an
unerring guide—Caching our provisions

CHAPTER IV.

Epidemic breaks out among the Indians—Snow-blindness—I take to me a wife—Our

modest dowry—My father officiates as a Stationing Committee—Fearful mortality
 among the Indians—Our journey to Pigeon Lake—The epidemic attacks our camp—A
rude hospital—An exciting buffalo hunt—Chased by a maddened bull—Narrow escape

CHAPTER V.
Our caravan moves on—Difficulties of packing—Oliver's adventures with a buffalo—
Novel method of "blazing" a path—Arrival at Pigeon Lake—House-building—
Abundance of fish—Indians camp about the Mission—I form many enduring
friendships—Indians taught fishing with nets

CHAPTER VI.
We are visited by a band of Crees—Our guests steal away with a bunch of horses—Stonies
set out in hot pursuit—Little William's strategy—Horses recaptured—We begin
farming operations—Arrival of Mr. Steinhauer—Home to Victoria again—A
memorable Sabbath—My gun bursts—Narrow escape—My mother's cares and
anxieties—Home-made furniture

CHAPTER VII.
I travel with Maskepetoon's camp—Effects of environment on the Indians—Nature's
grandeur and beauty—Degradation through paganism—The noble Chief Maskepetoon
—Indian councils—On the fringe of the buffalo herds—Indian boy lost—A false
conjurer—The lad recovered

CHAPTER VIII.
The "Thirst Dance"—"Tobacco messages"—The head conjurer—"Dancing lodges"—The
rendezvous—The "idol tree"—Meeting of the head conjurer and the chief of the
warriors—An anxious moment—Building the "temple"—Self-torture, dancing and
sacrifices—The festival concluded—Romantic situation for our camp
 CHAPTER IX.

Our great camp a study of native types—I attend a "wolf feast"—A disgusting orgie—Paul
and I start for home—Our horses stampede—Difficult tracking—Enormous herd of
buffalo—Home again and all well—Party of half-breeds from the Red River settlement
visit our Mission—Father returns, bringing a brother and sister from Ontario

CHAPTER X.

We return to Pigeon Lake—"Scarred Thigh" exchanged for "Blackfoot"—Planting Gospel

seed—We organize a buffalo hunt—A moose chase—The buffalo as a "path-finder"—
We encounter a hostile camp—All night on guard—My friend Mark's daring exploit—
Wood Stonies visit the Mission—Gambling, polygamy and superstition among the
Indians

CHAPTER XI.
We return to Victoria—War parties abroad—Father's influence over the Indians—We
organize a big fresh meat hunt—David's first buffalo hunt—Mark's adventure with a
war party—Surrounded by wolves—Incidents of our journey—Preparing for the winter

CHAPTER XII.

A visit to Whitefish Lake—A devoted Indian missionary—Mark and I go out after buffalo
—Mark proves himself a brilliant hunter—Our camp visited by wolves—Muddy Bull's
generosity—We reach home with full loads of meat

CHAPTER XIII.

A run to Edmonton—Mr. Hardisty and other Hudson's Bay Company officers spend New
Year's with us—Sports and amusements—Our party sets out for Mountain House—I
experience a "scare"—Intense cold—A cunning dog—Mishaps to a cariole—In the
foot-hills—My first view of the Rockies—Hearty reception at Mountain House—Back
to Victoria
 CHAPTER XIV.
Home occupations—A course of lectures—Mark and Jimmie as raconteurs—Mark's
success as a deer-killer—A buffalo chase on a dog-sled—Our first child is born—
Chickens at eight shillings apiece!

CHAPTER XV.
David and I visit Lac la Biche—High-priced seed wheat—Our party sets out for Pigeon
Lake—Old Joseph—Paul Chian—Samson—Our larder depleted—We organize a bunt
—Precarious living—Old Paul proves himself a skilful guide—Samson tells of a tragic
murder by Blackfeet—We move cautiously—Broiled owlets as a delicacy—I shoot an
elk—Little Paul's flint-lock hangs fire—Samson's brilliant hunting feats—Feasting on
antlers

CHAPTER XVI.
Samson and I go on a moose hunt—Samson's clever tracking—He comes up with the
moose and tries a shot—No bullet in the gun—Two dejected hunters return to the camp
—We have better luck next time—Roses make a thorny path—We disturb a band of
wolves—Samson stampedes them with his riding-whip—"Firing Stony" and I go
hunting—I bring down a noble elk—Novel method of fishing

CHAPTER XVII.
Our camp visited by a band of Mountain Stonies—My schooling in the university of
frontier life—Back to our Mission again—Limited cuisine—Home-made agricultural
implements—We visit Victoria—Off to Fort Carlton for Mission supplies—Inquisitive
Chippewyans—My eldest sister married to Mr. Hardisty, of the Hudson's Bay Company
—The honeymoon trip to Mountain House—Rival sportsmen—Charging a flock of
wild geese at full gallop—Return to Pigeon Lake—Our work extending
 CHAPTER XVIII.
Father visits our Mission—A dream that proved a portent—Drowning of Mr. Connor
—"Straight fish" diet—We are visited by a war party of Crees—I am given a problem
to solve—Francis and I set out to seek fresh provisions—Feasting on fat bear steaks—
A lonely Christmas—Mr. Hardisty visits us—We in turn visit Mountain House—A hard
winter in the Saskatchewan country—Rations on short allowance—A run to Victoria—
David and I have a hard experience—Father and mother as "good Samaritans"

CHAPTER XIX.

We start out to hunt for buffalo—Fish and frozen turnips—A depleted larder—David's bag
of barley meal—At the point of starvation—We strike Maskepetoon's camp—An
Indian burial—Old Joseph dying—We leave the camp—Generous hospitality—A
fortunate meeting—Frostbites—A bitterly cold night—Unexpected visitors—Striking
instance of devotion—I suffer from snowshoe cramp—Arrival at Victoria—Old
Joseph's burial—Back to Pigeon Lake

CHAPTER XX.
My brother a "ready-made pioneer"—Hunting rabbits—Two roasted rabbits per man for
supper—I find my friend, Firing Stony, in a flourishing condition—Poisoning wolves—
A good morning's sport—I secure a wolf, two foxes and a mink—Firing Stony poisons
his best dog—I enjoy a meal of bear's ribs—I meet with a severe accident—Samson
treats me to a memorable feast

CHAPTER XXI.
Alternate feasting and fasting—We start out on a buffalo hunt—Old Paul brings down a fine
moose—Providential provision—Enoch Crawler kills another moose—Magnificent
landscapes—Entering the great treeless plains—-Wonderful mirages—We come upon
the tracks of buffalo—Our men shoot a huge grizzly—Charging a bunch of cows—A
lively chase—Samson's plucky plunge over a bank after the buffalo—I chase and kill a
fine cow—The camp busy killing and making provisions—Guarding against hostile
Indians
 CHAPTER XXII.
A busy camp—Process of butchering and drying meat—How pemmican is made—Our
camp in peril—Chasing a herd of buffalo up a steep bank—Mark scores a point on me
—We encounter a war party of Blackfeet—A fortunate rain-storm—A mirage gives us
a false alarm—Unwritten laws as to rights of hunters

CHAPTER XXIII.
Into the timber country again—Craving for vegetable food—Wild rhubarb a treat—I shoot a
big beaver—My horse objects to carrying it—A race for the life of my child—Terrific
fight between my dogs and a huge wolverine—Reach Pigeon Lake and find father there
—Anxiety felt for our party—A meagre bill of fare—A visit to Victoria—I narrowly
escape drowning—Father leaves for Ontario, taking with him my three sisters—Francis
leaves us to return to Victoria—My varied offices among the Indians

CHAPTER XXIV.
Our first interment—Jacob's tragic death—Hostile Flatheads in quest of horses, scalps and
glory—Stonies attacked by a party of Blackfeet—A hot fusilade—Mark's father is
killed—Destitution prevalent—Hunting lynx—My dogs seized with distemper—All
have to be shot—Another provision hunt organized—Among the buffalo—I narrowly
escape being shot—Heterogeneous character of our camp—Mutual distrust and dislikes
—United by fear of a common foe—The effects of Christianity

CHAPTER XXV.

Through new country—"Greater Canada"—Antelopes—Startling effects of mirage—War

parties keep us on the alert—Remarkable speed of a plain Cree—A curious superstition
—A Cree's gruesome story—Returning with carts fully loaded—Followed by hostile
Indians—I sight and chase a "sitting" bull—My shot wounds him—Paul's son thrown
under the brute's feet—Firing Stony's clever shot to the rescue—We arrive at the
Mission—Road-making
 CHAPTER XXVI.
Another visit to Victoria—Fall in with a war party of Kootenays and Flatheads—Samson
and I go moose-hunting—A Sabbath afternoon experience—A band of moose enjoy
Sabbath immunity—I start out to meet father returning from the East—The glorious
Saskatchewan Valley—Call at Fort Pitt—Equinoctial storms—Entertained by a French
half-breed family—Meet Mr. Hardisty and one of my sisters—Camp-fire chat—
Meeting with father—Rev. Peter Campbell and others with his party—Father relates his
experience in the East—Rev. Geo. Young sent to Red River Settlement and Rev. E. R.
Young to Norway House

CHAPTER XXVII.
Father pushes on for home in advance—Hard times for the "tenderfeet"—A plunge into icy
water—My brother David gallops into camp—His high spirits prove infectious—
Kindness of the Hudson's Bay Company—Oxen sent to help us in to Victoria—A
mutinous camp-follower—My threat of a sound thrashing subdues the mutineer—Our
long journey is ended—Adieu to my readers

ILLUSTRATIONS.
"Here one of the bravest of our men was slain" ... Frontispiece

"The brilliant flashes of the aurora light"

"My cap ... falling right in the face of the bull, for the moment blinded him"

"I saw more buffalo than I had ever dreamed of before"

"I went at him with firebrands"

"Rising up I let drive at the larger of the two"

"Down we ran, and chased them across the full length of the bar"

"We carried the haycocks in between us on two poles"

"And now I ... tapped his nose for him so effectually that he was stunned"

"I succeeded in getting hold of the end of a tree"

"With unerring aim he shot the bull through the head"

"He was a funny-looking specimen as he picked himself up out of the icy

stream"

PATHFINDING ON PLAIN AND PRAIRIE.

CHAPTER I.
"Thin leather homes"—Drudgery of the Indian women—Occupations of the men—Hunting
parties and scalping forays—Triumphs of endurance.

It was during the last days of January, 1865, in the story of my

experiences in our great Canadian West, that I parted company for a time
with my readers in "SADDLE, SLED AND SNOWSHOE." We were
domiciled for the night in Muddy Bull's lodge. The weather was intensely
cold. I believe I am safe in saying that all through January the mercury never
rose above 10° below zero, and that it ranged from this down to 50° below.
 In our lodge, which was one of the best, with ordinary travelling costume
on, a blanket or a robe over our shoulders, and a brisk fire in the centre of
the tent, we were passably cosy; but even then we had to turn around every
little while and "warm the other side." Great bright, brisk fires were kept up
in those "thin leather homes" of our Indian people, entailing a vast amount of
work upon the women and girls of the camps. Gradually, by example,
perhaps, more than precept, we brought about a lessening of the labor of the
women; but in the meantime, during the cold winter months, the furnishing
of wood to keep those huge fires going gave them constant employment. It
must be said, however, they accepted the labor and drudgery with cheerful
alacrity, and could be seen at all hours of the day stringing over the hills and
across the plains with dogs and horses and travois, their own backs loaded to
the utmost carrying capacity with wood.

The life of an Indian woman in those early days was, indeed, an

extremely busy one. Packing and unpacking dogs and horses, making camps,
providing wood, making and mending moccasins and wearing apparel,
cooking, cutting up, drying and pounding meat, rendering grease, chopping
bones to get out the marrow fat, making pemmican, stretching, scraping and
dressing buffalo hides to make robes or leather—a long, tedious process, in
which not only the brains of the worker were needed in order to excel, but
also those of the dead animals as well—kept her going early and late.
Besides all this, the manufacturing of saddles, travois, tents and shagganappi
also devolved upon the women; and yet, notwithstanding all this, they
seemed, generally speaking, to be contented and happy, and with true
feminine resource still found time to give to attire and adornment, and the
practising of all those mysterious arts which have charmed and magnetized
the other sex, doubtless through all the past of our race. No wonder these
women and girls were at a premium, and cost all the way from a blanket up
to a band of stolen horses! The more of them a man had, then the greater
man was he.

Nor was the life of the male Indian altogether that of a sinecure.
Somehow or other the idea has gone abroad that these Indians led a very lazy
life. But if the man who thought this had spent some time with either wood
or plain Indians, and had accompanied them on their hunting and war
expeditions, he would have materially changed his views.
 To follow a wood hunter on foot from before daylight in the short days,
through brush and copse and heavy timber, over big hills and across wide
valleys, on and on for many miles, sometimes until noon or late in the
afternoon before a "kill" is made; or, having started game, to run for miles at
a terrific pace, hoping to head off the quarry and at last secure a shot; then,
having killed, to butcher or secure from wolf, or coyote, or wolverine the
desired meat and strike as straight as possible for the camp, sometimes
many, many miles distant, with thick forest and dense darkness now
intervening; or it may be to have all the labor and exhaustion of such a chase
without the chance of a shot, reaching camp late at night wearied and
disappointed. To continue this for days, sometimes feasting and again
famishing—and all this not from choice but of necessity—could be counted
no easy matter. It is not for fun, but life; health, income, influence, honor,
respect, all these are dependent on your efforts.

It may be with the same wood hunter you start a prime buck moose or elk
during those glorious days in the beginning of autumn, and he bounds away
in his strength and swiftness. Your Indian says, "We must run him down,"
and leads off in long, regular strides, and for a time you feel as if your lungs
were in your throat and your heart is beating a double tattoo. Over and under
fallen timber, down precipitous banks, up steep hills, and it takes some time
for you to "catch your second wind," and to brace up your will and say to
yourself, "I am also a man," and then settle down like your Indian to steady
work.

He, however, is doing more than you, who are but following him. He is
noting lay of land and direction of wind, calculating in order to cut across
where your game may have gone around, watching the tracks, gauging the
distance the buck is ahead of you, noting the settling of the earth at edge of
pool or creek where the big fellow left his tracks as he ran. and you are
encouraged and spurred on, or contrariwise, as the crafty hunter tells you in
hushed tones what he knows.

Then, by and by, after an hour or two, or three, perhaps, of such work,
you stand beside the fallen carcase and wipe your forehead and wish you had
a dozen towels; but while your exultations and congratulations are hot within
you, a word of caution comes from the Indian beside you: "The sun is low
and the camp is far; let us hurry," and the work of butchering and skinning
the meat goes on, till presently, with a load of meat on your back, you start
for the distant camp. Suppose, as you tramped and climbed and panted, some
one had said, "What a lazy life yours is," you would have shouted back, "No,
sir; not in any sense is this a lazy life!"

Or it may be your hunter friend is in for a "fur hunt," and you start with
him to make a line of dead-falls for marten, or to hang a hundred or so of
snares for lynx. The snow is deep, and at every step several pounds of it fall
in on your snowshoe; but from early morn until late in the evening you
tramp and toil, chopping and stooping and grunting over snare and deadfall,
and when night is on, having carried your provisions, blanket and kettle all
day, besides the baits for dead-falls and snares for lynx traps, you dig away
the deep snow, cut some wood and make a fire for the night. While the fire
burns, you doze and chill, and pile on fuel and wait for morning, only to
repeat yesterday's work, and so on, until, having made a big detour and hung
your snares and carefully fixed your deadfalls, you in three or four days
reach home. Then in a short time you must visit all these, and in the
intervening days make your forays for food. No one who has tried this
manner of obtaining a living will pronounce it a lazy life.

But suppose you were with some plain or buffalo Indians, and, as was
about the average condition in the winter time, the buffalo were from fifty to
two hundred miles from your camp—the rigor of the winter and the
condition of grass and wood forbidding the camp moving any nearer to them
—the hunting parties had constantly to be organized and the meat and robes
brought from long distances home. Under such circumstances the hunter not
only had to undergo great hardships, but also to run very great risks. Storms
on the bleak, treeless plains, with deep snow, and travel of necessity slow
and difficult, were indeed as "the powers of the air" and darkness to
encounter and overcome, and the really indolent man was not in it when
such work was engaged in.

Then it was incumbent upon every able-bodied man, under the code of
honor of the time, to make an annual or bi-annual or even more frequent
foray for horses and scalps. These trips generally took place in the spring
and fall. With the melting of snow and ice in spring, or the making of the
same in autumn, parties large and small would be made up. Each with lariat
and a few pairs of moccasins, and, if possessed of a gun, with as much
ammunition as he could obtain, or armed with bow and quiver full of shod
arrows, in the dead of night these men would start for the enemy's country,
depending on sustaining life by the chase on their way. Journeying on,
sometimes by day and sometimes by night, fording rapid streams and
swimming wide rivers, what signified the breaking up of the season or the
plunge into ice-cold water of river and swamp to them? These must be
considered as trifles. By and by, when the enemy's presence is felt there will
come the weary watching and waiting, amid cold and hunger, for cunning
and strategy are now pitted the one against the other, and endurance and
pluck must back these up or the trip will be a failure. One, two, three
hundreds of miles of steady tramping, with your camp always facing in the
direction of where your enemy is supposed to be. Every day or night the
scouts, making thrice the distance covered by the party, keep up their
constant effort to discover and forestall counter war-parties, or to find the
enemy's camp; and when this is found sometimes to hang for days on its
movements, and, following up, watch for a favorable spot and time either to
make a charge or to steal in under cover of storm or darkness and drive off
bands of horses. Then in either case to start for home, and push on regardless
of weather so long as men and horses will hold out.

After a successful raid those long runs for home were great tests of horse-
flesh and human endurance. With scalded legs, blistered feet and weary
limbs, and with eyes heavy for want of sleep, these men, now exultant with
victory, would vie with each other in the race for camp. A lazy man
assuredly had no place in such trials of endurance and of hardship.
Furthermore, upon the men and boys of the camp devolved the care of the
horses. The herding and guarding of these gave many a weary tramp or ride,
and many a night in cold and storm, without sleep or rest. And finally, the
constant need of protecting their camps from the wily enemy was a source of
permanent worry, and always rested as a heavy responsibility upon these
men.

CHAPTER II.
Camping in the snow—Our costume—Brilliant sunrise effects—Maple and her pups found
at last—Striking example of "dog sense"—The Fort Garry packet.

Just now we are surrounded by both wood and plain hunters.

Maskepetoon in my time always had a following of both parties. The
gambling and conjuring drums are beating in several lodges. In others, as in
ours, the evening hymn is being sung and prayer offered, and presently we
roll in our blankets and robes, and sleep, though it takes me some time to
forget my lost train of Maple and her pups.

By 2 a.m. we are up boiling our kettle and snatching a bite of breakfast.

Then by the clear moonlight we begin the loading of our sleds. This is
tedious work, and had it not been for the innumerable host of dogs, our own
to boot, we would have had this over and all ready last evening. Now in the
keen cold of early morn even old Joseph has to move quickly to keep from
freezing. To put from five to six hundred pounds of frozen meat on a narrow
dog-sled, and as nearly as possible to maintain the equilibrium is no light
task. But by four o'clock sleds are loaded and dogs harnessed, we bid Mr.
and Mrs. Muddy Bull a hasty good-bye, and are off to make the sixty-mile
drive home in the day if we can. And who doubts our doing it? Not
ourselves, at any rate, for the road is fair, our dogs fresh and strong, and we,
costumed as we are, must move or freeze.

Perhaps I am the best clad in the party, and my clothes altogether will not
weigh much. A flannel shirt, moleskin pants, full length leggings with garters
below the knees, duffil socks and neat moccasins, a Hudson's Bay capote,
unlined and unpadded in any part, a light cap, and mittens which are most of
the time tied on the load, while I wear a pair of thin unlined buckskin gloves.
This is in a sense almost "laying aside every weight," but the race which was
set before the ordinary dog-driver in the days I am writing of was generally
sufficient to keep him warm.

In my own case, I did not for several years wear any underclothing, and
though in the buffalo country, and a buffalo hunter, I never had room or
transport for a buffalo coat until the Canadian Pacific Railroad reached
Alberta, and the era of heavy clothing and ponderous boots came in, with
ever and anon men frozen to death in them! Not so with us; we run and lift
and pull and push, and are warm. Old Joseph has for a leader a big dog
called "Blucher," and every little while there rings out in the crisp air the call
"Buchen," for in Joseph's soft, euphonious tongue there is no use for "l" and
"r."

Before daylight we have pulled up in the lee of a clump of poplars, and,

kicking away the snow and gathering wood, have built a glorious fire. A
hasty second breakfast, and again we are off, while the day-sky is still faint
in the eastern horizon. And now the cold seems to double in rigor; old
"Draffan's" breath solidifies ere it disappears into the infinity of frozen air on
every hand. Even the smooth toboggan and the soft moccasin are not
noiseless on the hard crisp snow of the road. It is cold, but the colder it
becomes the harder we drive. "Marse, Buchen!" from old Joseph, "Yoh-ho!
Put-eyo," from Susa.

The only dog inclined to sneak in my train is "Grog." I ring out his name
so sharply as to make him think his last day has come, and he springs into
his collar with such vim as to quicken the whole train into a faster step.

Now the morning is upon us, and presently the clear sunlight glorifies the
waking world. Tiny shrub, willow bush, timber clump, valley and hill, with
their millions of glittering ice crystals, are brilliantly illumined. The scene is
dazzling and beautiful in the extreme. For miles on every hand as we run the
shadows give way to the most brilliant light, and here and yonder the dark
spots, denoting buffalo, singly or in groups, stand out with startling
distinctness on the great white expanse.

Stopping for our mid-day meal, we jerk our dogs out of their collars to
give them a chance to lick snow and gambol around and freshen themselves
generally, while we hurriedly boil our kettle and get out our supply of dried
meat. While doing this we also give our dogs about two ounces each of the
dried meat, just to liven them up and give them an agreeable anticipation of
their supper—the one square meal in twenty-four hours they will have at the
end of the day's journey. As we gnaw at our dried meat, thankful that what
teeth we have left are sound, we drink hot tea and discuss dogs, Indians,
white men, and the broad questions of civilization and Christianity. Susa is
thoroughly optimistic and joyously sanguine. Joseph is also as to
Christianity, but civilization and men and dogs, "well, he kinder doubts"—at
any rate he will wait and see. But we cannot wait long now, so we tie on our
kettle and cups, catch our dogs, and start away, leaving our camp-fire to burn
itself out. As the shades of night are commencing to fall we turn our loads on
their sides, and thus run them down the steep long banks of the
Saskatchewan, then righting them at its foot, dash across the big river, and
with dogs pulling for all they are worth, and we pushing behind, we climb
the other more moderate bank, and are at home once more.

There is general lamentation over the loss of Maple and her pups. The
girls shed tears. Little George cannot understand how big brother John could
lose a whole train of dogs and sled. Father had taken a great fancy to those
pups ever since the Blackfoot trip, and he is sorry because of their loss.
Never mind, we are at home, and we unharness and unload, pile away our
meat and feed our dogs, visit with our friends, and long before daylight next
morning are on the out-bound journey for more meat.

Reaching the Indian camp that evening, I was disappointed at there being
no tidings of my lost train. But again we loaded, and started home in the
night, and before daylight we came to the camp of a solitary hunter, John
Whitford by name, where to my great delight we found the missing team.
They had come to John's camp a few hours before us. John said that he heard
a jingle of bells, and expected some travellers were either coming to or
passing his camp. Then, hearing no further sounds, he went out to see what it
was, when he found Maple alone in harness, but dragging the other four sets
of harness behind her. Evidently the sled had caught in some bush and the
young dogs had become impatient, and one by one wriggled out of their
bonds. Then the wise old mother dog had gone back to the sled and bitten off
the traces close up to it, thus freeing herself from the sleigh and saving the
harness. She then started for home, and concluding to rest by the way at
John's camp, we found her there with her pups.

One often hears about "horse sense," but here was a good large sample of
dog sense. That this dog, with her own traces and those of four other dogs
between her and the sleigh, should pass all these and go back to the sleigh to
cut away and liberate herself, and thus save to us these harnesses, was
amazing. I would have rejoiced over the dogs alone, but to receive these
back with the harness was great good fortune. I hitched Maple and her pups
beside my own train, and taking some meat from Joseph and Susa, lightened
their loads and on we went at a much quicker step. On reaching home that
evening I need not say there was general rejoicing over the recovery of our
lost dogs.

As the buffalo moved so did also the Indian camps, and gradually our
meat trails went westward for the month of February. This trip it was fresh
meat, and the next it would be a mixed load of pounded and dried meat
cakes and bladders of grease and tongues, and as the distance was never
more than a big day's run, we would put on tremendous loads, so that
gradually our storehouse was being filled up.

Through storm and cold, and sometimes very heavy roads, or no roads at
all, Joseph, Susa and myself kept at the work of providing for our mission
party. Those at home in the meantime were constantly busy holding
meetings, doctoring the sick, taking out timber, whipsawing lumber, or
hauling hay and wood. Indeed, there was no time to become lonely or to
think of the onions and garlic of the former Egypt. Our party knew it was out
in a larger wilderness, but, full of Christian resolution, each one felt as did
Joshua and Caleb.

The event of the winter was the arrival of the February packet from Fort
Garry. A few letters from Eastern friends it might bring, with two or three
newspapers several months old; but this was the one connecting link, and the
dwellers in the Hudson's Bay posts and at mission stations in the North-
West, though far apart, felt a common interest in this packet, for it not only
brought news from the far East, but also from one another. For days before
its expected arrival at the post or mission the packet was the chief item of
conversation. Many an eye was turned to the direction whence it should
come. Many a person the last thing at night would stand out in the cold and
listen for the sound of bells which might indicate the approach of the eagerly
looked-for mail. And when at last it came, how many were disappointed.
The one lone chance, and still no news where so much had been expected.

And for the swarthy-faced, wiry-built, hardy men who brought this
packet, as you looked at them you could see fifty miles a day stamped on
their every move; fifty miles and more through deep snow, blinding storms
and piercing cold. Picked men these were, and they knew it, and held
themselves accordingly, heroes for the time being at every post they touched.
Nor did these faithful fellows tarry long at any one place. Arriving in the
morning, they were away the same afternoon. Coming in late at night, off
before daylight next morning. This was the manner of their faithful service
to the great Company which somehow or other had the faculty of inspiring
its employees with splendid loyalty to itself.

CHAPTER III.
We visit Edmonton—Nature's grand cathedral—Adventure with a buffalo bull—A trip to
Pigeon Lake—Racing with dog-teams—An infidel blacksmith—Old Joseph proves an
unerring guide—Caching our provisions.

About the last of February father determined to visit Edmonton, and

mother also went for a change. Father took Joseph's dogs, and drove himself.
Peter, with the team Susa had been using, drove the cariole in which mother
rode. I had charge of the baggage and camp equipage, the provisions, and the
wood-work of a plough which we were taking to the blacksmith's to have
ironed. We kept the river all the way and made the hundred or more miles in
less than two days. It has always seemed to me in travelling, up or down our
ice-bound northern rivers, either by night or by day, that a solemn,
reverential feeling well befitted the scene. The long gentle sweeps, and the
succeeding abrupt turnings of the river's windings; the high and sometimes
precipitous forest-covered banks, always like great curtains casting shade
and gloom and sombre colors; the fitful gleaming of sun or moon, or the
brilliant flashes of the aurora light; the howling-of the timber wolf or the
barking of a family of coyotes, sending echoes to reverberate through the
canyons formed by tributary streams—all these could not fail to impress the
traveller. To me, thoughtless and light-hearted as I was in those early days,
there always came a feeling as though I were in the aisles of a tremendous
cathedral.
 "The brilliant flashes of the aurora light."

The great temple was completed. The Master Architect was satisfied. The
glorious creation calmly waited. By and by the thronging multitudes would
enter. In the meantime in humble faith and trust we worshipped. From a little
ledge of bank in the thickly clustering pines, while our camp-fire lit up the
nook with ruddy glow of warm light, our evening song of praise made the
steep banks and the tall woods ring with lofty cheer.

We spent the Sabbath at Edmonton, father attending to his duties as

chaplain and our whole party enjoying for a day or two the sojourn in the
depot fort or miniature metropolis of this great West; then back down the
great river, reaching home early the afternoon of the second day, which
enabled Joseph, Susa, and myself to make ready for an early start the next
morning to the Indian camps.

During the first part of March we made several trips of various distances,
and fairly rushed the provisions and meat into our storehouse at the Mission.
On one occasion, on our outward journey, as we were dashing through some
scrub timber, a small tree which had been bent almost to the ground by the
weight of some horse-sleds passing in, and had its sharp end projecting into
the narrow road, caught me on its point and tore me from the sled on which I
was stretched. At first I feared my ribs were pierced, but on examination
found only my coat and shirt torn and the skin but slightly abrased. Driving
on, congratulating myself on my escape from what might have been serious
injury, presently as my dogs swung round a point of bush what should I see
but a great buffalo bull, standing with his nose right over the track. Already
my dogs were beside him, and feeling that it was too late to attempt to stay
our course, or to throw myself from the sled, I called to them to go on, which
they did, jerking me along at a jump right under the monster's head. I can
assure you, my reader, that for the moment my heart was in my mouth. But
now as we were safe I stopped the dogs, and shouted to Susa, who was
coming next, and in the meantime succeeded in driving the huge fellow
away from our track.

When we reached home from that trip, while I was unloading my sled, I
told Larsen, the carpenter, about the bull blocking the road, and he, noticing
that my coat and shirt were torn, rushed off and told our party that John had
been gored by a mad bull. Mother came rushing out to see what was wrong
with her boy, and I had quite a time explaining about the tree and the bull. I
note this incident in passing to show how stories are made up from
imagination.

March of 1865 was a stormy month. The snow deepened, and many a
hard piece of road we had to encounter. About the middle of the month we
made another trip to Pigeon Lake. The readers of "SADDLE, SLED AND
SNOWSHOE" will remember that Oliver and myself had visited the lake in
December of 1864. Now our purpose was to take in some provisions,
together with the plough, which was being ironed at Edmonton. As old
Joseph knew the country well, we hoped to find a straighter road than the
one we had taken before.

It was storming heavily, with the snow drifting in good style, as early one
morning we took the river for the journey. Our party had heavy loads, and
we were glad when Smith, who was with us in 1863 and 1864, and who had
recently come home from Edmonton, drove up with a flashing train of dogs
and a light load, and signified his intention of accompanying us as far as
Edmonton. We thought he would take a generous share in making the road,
but in this we were sorely disappointed, for Mr. Smith and his five dogs kept
well back in the rear. All day long Susa and I in turn ran ahead on
snowshoes. The storm seemed to increase in strength, but our hardy dogs
trotted steadily on up the river, and we camped for the night above the
Vermilion, which was the half-way post on the road to Edmonton. The
stormy March wind howled around in fierce gusts, and the snow swirled in
all directions, but in the comparative shelter of our pine camp we were
happy. Starting before daylight, on we went, Susa and myself in turn ahead,
and our friend Smith never once offering to take the lead. The snow was
growing deeper and our progress slower, and it was with glad hearts that
about noon we saw the sign of sleigh tracks crossing the river, and soon were
climbing the bank above the mouth of the Sturgeon, some twenty-three miles
from Edmonton. "Now we will have a track; now we will make better time,"
we said to each other, as we climbed the bank. Then unhitching our dogs, we
turned them loose to rest, while we chopped wood and made a fire in
preparation for our dinner.

After awhile Smith came up, and seeing the track ahead, had the
impudence to drive his dogs past us and place his sled on the road ahead of
ours, which action said louder than words, "Now, gentlemen, I will show
you my heels from here to Edmonton." Susa and I looked at each other and
winked, as much as to say, "Well, Mr. Smith, it is still twenty-three miles to
the Fort, and perhaps we will be there as soon as you."

While we felt rather hard toward this man, who with his light load and
fresh dogs had sneaked behind thus far, still this was our camp, and for the
present he was our guest, so we treated him accordingly. However, when
lunch was over and he had his last dog hitched, ours was also, and old
Joseph stood with whip in hand, putting the last coal into his pipe, and
pressing it down with his fingers. In so doing there was a spirit manifest in
the action and attitude of the old stoic which seemed to say, "Well, young
man, when you reach Edmonton, I expect to be there also."

When Smith said "Marse" John and Susa and Joseph said "Marse"
likewise; and away we went, climbing the banks and on up the sloping
valley of the Big Saskatchewan. It was a glorious day for the testing of
muscle and wind and endurance on the part of men and dogs. The clouds
hung low. The gusts came quick and strong. The track was fast drifting full,
the footing was bad, the sleds pulled heavily. Even before we reached the
summit of the long incline to the river, Smith's dogs began to show distress.
Old Draffan was rubbing against his heels all the time with his traces loose,
as much as to say to Smith and his dogs, "My three companions are more
than able to keep up to you, though our load is much the heavier," and Susa
and Joseph were right up. Presently Smith ran up to thrash his dogs, and I
saw my chance; so did old Draffan, and with a quick "Chuh" my noble dogs
sprang past, and once more we had the road, and on we went. Gradually
widening the distance between us and Smith, I knew that both Susa and
Joseph would also watch their opportunity to pass. At any rate with even one
ahead our credit as a travelling party was safe. After two or three miles of
steady run in the loose snow, I looked back, and was delighted to see that
Susa and Joseph had passed Smith and were coming on splendidly; and now
our quondam companion was far in the rear. I waited for my men, and when
they came up we congratulated ourselves, while old Joseph made us laugh
when he said, referring to Smith, "He likes being behind anyway; let him
have what he likes so much." And on we went to the Fort, reaching there a
long time before our friend did.

The same evening I met with what was to me a new experience. I had
gone to the blacksmith's shop to see about the plough, and the blacksmith
began to question me as to what we intended to do at Pigeon Lake. I told
him that father hoped to establish a Mission there. "Oh," said he, "you want
to delude some more people with your fanciful stories about God and heaven
and hell."

"Why," said I, "do you not believe in God?"

"No, I do not," was the emphatic answer I received, and a strange feeling
came over me. I was afraid of that man, and took the plough away as quickly
as I could.

The wild storm, the lonely night, the savage beast, or even more savage
man, how often I had come in contact with these, and all this had not
worried me very much. But here was something new and awful to my young
Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about books and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!

ebookgate.com